Upload
robert
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prosocial Motivation, Stress and BurnoutAmong Direct Support WorkersRobert Hickey
School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada
Accepted for publication 24 December 2012
Aim This study explores whether the desire to engage in
work that is beneficial to others moderates the effects of
stress on burnout.
Method Based on a survey of 1570 direct support
professionals in Ontario, this study conducted linear
regression analyses and tested for the interaction effects
of prosocial motivation on occupational stress and
burnout.
Results Prosocial motivation significantly moderated the
association of emotional exhaustion (EE) and role
boundary stress with depersonalization (DP). Prosocial
motivation also moderated the effects of role ambiguity
stress with a direct support worker’s sense of personal
accomplishment. In contrast, prosocial motivation
magnified feelings of EE when interacted with a sense
of personal accomplishment.
Conclusions Prosocial motivation plays an important role
in explaining the relatively low levels of DP in the sector.
The study advances our understanding of the key
components of burnout among direct support workers.
Keywords: burnout, direct support worker, intellectual
and developmental disabilities, prosocial motivation,
stress
Introduction
Direct support workers in services for people with
intellectual disabilities love the work they do. In a
survey among 1570 direct support workers in Ontario,
95% reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the
nature of the work (Hickey 2010). However, stress and
burnout among staff remain an important area of
concern (Hastings et al. 2004; Skirrow & Hatton 2007),
especially among workers who are exposed to
challenging behaviours (Rose & Rose 2005; Dilworth
et al. 2011; Hensel et al. 2011). There is an extensive
literature on staff stress and burnout in the field of
intellectual disability services (Skirrow & Hatton 2007;
Devereux et al. 2009; Hickey 2011). Despite this
extensive body of work, Devereux and his colleagues
found that our theoretical understanding of work stress
among direct support staff is limited (Devereux et al.
2009). This study seeks to advance our understanding of
the experiences of stress and burnout among direct
support workers. The primary objective of this study is
to explore the role of prosocial motivation (Grant 2007),
the desire to engage in work that is beneficial to others,
among direct support workers. Specifically, this study
tests the moderating effects of prosocial motivation in
the experiences of stress and burnout in disability
services.
There is general consensus in the literature that
support workers play a critical role in the lives of
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities
(Hatton et al. 2004; Hastings 2010). Because of the
critical role that direct support staff play in the personal
outcomes of people supported, concerns over low wages
and high turnover rates (Braddock & Mitchell 1992),
stress and burnout (Rose 1995; Innstrand et al. 2002;
Skirrow & Hatton 2007; Devereux et al. 2009) and other
workforce challenges (Hewitt & Larson 2007) result in
threats to the quality of services. The underlying
assumption to the research on staff stress is that distress
and burnout lead to deteriorating staff performance and
negative outcomes for people supported. An important
limitation into the study of work stress in the field of
intellectual disabilities has been the general focus on
negative stressors and negative outcomes. Given the
overwhelming satisfaction among staff with the nature
of direct support work, the role of prosocial motivation
in the experience of work stress and burnout would
address this gap and make an important contribution to
the literature. In particular, the relational dimension of
direct support work has not received as much attention
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 10.1111/jar.12058
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2014, 27, 134–144
Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
as have concerns over tasks and resources (Hastings
2010). To address this gap and explore the relational
aspect of direct support work, we have drawn from the
growing body of research on prosocial motivation as a
buffer to burnout in the workplace.
Methods
Design
The purpose of this study is to test the moderating
effects of prosocial motivation on the association
between stress and burnout. Theoretically, this study
brings the concept of prosocial motivation into the
scholarship on stress and burnout in the sector. The
study is based on data drawn from a survey that was
conducted among direct support employees between
May and June of 2010. The survey was part of a larger
study to evaluate strategic human resource initiatives
among disability service providers in Ontario, Canada.
The research project, including the procedures, the
survey instrument and related methodologies, was
reviewed and approved by the General Research Ethics
Board at Queen’s University.
Participants
Researchers recruited sixteen agencies that provide a
variety of services and supports to people with
intellectual disabilities to participate in the study. The
sixteen agencies were part of a pilot initiative to
introduce a model of behavioural core competencies
among direct support staff in the sector. Agencies had to
demonstrate an ability to manage change in order to be
selected as a pilot site. Thus, human resource functions
at pilot site agencies may have been more developed
among the participating agencies than for agencies in the
sector as a whole. However, selection criteria for pilot
site agencies did target a representative cross-section of
service providers – large and small, union and non-
union, urban and rural, as well as regional
representation across Ontario. Direct support workers at
the sixteen pilot site agencies were invited to participate
in the survey. The total population of direct support
workers at these agencies, including both full-time and
part-time employees, was estimated to be 4000.
A total of 1570 completed and usable surveys were
returned. This represents an estimated response rate of
40% of the targeted direct support workforce at the pilot
agencies. Response rates varied across agencies from a
low of 4% to a high of 99%. The vast majority of
respondents filled out paper copies of the survey which
were returned via post. Some 10% of surveys were
returned electronically using a fillable PDF form. The use
of the electronic version of the survey by respondents
appeared concentrated at small agencies in which
electronic messages were the dominant form of internal
communications. The lowest proportion of respondents
was from small agencies (6.8%). Respondents from
medium-large agencies (42.5%) were the most numerous.
