Table 2.
Disparity between latent profiles of team resilience and team performance, turnover intention among nurses (N = 217)
| Variables | Total sample (n = 217) | Class 1 (n = 47) | Class 2 (n = 76) | Class 3 (n = 94) | F/χ2 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team performance | 35.85 (2.33) | 33.17 (1.92)c | 38.03 (1.10)a | 35.44 (1.46)b | 167.86 | < 0.001 |
| Task performance | 22.25 (1.51) | 20.57 (1.24)c | 23.63 (0.76)a | 21.97 (0.99)b | 150.64 | < 0.001 |
| Cooperation satisfaction | 13.60 (0.88) | 12.60 (0.75)c | 14.39 (0.40)a | 13.47 (0.58)b | 154.06 | < 0.001 |
| Turnover intention | 25.625 | < 0.001 | ||||
| Yes | 49 (100%) | 23 (46.9%)e | 8 (16.3%)f | 18 (36.7%)f | ||
| No | 168 (100%) | 24 (14.3%)e | 68 (40.5%)f | 76 (45.2%)f |
Note. Class 1, “worst team resilience” subtype; Class 3, “mid-range team resilience” subtype; Class 2, “best team resilience” subtype
a, Highest scoring group in the post-hoc analysis (p < 0.001). b, Medium scoring group in the post-hoc analysis (p < 0.001). c, Lowest scoring group in the post-hoc analysis (p < 0.001); e and f, Same letter represents no statistical difference between groups