Supervisory Communication, Burnout, and Turnover Intention Among Social Workers in Health Care Settings

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 A proposed conceptual model of supervisory communication, role stress, burnout, and turnover intention.

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients for Observed Variables

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. JC	1.00
2. PC	0.75∗	1.00
3. UC	0.35∗	0.48∗	1.00
4. RC	− 0.31∗	− 0.29∗	0.01	1.00
5. RA	− 0.40∗	− 0.29∗	− 0.08	0.42∗	1.00
6. RO	− 0.27∗	− 0.24∗	− 0.06	0.52∗	0.29∗	1.00
7. EE1	− 0.26∗	− 0.31∗	− 0.11	0.47∗	0.37∗	0.49∗	1.00
8. EE2	− 0.25∗	− 0.29∗	− 0.07	0.51∗	0.33∗	0.54∗	0.90∗	1.00
9. DP	− 0.05	− 0.08	− 0.03	0.34∗	0.21∗	0.23∗	0.51∗	0.49∗	1.00
10. TI	− 0.37∗	− 0.36∗	− 0.07	0.27∗	0.28∗	0.24∗	0.39∗	0.39∗	0.06	1.00
11. Age	− 0.08	− 0.12	− 0.06	0.09	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	− 0.08	0.10	1.00
12. Gender	− 0.05	− 0.07	− 0.08	− 0.15∗	− 0.08	− 0.10	− 0.04	− 0.04	− 0.13	− 0.02	− 0.25∗	1.00
13. Tenure	− 0.05	− 0.07	0.02	0.02	− 0.12	− 0.01	0.01	0.00	− 0.09	0.08	0.57∗	− 0.18∗	1.00
14. Salary	0.08	0.05	0.06	0.08	− 0.14∗	0.04	− 0.02	0.05	0.06	− 0.09	0.33∗	− 0.29∗	0.42∗	1.00
Mean	3.48	3.46	4.07	4.35	2.77	5.11	3.11	2.90	1.47	3.83	45.11	0.78	7.99	57.47
SD	1.06	1.09	0.68	1.45	1.05	1.19	1.36	1.28	1.17	1.73	12.00	0.41	7.53	17.91
JC: job relevant communication; PC: positive relationship communication; UC: upward communication; RC: role conflict; RA: role ambiguity; RO: role overload; EE1: emotional exhaustion 1; EE2: emotional exhaustion 2; DP: depersonalization; TI: turnover intention; Tenure: organizational tenure; Salary: annual salary.
∗p < .05 (2-tailed).

FIGURE 2 Standardized coefficients for the structural equation model. Only significant paths at the levels of p < .05 were included in this figure after accounting for effects of age, gender, organizational tenure, and annual salary on role stress, burnout, and turnover intention. EE1: emotional exhaustion item parcel 1; EE2: emotional exhaustion item parcel 2; DP: depersonalization.

TABLE 2 Results of Chi-Square Difference Tests for the Hypothesized Moderating Effects of Supervisory Communication

	Types of supervisory communication
Models	Job relevant communication Low: n = 101 High: n = 110	Positive relationship communication Low: n = 104 High: n = 107	Upward communication Low: n = 129 High: n = 82
Model 1	83.90 (df = 62)	92.20 (df = 62)	103.49 (df = 62)
Model 2	103.57 (df = 66)	98.26 (df = 66)	108.01 (df = 66)
Model 3	—	98.92 (df = 67)	111.87 (df = 67)
Δχ^2 (Δ4) between M1 & M2	19.67∗	6.06	4.52
Δχ^2 (Δ1) between M2 & M3	NA	0.66	3.86∗
Model 1: no constraints; Model 2: equal constraints on four factor loadings; Model 3: equal constraint on the path between role stress and burnout.
∗p < .05 (2-tailed).