Most respondents (79%) worked for agencies located in
urban areas and most were unionized (88%).
Women comprised the vast majority of survey
respondents (84%). Average tenure in the sector was
slightly more than eleven (11) years. Most survey
respondents (55%) reported working full-time, while a
significant proportion (45%) worked part-time or on a
casual basis for the agency where the survey was
distributed. Direct support employees worked an average
of nearly 32 h/week. Combining multiple part-time jobs
into full-time work in the field appeared to be fairly
common given that 273 (18.3%) respondents reported
working at more than one agency in the past month. The
hourly pay rate for direct support workers averaged
$19.78, above the minimum wage in Ontario ($10.25) but
well below the average hourly wage for the general
workforce in Ontario, $23.53 (Statistics Canada 2012).
Procedures
Local teams of managers and direct support employees
distributed the survey packets. The survey packets
included a cover letter with information about the
purpose of the survey, the research ethics protocols, the
survey itself and a pre-stamped envelope, so that
participants could return the survey directly to researchers
at Queen’s University. To increase participation, the
surveys were also distributed electronically as fillable PDF
forms by agencies which had employee e-mail addresses.
Participation in the survey was voluntary and strictly
confidential.
Measures
Personal characteristics and work-related information
The survey collected data on a range of demographic
and personal characteristics including gender, educa-
tional attainment and tenure in the sector. Additional
control variables included information on the emotional
disposition of workers. The Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS) is a 20-item self-report measure
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 135
developed by Watson et al. (1988). The measure consists
of two, ten-item mood scales which have been found to
be internally reliable (a = 0.87), relatively uncorrelated
and stable (Watson et al. 1988). The scale measurement
reflects the positive or negative disposition of individuals.
Individuals scoring high in the negative affect measure
experience sadness, distress and unpleasurable
engagement with the environment. The positive affect
scale measures the extent to which an individual
experiences enthusiasm and a pleasurable engagement
with the environment.
The survey collected data on a number of work-related
characteristics including the number of hours worked
and whether the respondent worked for multiple service
providers in the past month. Agency characteristics, such
as size and union status, were added to the data set
based on the individual profiles of the service providers
which were matched with the individual respondents’
indication of the agency at which they worked.
The survey measured nine distinct dimensions of job
satisfaction (Spector 1997) based on single-item scales:
satisfaction with the nature of work, relationship with
supervisor, relationships with co-workers, pay, benefits,
advancement opportunities, training, communication
and overall satisfaction. The survey measured these nine
domains of job satisfaction using a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 4 (very
satisfied). The survey questions were drawn from the
Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985) and the Job
Satisfaction Index (Schriesheim & Tsui 1980).
Affective organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer
1990) was included as another control variable for the
employee’s relationship with the organization. The
Affective Commitment Scale is an 8-item construct
which measures an employee’s emotional attachment to,
involvement in, and identification with an organization.
Allen & Meyer (1990) found the measure to be reliable
(a = 0.86) and superior to the Organizational
Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al. 1979). The
current study found an acceptable, but lower reliability
coefficient (a = 0.749).
Occupational stress and burnout
The survey measured occupational stress using the
Occupational Role Questionnaire (ORQ) developed by
Osipow (1998) as one part of the Occupational Stress
Inventory (OSI-R). The measure is conceptually based
on several distinct work roles that have been associated
with stress in the literature (McLean 1974). The ORQ
measures six distinct types of occupational stress using
ten-item scales. Four measures of occupational stress
were included in this survey: Role overload (RO)
measures the extent to which job demands exceed
resources. Role insufficiency (RI) compares job
requirements to a worker’s training, skills and sense of
recognition. The clarity of the work role in terms of
expectations and evaluation criteria is measured by
role ambiguity (RA). Role boundary (RB) measures the
degree to which a direct support worker feels caught
between conflicting demands and supervisory factions.
Excluded from the current survey were the ORQ
measures for physical environment and responsibility.
Osipow (1998) reports normative data on the measures
based on a sample of 983 adults. High scores on the
ORQ suggest significant levels of occupational stress.
Benchmark levels based on the normative sample were
set at T-scores of 70 which represented 2% of the
sample population. Osipow reported alpha coefficients
of 0.72 or greater for the ORQ scales (26). Reliability
coefficients of the same scales in the current study were
similar except for role overload (a = 0.599).
Prosocial motivation is conceptually defined as the
desire to engage in work, which is beneficial to others
(Batson 1987; Grant 2007). Prosocial motivation was
measured using a six-item scale developed by Grant
(2007). Prosocial motivation is distinct from intrinsic
motivation in several important ways (Grant 2008). Most
importantly, prosocial motivation is explicitly based on
the desire to achieve a beneficial impact on others. In
contrast, intrinsically motivated employees are focused
on the work process and see work as an end in itself
(Amabile 1993). Grant (2008) reported reliability
coefficients for this scale (a = 0.91), which were found to
be the same in the current study.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) is a well-
known, 22 item scale for measuring three distinct
characteristics of burnout (Maslach et al. 1996). These
subscales include feelings of emotional exhaustion (EE),
depersonalization (DP) and a lack of personal
accomplishment. Maslach et al. (1996) adapted the
original survey construct for use in the human services
sector (MBI-HSS). There is an extensive body of research
that explores the construct validity and reliability of the
burnout measure (Schaufeli & Vandierendonck 1993;
Maslach & Leiter 1997; Schaufeli et al. 2009). The MBI
scale has been used to study staff in the field of
intellectual disability services (Devereux et al. 2009).
