Table 4.
The effect of three levels of need for recovery (NFR) on Compensatory strategies when handling work demands
| Single items range (0–4) |
Low NFR group, mean | SD | In- between NFR group, mean | SD | High NFR group, mean | SD | df between groups, and within groups | F value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compensating strategies | |||||||||
| When there is much to do I work more intensively | 2.5 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 0.77 | 2, 1259 | 56.296 | 0.000a |
| I skip breaks to finish what needs doing | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 2, 1257 | 60.868 | 0.000a |
| I lower the quality of work to finish | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 2, 1258 | 68.532 | 0.000a |
| I take work home | 0.69 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.04 | 1.3 | 2, 1258 | 12.483 | 0.000b |
| I think of work when off work | 1.4 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 2, 1257 | 84.635 | 0.000a |
The table presents mean scores and standard deviation (SD) in single items, with ranges in brackets. The measurements from the two extreme cluster groups are presented in bold numbers
aThe effect of NFR was significantly different between all three groups, with p ≥ 0.000
bThe effect of NFR was significantly different between the high NFR group and the low NFR group, and between the low NFR group and the in-between NFR group, with p ≥ 0.000. The difference between the high NFR group and the in-between NFR group was not significant (n.s.)