TABLE 4.
Regressed coefficient paths in the final model (e)
| Path | US sample | Italian sample | Hypotheses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||
| β | p | β | p | ||
| Organisational efficiency-> co-worker incivility | .28 | .001 | .24 | .001 | H1 |
|
| |||||
| Organisational efficiency-> workload | .53 | .001 | .38 | .001 | H2 |
|
| |||||
| Workload-> co-worker incivility | .24 | .002 | .13 | .061 | H3 |
|
| |||||
| Co-worker incivility -> intention to leave | .13 | .001 | .27 | .001 | H4 |
|
| |||||
| Workload->intention to leave | .36 | .001 | .02 | .774 | H5 |
|
| |||||
| Organisational efficiency->intention to leave | .12 | .001 | .23 | .001 | H6 |
Italic indicates significant paths; β, standardized path coefficient; p, probability value.
Model was controlled for age, gender and type of occupation. Significant path(s) in the US subsample: Age->workload (β = .22, p = .001); type of occupation (1, nurse aides)->organisational efficiency (β = .14, p = .021). Significant path(s) in the Italian subsample: Age->organisational efficiency (β = .14, p = .021).