Similar to previous factor analyses conducted on the
MBI subscales (Chao et al. 2011), reliability tests in the
current study indicated acceptable constructs for EE and
personal accomplishment. However, the reliability tests
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
136 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability
resulted in questionable results for DP (a = 0.648), and
therefore, some caution is warranted in interpreting the
results for this component of burnout.
Analytic strategy
We used SPSS (IBM Corporation, Somers, NY, USA) 20
to conduct statistical analyses of the data. First, the
researchers explored the univariate characteristics of the
data to generate a descriptive profile of the sample
population. We examined correlation matrices to test
bivariate relationships across all variables used in the
models. The multivariate analytic strategies involved
ordinary least squares linear regression analyses using
each subscale of the MBI as a dependent variable,
entering the control, independent and interaction
variables in blocks. The first block of control variables
included personal characteristics, work-related factors
and job satisfaction measures. The second block of
independent variables consisted of the four measures of
occupational stress, the two components of burnout not
serving as the dependent variable and the prosocial
motivation measure.
Conceptually, the models examine the impact of
prosocial motivation as a moderator variable (Baron &
Kenny 1986; Farmer 2012). To test the moderator effects
of prosocial motivation on the relationship between
stress and burnout, the models include interaction terms
for the moderator and predictor variables (Cleary &
Kessler 1982). The third block of variables included
the interaction terms for prosocial motivation with the
other independent variables. Using block entry of
the variables, we tested for the relative change in the
explanatory power of the base model (a) with the
addition of independent variables (model b) and inter-
action terms (model c). To address multicollinearity
between the main effects and the interaction terms, we
centred the independent and moderator variables
(Aiken & West 1991). Graphical computational tools
were also used to further explore the interactions of the
predictor and moderator variables (Aiken & West 1991;
Preacher et al. 2006).
The purpose of this study was twofold. First, we
sought to understand the direct effects of occupational
stress on burnout, controlling for a range of personal
and work-related factors. Second, by introducing the
concept of prosocial motivation into the study of stress
and burnout, we tested the potential moderating effects
of this positive characteristic of the direct support
workforce.
Results
We began the analyses of the independent and
dependent variables by first examining the bivariate
correlations. This allowed us to see the basic
associations between the variables and to identify
significant overlaps or confounding relationships in the
constructs. Table 1 provides the means, standard
deviations and Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the
independent and dependent variables in this study. As
in previous studies of burnout (Skirrow & Hatton 2007;
Chao et al. 2011; Rose 2011), direct support workers in
this study reported relatively low levels of burnout
compared with other human service sectors. Based on
the normative benchmarks for the survey instrument
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients
Mean SD PSM
Role
overload
Role
insufficiency
Role
ambiguity
Role
boundary
Emotional
exhaustion
Depersona-
lization
Personal
accomplishment
Prosocial motivation 39.09 3.53 – – – – – – –
Role overload 27.89 5.83 �0.013 – – – – – –
Role insufficiency 24.24 8.46 �0.192** 0.119** – – – – –
Role ambiguity 18.37 5.97 �0.219** 0.234** 0.469** – – – –
Role boundary 20.27 6.45 �0.112** 0.367** 0.430** 0.564** – – –
Emotional
exhaustion
16.83 10.27 �0.154** 0.483** 0.389** 0.347** 0.469** – –
Depersonalization 3.36 4.18 �0.225** 0.255** 0.263** 0.260** 0.380** 0.508** –
Personal
accomplishment
38.77 6.77 0.426** �0.026 �0.404** �0.380** �0.288** �0.314** �0.340**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.0001 level (two-tailed). PSM:Prosocial motivation
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 137
(Maslach et al. 1996), most support staff reported low
(54%) or average (28%) levels of EE, while 17% of
respondents reported high levels of this component of
burnout. The average rate of DP in the sample (3.36)
was well below the low threshold for the scale (6). A
total of 3.9% of survey respondents scored in the high
range for this component of burnout. The average rate
for personal accomplishment (38.77) in the sample was
at the high end of the middle third for the scale (32-38).
Respondents reported higher levels of role overload
stress (27.89) compared with the normative levels (24.88)
reported by Osipow (1998). In contrast, reported average
stress levels were slightly lower than the normative
benchmarks for role insufficiency (24.24 compared with
25.09), role ambiguity (18.37 compared with 21.16) and
role boundary (20.27 compared with 22.76).
