5%–7% in the last step. The model was acceptable as illustrated by the nonsignificant X 2 fit indices at the bottom of Table 5, similar to results in previous studies. 30–32 Compared with workers with high education (n=297), employees with low educational background (n=333) were 1.8 times more likely to have employer–employee relationship problems (B=0.597, p<0.01; OR=1.817, 95% CI=1.318–2.506, Table 5). Similarly, employees with a middle education (n=183) had also high odds ratios for having employer–employee relationship problems compared with peers with high education, n=297 (B=0.540, p<0.01; OR=1.717, 95% CI=1.178–2.501). In addition, workers with children in the family (n=550) were found to have a high likelihood of possessing employer–employee relationship problems compared with their counterparts without children, n=263 (B=0.320, p<0.05; OR=1.377, 95% CI=1.021–1.857). However, evidence in Table 5 revealed that employees in Tutong district (n=103) were far less likely to have employer–employee relationship problems compared with colleagues in Temburong district, n=9 (B=?0.737, p<0.01; OR=0.479, 95% CI=0.299–0.766).
Notes: 1 Low education = Primary school to General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (GCE A-Level). 2 Middle education = Post-secondary to Higher National Diploma (HND). 3 Bomo = traditional healer. *p<0.05 (two-tailed). **p<0.01 (two-tailed). a Step 1: R Squares = 0.069 (Cox and Snell), 0.091 (Nagelkerke); Hosmer and Lemeshow X 2 (df=8)=, p=0.073. a Step 12: R Squares = 0.054 (Cox Snell), 0.072 (Nagelkerke); Hosmer and Lemeshow X 2 (df=6)=3.783, p=0.706.
To assess the association between social values and employer–employee relationship problems, we used Pearson correlation and the binary logistic regression analysis procedure with backward elimination. Pearson correlation was relevant here because all the variables we inter-correlated had continuous rather than categorical scores. 771, p<0.01); self-regulation and self-direction (r=0.375, p<0.01); self-presentation (r=0.355, p<0.01); interpersonal trust (r=0.291, p<0.01); peace and security (r=0.265, p<0.01); and general anxiety (r=0.261, p<0.01).
Reasonable scorers towards the serenity and you may cover (n=426) showed a near tall trend in order to have workplace–staff member relationship issues weighed against higher scorers, n=434 (B=0
For the binary logistic regression analysis, all our brazilcupid variables IVs (social values) and the DV (employer–employee relationship problems) were bivariate having been dichotomized at the median score (Table 2). The analysis was completed in 8 iterations but only the first and last steps are shown in Table 6. After adjusting for unnecessary terms, the model accounted for almost 16%–21% variance in the first step and 15%–20% in the last step (both with acceptable fit indices, refer bottom of Table 6). Low scorers on satisfaction with work achievements (n=410) were 2.4 times more likely to have employer–employee relationship problems compared with high scorers, n=450 (B=0.853, p<0.01; OR=2.348, 95% CI=1.781–3.094). In the same way, low scorers on self-regulation and self-direction (n=396) also had high odds ratios for possessing employer–employee relationship problems compared with high scorers, n=464 (B=0.419, p<0.01; OR=1.520, 95% CI=1.096–2.107). 312, p<0.10; OR=1.366, 95% CI=0.993–1.880). On the contrary, low scorers on interpersonal communication (n=404) were far less likely to have employer–employee relationship problems compared with high scorers, n=456 (B=?1.067, p<0.01; OR=0.344, 95% CI=0.253–0.468). Similarly, low scorers on work stress (n=403) were equally far less likely to have employer–employee relationship problems compared with high scorers, n=457 (B=?0.663, p<0.01; OR=0.515, 95% CI=0.384–0.691).
Because reported earlier inside Table step 3, an informed and you can high significant societal worth correlates of workplace–staff member matchmaking trouble was basically interpersonal correspondence (r=0
Notes: *p<0.10 (two-tailed). **p<0.05 (two-tailed). ***p<0.01 (two-tailed). a Step 1: R Squares = 0.156 (Cox and Snell), 0.207 (Nagelkerke); Hosmer and Lemeshow X 2 (df = 8)=, p=0.016. a Step 8: R Squares = 0.151 (Cox and Snell), 0.201 (Nagelkerke); Hosmer and Lemeshow X 2 (df = 8)=, p=0.142. 1 B: the B and other coefficients in this table refer to the low scorers on all the variables (coded 1) who were compared to the high scorers (reference group coded 0).