Correlations across these variables were statistically
significant (P < 0.0001) but of moderate strength. An
important exception to this was found with role overload
which did not display a significant correlation with
prosocial motivation or personal accomplishment. The
correlation coefficients between prosocial motivation and
other variables of interest were relatively low, except for
personal accomplishment (0.426, P < 0.001). The
strongest correlations were between role boundary and
role ambiguity (0.564, P < 0.001). Osipow (1998) reported
the same level of correlation between these two
constructs of stress. The correlation found between DP
and EE (0.51, P < 0.001) was similar to that reported by
Maslach et al. (1996) (0.52). These levels of correlation did
not suggest that any of the independent variables should
be excluded from the models.
Regression results
Tables 2, 3 and 4 display the regression results for each
of the three dependent variables in this study: EE, DP
and personal accomplishment (PA). The regression
analyses used ordinary least squares and entered the
control, independent and interaction variables in blocks.
The first block (a) in each table includes only the
control variables. The second block (b) introduced the
independent variables and the third block (c) added the
interaction terms. There were a number of variables that
were included in the regression models, but not
reported in the tables. These variables included personal
characteristics (educational attainment and sector
tenure) and organizational characteristics (agency size
and union status) which we found to have small effects
that were not statistically significant in any of the
models.
Table 2 Emotional exhaustion
Model
EE(a) EE(b) EE(c)
Standardized coefficients
Block 1
Personal and work-related characteristics
Gender 0.006 �0.011 �0.009
Aboriginal 0.028 0.003 0.003
Disabilities 0.037 0.027 0.027
Visible minority 0.028 0.050 0.050
Immigration status 0.024 0.021 0.021
Positive affect �0.141*** �0.119*** �0.115***
Negative affect 0.391*** 0.247*** 0.247***
Hours worked 0.064* 0.037 0.039
Hourly pay 0.059* 0.010 0.007
Multi-agency work 0.024 �0.006 �0.004
Affective org commitment �0.066* �0.010 �0.032
Job satisfaction
Nature of work �0.003 0.029 0.032
Relations with supervisor 0.020 0.007 0.010
Relations with co-workers �0.017 0.002 0.001
Pay �0.095*** �0.033 �0.030
Benefits 0.073* 0.065* 0.063*
Advancement opportunities 0.025 0.004 0.000
Training �0.001 0.019 0.015
Communication �0.088** �0.079** �0.080**
Overall satisfaction �0.177*** �0.133*** �0.132***
ΔR2 0.451*** 0.091*** 0.089***
Block 2
Stress and burnout
Role overload 0.275*** 0.462
Role insufficiency 0.066 0.275
Role ambiguity �0.062* 0.245
Role boundary 0.017 �0.208
Prosocial motivation 0.016 0.490*
Emotional exhaustion – –
Depersonalization 0.247*** 0.237
Personal accomplishment �0.068* 0.552*
ΔR2 0.122*** 0.007*
Block 3
Interaction terms
psm 9 ro �0.149
psm 9 ri �0.292
psm 9 ra �0.269
psm 9 rb 0.230
psm 9 ee –
psm 9 dp 0.013
psm 9 pa �0.797**
ΔR2 0.004
Model
Adjusted R2 0.433 0.556 0.557
ΔR2 0.122*** 0.004
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. PSM:Prosocial motivation
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
138 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability
Table 3 Depersonalization
Model
DP(a) DP(b) DP(c)
Standardized coefficients
Block 1
Personal and work-related characteristics
Gender 0.069* 0.059* 0.050
Aboriginal 0.072* 0.053 0.0652
Disabilities 0.028 0.019 0.021
Visible minority �0.089** �0.085** �0.086**
Immigration status 0.028 0.013 0.021
Positive affect �0.090*** 0.021 0.016
Negative affect 0.322*** 0.137*** 0.132***
Hours worked 0.021 0.000 �0.002
Hourly pay 0.030 �0.001 0.002
Multi-agency work 0.061* 0.045 0.044
Affective org commitment �0.049 �0.005 �0.006
Job satisfaction
Nature of work �0.104*** �0.089** �0.091**
Relations with supervisor 0.039 0.057 0.072*
Relations with co-workers �0.041 �0.022 �0.027
Pay �0.037 0.011 0.012
Benefits 0.015 �0.019 �0.015
Advancement opportunities 0.136*** 0.110** 0.106**
Training �0.076** �0.071* �0.069*
Communication �0.012 0.041 0.047
Overall satisfaction �0.108** �0.040 �0.039
ΔR2 0.276*** 0.046*** 0.046***
Block 2
Stress and burnout
Role overload �0.008 �0.506
Role insufficiency �0.011 �0.419
Role ambiguity �0.014 �0.439
Role boundary 0.144*** 1.128**
Prosocial motivation �0.062* �0.062
Emotional exhaustion 0.359*** 1.763***
Depersonalization – –
Personal accomplishment �0.096** �0.207
ΔR2 0.105*** 0.036***
Block 3
Interaction terms
psm 9 ro 0.549
psm 9 ri 0.402
psm 9 ra 0.421
psm 9 rb �1.000*
psm 9 ee �1.396***
psm 9 dp –
psm 9 pa 0.145
ΔR2 0.020***
Model
Adjusted R2 0.252 0.355 0.371
ΔR2 0.105*** 0.020***
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. PSM:Prosocial motivation
Table 4 Personal accomplishment
Model
PA(a) PA(b) PA(c)
Standardized coefficients
Block 1
Personal and work-related characteristics
Gender 0.000 0.033 0.036
Aboriginal 0.051 0.074** 0.077**
Disabilities 0.015 0.000 0.001
Visible minority 0.078* 0.072* 0.070*
Immigration status �0.099** �0.092** �0.089**
Positive affect 0.386*** 0.227*** 0.230***
Negative affect �0.150*** �0.074* �0.073*
Hours worked 0.084** 0.058* 0.052
Hourly pay 0.005 0.020 0.019
Multi-agency work �0.042 �0.044 �0.045
Affective org commitment 0.096** 0.083* 0.082*
Job satisfaction
Nature of work 0.097** 0.068* 0.069*
Relations with supervisor 0.002 �0.063* �0.056
Relations with co-workers 0.014 0.017 0.018
Pay 0.049 0.051 0.050
Benefits �0.044 �0.035 �0.035
Advancement opportunities �0.048 �0.039 �0.038
Training �0.012 �0.032 �0.032
Communication �0.011 �0.057 �0.061
Overall satisfaction 0.006 �0.013 �0.013
ΔR2 0.331*** 0.086*** 0.085***
Block 2
Stress and burnout
Role overload 0.089** 0.240
Role insufficiency �0.063 �0.185
Role ambiguity �0.196*** �0.945**
Role boundary �0.013 0.028
Prosocial motivation 0.214*** 0.068
Emotional exhaustion �0.092* 0.317
Depersonalization �0.087** �0.225
Personal accomplishment – –
ΔR2 0.097*** 0.056***
Block 3
Interaction terms
psm 9 ro �0.162
psm 9 ri 0.119
psm 9 ra 0.732*
psm 9 rb �0.044
psm 9 ee �0.405
psm 9 dp �0.134
psm 9 pa �ΔR2 0.006
Model
Adjusted R2 0.309 0.404 0.406
ΔR2 0.097*** 0.006
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. PSM:Prosocial motivation
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 139
Emotional Exhaustion
As shown in Table 2, most personal and work-related
characteristics did not have a statistically significant
association with EE. Positive and negative affect were
significant in the expected directions. Hours worked
and hourly pay were both positively associated with EE,
but the relative effects were minor. Several components
of job satisfaction were significant across all three
models. Satisfaction with communication (b = �0.080,
P < 0.01) and overall satisfaction (b = �0.132, P < 0.001)
appeared as significant and negatively associated with
EE. In contrast, satisfaction with benefits was positively
associated with EE (b = 0.063, P < 0.01).
With the addition of the independent variables, EE(b)
explains a significant portion of the variance of EE
(R2 = 0.556). Role overload (b = 0.275, P < 0.001) had the
most significant direct association on feelings of EE.
Depersonalization had the same relative association
with EE as negative affect (b = 0.247, P < 0.001).
Following the addition of the interaction terms in model
EE(c) for EE, both role overload and DP were no longer
found to be significant. The only interaction term
found to be statistically significant was with personal
accomplishment (P < 0.01). However, caution should be
used in interpreting these data as the addition of the
interaction terms did not result in a significant change
in R2 in the full model.
Depersonalization
Control variables measuring personal characteristics
displayed a somewhat different pattern in the models
using the DP scale as the dependent variable as shown
in Table 3. Gender was marginally significant in models
DP(a) and DP(b) (P < 0.05), but was not found to be
statistically significant in the full model. Direct support
workers who self-identified as visible minorities were
significantly and negatively associated with feelings of
DP. Negative affect remained significant across all three
models, but positive affect was rendered statistically
insignificant with the addition of the independent
variables. Satisfaction with the nature of work in the
field (b = �0.091, P < 0.01) and training (b = �0.069,
P < 0.05) were both negatively associated with DP.
Surprisingly, satisfaction with advancement
opportunities (b = 0.106, P < 0.01) and with relations
with supervisors (b = 0.072, P < 0.05) were both found
to be positively associated with DP when controlling for
other factors. Two interaction terms were found to be
significant, role boundary stress (b = �1.000, P < 0.05)
and EE (b = �1.396, P < 0.001). The addition of the
interaction terms did result in a statistically significant
improvement in the explanation of variance of DP in the
full model (ΔR2 = 0.097, P < 0.001).
Personal Accomplishment
In the last set of regression analyses using personal
accomplishment as the dependent variable (Table 4), a
range of personal characteristics were consistently
significant. People of Aboriginal descent (b = 0.077,
P < 0.001) and visible minorities (b = 0.070, P < 0.05)
had a stronger sense of personal accomplishment when
controlling for other factors. Foreign-born workers
(b = �0.089, P < 0.01) and negative affect (b = �0.073,
P < 0.05) were both negatively associated with feelings
of personal accomplishment. The association of positive
affect was large and significant (b = 0.230, P < 0.001).
Both affective organizational commitment and satis-
faction with the nature of work were positively associated
with feelings of personal accomplishment. While most
forms of stress were found to be significant in model PA
(b), only RA stress and its associated interaction term
with prosocial motivation were significant in the full
model. Once again, caution is required with the
interpretation of the full model because the addition of
the interaction terms did not result in a statistically
significant change in the R2 term.
Moderator effects
To further explore the moderating effects of prosocial
motivation on burnout in direct support workers, the
regression results were used to generate graphical
depictions of the moderator effects (Aiken & West 1991;
Preacher et al. 2006). Figure 1 displays the moderating
effects of prosocial motivation on EE and DP. Prosocial
motivation (PSM) appears to buffer the relationship
between EE and DP. Depersonalization scores are lower
for direct support workers who reported high prosocial
motivation levels. The difference in the relative levels of
DP is especially pronounced among the staff who
reported high levels of EE.
Figure 2 displays the moderating effects that prosocial
motivation had on role boundary stress and DP. The
level of DP was more acute among direct support staff
reporting low prosocial motivation when interacted with
role boundary stress.
Figure 3 displays the striking and unexpected results
which suggest that prosocial motivation is associated
with higher levels of EE when interacted with a worker’s
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
140 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability
reported sense of personal accomplishment. Direct
support workers who reported low levels of personal
accomplishment but who also reported high levels of
prosocial motivation experienced EE much more acutely
than workers with low prosocial motivation. While a
greater sense of personal accomplishment mitigated the
feelings of EE, high prosocial motivation was still
associated with higher levels of EE.
Prosocial motivation moderated the relationship
between RA stress and personal accomplishment. As
shown in Figure 4, without a strong sense of prosocial
motivation, increases in the level of RA stress were
associated with significantly lower feelings of personal
accomplishment.
Discussion
The most significant finding to emerge from this study
is the buffer effect that prosocial motivation has on
moderating the association between EE and DP. Second,
the study provides greater empirical understanding
of the distinct experiences of burnout which direct
support workers have in their relationships with the
organizations which employ them compared with the
people for whom they provide support. The findings
suggest that organizational factors, especially workload
stress and related environmental factors contribute to
EE and reflect the distress an employee feels in her
relationship with an organization. Such distress may not
develop into DP and impact the relationship between
that same employee and the person supported if the
employee is prosocially motivated.
Depersonalization reflects an acute level of stress in
the relationship between staff and the person they
support. Emotional exhaustion and role boundary stress
are both positively associated with DP when controlling
for other factors. While EE was still associated with DP,
prosocial motivation served as a powerful buffer
against the deterioration of the employee’s relationship
with the person supported. For this reason, EE among
staff may not result in negative outcomes for people
supported.
The direction of the moderating effects of prosocial
motivation between EE and DP cannot be determined
by the current research design. Rather than a buffering
–4
–3.5
–3
–2.5
–2
–1.5
–1
–0.5
0
0.5
1
Low High
Dep
erso
naliz
aon
Role boundary stress
Low PSM
High PSM
Figure 2 Moderating effects of Prosocial motivation (PSM) on
role boundary stress and depersonalization.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Low High
Emo
onal
exh
aus
on
Personal accomplishment
Low PSM
High PSM
Figure 3 Moderating effects of Prosocial motivation (PSM) on
personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion.
–4
–3
–2
–1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Dep
erso
naliz
aon
Emo onal exhaus on
Low PSM
High PSM
Figure 1 Moderating effects of Prosocial motivation (PSM) on
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
–25
–20
–15
–10
–5
0Low High
Pers
onal
acc
ompl
ishm
ent
Role ambiguity stress
Low PSM
High PSM
Figure 4 Moderating effects of Prosocial motivation (PSM) on
role ambiguity stress and personal accomplishment.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 141
effect, prosocial motivation may enhance the experience
of EE among prosocially motivated employees who
experience DP. In this way, contrary to previous
research (Grant & Sonnentag 2010), prosocial motivation
does not appear to directly buffer against EE.1 In fact,
workers with high levels of prosocial motivation in this
study experienced more acute levels of EE when
prosocial motivation was interacted with personal
accomplishment. For workers motivated to engage in
meaningful work, this could reflect the tensions between
service idealism and service capacity. When the desire
to engage in work that is beneficial to others encounters
organizational constraints, employees experience EE.
Given the moderating effects that prosocial motivation
has on the relationship between EE and DP, prosocial
motivation appears more important for staff-client
relations than it is for the relationship between a direct
support worker and the organization which employs
her.
Conclusions
Relationships are central to the work experiences of
direct support employees in intellectual disability
services. Positive aspects of the relationship between
direct support workers and the people whom they
support have a significant impact on the experience of
work stress and burnout among staff in the sector. This
study has important implications for work stress
theories, especially in the areas of emotional overload
and burnout. Most significantly, the study demonstrates
that prosocial motivation serves to buffer the support
relationship from the stresses direct support workers
experience in the employment relationship and work
environment.
This study also has important implications for human
resource practices in the human services sector.
Behavioural competencies which focus on values-based
work practices and support prosocial motivation among
direct support workers reduce feelings of DP in the sector.
Human resource strategies that provide training
opportunities beyond mandated health and safety
requirements to include value-based reflections on the
nature of the work also appear to mitigate DP in the sector.
While value-based competencies are prominent in the
relationship between staff and the people they support,
traditional labour market and workload concerns remain
central to work stress and EE. Organizations can partially
address the negative effects of poor compensation and
high workloads by improving communication practices.
Finally, the study suggests that managers need to rethink
the traditional forms of promotion and career
advancement in organizations. Internal career ladders
tend to remove staff from direct support roles as they
move into positions of greater managerial responsibility.
Dissatisfaction with opportunities for advancement
prevalent among staff in this study did not suggest a
desire for more managerial positions, but rather, more
meaningful and complex direct support roles requiring
more advanced skills.
There are a number of limitations to the current study.
As mentioned previously, the participating agencies in
this study, while representative across a number of
factors, may have had more developed human resources
functions than most service providers in the sector.
Another concern of the research team was the significant
variance in agency response rates, but no data were
available to test the profiles of non-respondents. The
cross-sectional nature of the survey data precludes more
rigorous statistical analyses needed to provide insight
into the casual mechanisms underlying the models. The
research design does not ensure that the measure of
prosocial motivation as a moderating variable temporally
precedes the independent variables (Farmer 2012). The
relationship may not be simple moderation, but reflect
more dynamic interaction properties.
The current study does not explicitly test any of the
specific models of work stress theory and can therefore
not offer any confirmatory proof of the underlying
processes. Rather, the main contribution of the current
study is more heuristic, connecting theories of work
stress (Devereux et al. 2009) with recent developments
in prosocial motivation theories (Grant 2007). In this
way, the study raises more questions than it answers
but offers several intriguing directions for future
research in the area of work stress among staff in
intellectual disability services. One specific implication
of the current study challenges the underlying
assumption of transactional interactions in the MBI
model. The progression of emotional overload into DP
stemming from personal interactions (Maslach et al.
1996) may not apply to the types of long-term,
interpersonal relationships developed and experienced
by direct support workers. Weak reliability ratings of
the DP scale in previous studies (Chao et al. 2011) and
1Grant & Sonnentag (2010) focused on the buffering effects of
perceived prosocial impact on beneficiaries on EE rather than
prosocial motivation itself. We explored this interaction using
the same construct variable of perceived prosocial impact, not
reported here, and did not find the buffering effect.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
142 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability
in the current study also point to the need for more
careful examination of this component of burnout.
More generally, this study points to the need for
additional research around the use of important
constructs used to study staff in intellectual disability
services. For example, the correlations between prosocial
motivation and other positive measures such as
personal accomplishment (0.426, P < 0.001) raise
important questions regarding the interpretation of these
constructs. If the unique characteristic of prosocial
motivation is the focus on beneficial outcomes, we would
expect to see higher correlations between prosocial
motivation and feelings of personal accomplishment.
Likewise, among the constructs of stress and burnout,
negative affect appears to have a moderate correlation
with EE (0.539, P < 0.001) but a low correlation with role
overload (0.256, P < 0.001). Exploring the relationships
between emotional dispositions and occupational
stressors remains an important area for future research.
Finally, the more fundamental challenge for future
studies of direct support staff concerns how to connect
this line of research to personal outcomes such as social
inclusion. This study has shown that prosocially
motivated staff experience lower levels of DP. However,
the important research question remains whether
prosocial motivation is associated with better personal
outcomes for people supported (Rose 2011). The
potential to empirically test the relationships between
organizational practices and data on staff with personal
outcome measures such as the Quality of Life indices
(Schalock et al. 2007) should be increasingly feasible as
service providers improve data collection practices
(Schalock & Verdugo 2012).
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the
Developmental Services Human Resource Strategy
Steering Committee and the Shared Interest Committee.
Dr. Jacoba Lilius and Dr. Glenda Fisk helped to design
the survey instrument. Graduate students in the Master
of Industrial Relations program, Janey Cunningham,
Natalie Vogt and Morgyn Ahrens provided valuable
research assistance. This study was supported by
research grants from the Social Science and Humanities
Research Council (Grant # 410-2010-2200) and the Office
of Research Services at Queen’s University.
Conflict of interest
None.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Robert
Hickey, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University,
138 Union Street, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
(e-mail: [email protected]).
References
Aiken L. S. & West S. G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Allen N. & Meyer J. (1990) The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational
psychology 63, 1–18.
Amabile T. M. (1993) Motivational synergy: toward new
conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the
workplace. Human Resource Management Review 3, 185–201.
Baron R. M. & Kenny D. A. (1986) The moderator mediator
variable distinction in social psychological-research –
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
Batson C. D. (1987) Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly
altruistic? In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 20
(ed B. Leonard), pp. 65–122. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Braddock D. L. & Mitchell D. (1992) Residential Services and
Developmental Disabilities in the United States: A National Survey
of Staff Compensation, Turnover, and Related Issues. American
Association on Mental Retardation, Washington, DC.
Chao S. F., McCallion P. & Nickle T. (2011) Factorial validity
and consistency of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among
staff working with persons with intellectual disability and
dementia. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 55, 529–536.
Cleary P. D. & Kessler R. C. (1982) The estimation and
interpretation of modifier effects. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 23, 159–169.
Devereux J., Hastings R. & Noone S. (2009) Staff stress and
burnout in intellectual disability services: work stress theory
and its application. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities 22, 561–573.
Dilworth J. A., Phillips N. & Rose J. (2011) Factors relating to
staff attributions of control over challenging behaviour.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 24, 29–38.
Farmer C. (2012) Demystifying moderators and mediators in
intellectual and developmental disabilities research: a primer
and review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research 56, 1148–1160.
Grant A. M. (2007) Relational job design and the motivation to
make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review
32, 393–417.
Grant A. M. (2008) Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial
fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence,
performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93,
48–58.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 143
Grant A. M. & Sonnentag S. (2010) Doing good buffers against
feeling bad: prosocial impact compensates for negative task
and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 111, 13–22.
Hastings R. P. (2010) Support staff working in intellectual
disability services: the importance of relationships and
positive experiences. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental
Disability 35, 207–210.
Hastings R. P., Horne S. & Mitchell G. (2004) Burnout in direct
care staff in intellectual disability services: a factor analytic
study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research 48, 268–273.
Hatton C., Emerson E., Robertson J., Gregory N., Kessissoglou
S. & Walsh R. N. (2004) The Resident Choice Scale: a
measure to assess opportunities for self-determination in
residential settings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 48,
103–113.
Hensel J. M., Lunsky Y. & Dewa C. S. (2011) Exposure to client
aggression and burnout among community staff who support
adults with intellectual disabilities in Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 56, 910–915.
Hewitt A. & Larson S. (2007) The direct support workforce in
community supports to individuals with developmental
disabilities: Issues, implications, and promising practices.
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research
Reviews 13, 178–187.
Hickey R. (2010) Core Competencies Pilot Evaluation: Initial Report.
Queen’s University, Kingston.
Hickey R. (2011) The role and practices of direct support
workers in promoting greater social inclusion, choice, and
independence: An exploratory review of the literature.
Multidimensional Assessment of Providers and Systems
(MAPS), Queen’s University.
Innstrand S. T., Espnes G. A. & Mykletun R. (2002) Burnout
among people working with intellectually disabled persons: a
theory update and an example. Scandinavian journal of caring
sciences 16, 272–279.
Maslach C. & Leiter M. P. (1997) The Truth About Burnout: How
Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Maslach C., Jackson S. E. & Leiter M. P. (1996) Maslach Burnout
Inventory Manual. 3rd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
McLean A. A. (1974) Occupational Stress. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Mowday R. T., Steers R. M. & Porter L. W. (1979) Measurement
of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior
14, 224–247.
Osipow S. H. (1998) Occupational stress inventory, revised edition
(OSI-R). Psychological Assessment Resources Inc., Odessa, Fla.
Preacher K. J., Curran P. J. & Bauer D. J. (2006) Computational
tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression,
multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of
Educational and Behavioral Statistics 31, 437–448.
Rose J. (1995) Stress and residential staff: towards an integration
of existing research. Mental Handicap Research 8, 220–236.
Rose J. (2011) How do staff psychological factors influence
outcomes for people with developmental and intellectual
disability in residential services? Current Opinion in Psychiatry
24, 403–407.
Rose D. & Rose J. (2005) Staff in services for people with
intellectual disabilities: the impact of stress on attributions of
challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
49, 827–838.
Schalock R. L. & Verdugo A. (2012) A Leadership Guide for today’s
Disabilities Organizations: Overcoming Challenges and Making
Change Happen. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore.
Schalock R. L., Gardner J. F. & Bradley V. J. (2007) Quality of
Life for People with Intellectual and Other Developmental
Disabilities: Applications Across Individuals, Organizations,
Communities, and Systems. AAIDD, Washington, DC.
Schaufeli W. B. & Vandierendonck D. (1993) The construct-
validity of 2 burnout measures. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 14, 631–647.
Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P. & Maslach C. (2009) Burnout:
35 years of research and practice. Career Development
International 14, 204–220.
Schriesheim C. & Tsui A. (1980) Development and validation of
a short satisfaction instrument for use in survey feedback
interventions. Paper Presented at the Western Academy of
Management Meeting.
Skirrow P. & Hatton C. (2007) ‘Burnout’ amongst direct care
workers in services for adults with intellectual disabilities: a
systematic review of research findings and initial normative
data. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 20,
131–144.
Spector P. E. (1985) Measurement of Human-Service Staff
Satisfaction - Development of the Job-Satisfaction Survey.
American Journal of Community Psychology 13, 693–713.
Spector P. E. (1997) Job Satisfaction : Application, Assessment,
Causes and Consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, etc.
Statistics Canada (2012) Labour force survey estimates (LFS),
wages of employees by job permanence, union coverage, sex
and age group, unadjusted for seasonality. CANSIM Table
282-0073. S. Canada. Ottawa.
Watson D., Clark L. A. & Tellegen A. (1988) Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect:
the PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
54, 1063–1070.
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 27, 134–144
144 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability