Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.39(2) > 1057636

Lee, Kim, and Choi: The relationship between role stress and turnover among dental hygienists: mediating effects of commitment

Abstract

Objectives

This study analyzes the effect of role stress on turnover and examines the mediating effects of organizational, career, and job commitment.

Methods

This study involved a questionnaire survey on socio-demographic characteristics, working environment, role stress, commitment, and turnover. This was administered to 272 clinical dental hygienists from February 1, 2014, to February 28, 2014, and data were analyzed using t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

Turnover among dental hygienists increased when their role stress was high and the latter was significantly correlated with organizational, career, and job commitment. In the relationship between role stress and turnover, organizational and career commitment worked as the mediating factors with organizational commitment showing the biggest effect.

Conclusions

In order to reduce role stress, the causes of role conflict and role overload should be systematically monitored. Improvement of the wage and working system along with expansion of specific tasks of dental hygienists to enhance their organizational and career commitment is required.

References

1. Choi JH, Choi JS. Effect of mediating variable on the relationship between job stress and stress response among clinical dental hygienists. J Dent Hyg Sci. 2014; 14:114–122.
2. Yun HK, Kim HG. Effect of role function and personality characteristics of mentor on role stress and organization effectiveness of newly appointed dental hygienists. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg. 2014; 14:213–221.
crossref
3. Schultz DP. Psychology and industry today: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillian Company;1981. p. 445–454.
4. Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. J Appl Psychol. 1993; 78:538–551.
crossref
5. Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q. 1970; 15:150–163.
crossref
6. Bolino MC, Turnley WH. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90:740–748.
crossref
7. O’Reilly C, Chatman J. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, internalization on prosocial behavior. J Appl Psychol. 1986; 71:492–499.
8. Chang CS, Chang HH. Effects of internal marketing on nurse job satisfaction and organizational commitment: example of medical centers in Southern Taiwan. J Nurs Res. 2007; 15:265–274.
crossref
9. Beecroft PC, Dorey F, Wenten M. Turnover intention in new graduate nurses: a multivariate analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62:41–52.
crossref
10. Morrow PC. Concept redundancy in organizational research: the case of work commitment. Acad Manage Rev. 1983; 8:486–500.
crossref
11. Kim GY, Chung WG. Impact of human resource management and development on turnover intention of dental hygienist in Korean dental settings-focusing on the moderating effect of career commitment. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2010; 34:505–515.
12. Ahn YS, Shin SJ, Jung SH, Lee YS, Lim DS. Comparison of job description and turnover trend among dental hygienists and assistant nurses in dental clinics. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2006; 30:303–315.
13. Korean Dental Association. A research of assistant manpower for oral health. Seoul: Korean Dental Association;2008. p. 17–98.
14. Korean Dental Association. Why shortage of dental hygienists despite of increase the number of dental hygiene students? Seoul: Korean Dental Association News;2010. 1819:p. 31.
15. Mowday RT, Porter LW, Steers RM. Employee-organizational linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. 1st ed. New York: Academic Press;1982. p. 19–43.
16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41:1149–1160.
crossref
17. Ivancevich JM, Matteson MT. Stress and work: a managerial perspective. 1st ed. Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company;1980. p. 139.
18. Mowday RT, Porter LW, Steers RM. The measurement of organizational commitment. J Vocat Behav. 1979; 14:224–247.
crossref
19. Blau G. The measurement and prediction of career commitment. J Occup Psychol. 1985; 58:277–288.
crossref
20. Kanungo RN. Measurement of job and work involvement. J Appl Psychol. 1982; 67:341–349.
crossref
21. Igbaria M, Siegel SR. An examination of the antecedents of turnover propensity of engineers: an integrated model. J Eng Tech Manag. 1992; 9:101–126.
crossref
22. Michaels CE, Spector PE. Cause of employee turnover: a test of the Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. J Appl Psychol. 1982; 67:53–59.
23. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51:1173–1182.
crossref
24. Bedeian AG, Armenakis AA. A path-analytic study of the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity. Acad Manage J. 1981; 24:417–424.
crossref
25. Jeong SB, Choi EM, Choi JS. The effects of emotional labor on burnout, turnover intention, and job satisfaction among clinical dental hygienists. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2014; 38:50–58.
crossref
26. Pienaar J, Sieberhagen CF, Mostert K. Investigating turnover intentions by role overload, job satisfaction and social support moderation. Sa Journal of Industrial Psychology. 2007; 33:62–67.
crossref
27. Tett RP, Meyer JP. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic finding. Pers Psychol. 1993; 46:259–293.
28. Gardner DL. Assessing career commitment: the role of staff development. J Nurs Staff Dev. 1991; 7:263–267.

Fig. 1.
Study model.
jkaoh-39-119f1.tif
Table 1.
Inform of scales
Scales Range Min Max Mean±SD Cronbach’s α
Role stress 0-40 0 33 17.90±6.18 0.850
Organizational commitment 0-40 3 40 24.85±6.14 0.864
Career commitment 0-24 0 24 12.33±4.76 0.851
Job commitment 0-36 11 36 23.30±4.19 0.786
Turnover intention 0-20 0 20 10.27±3.99 0.877
Table 2.
Turnover intention according to socio-demographic characteristics, working environment
Variables N Role stress P-value Turnover intention P-value
Socio-demographic characteristics Age (yrs) ≤24 98 15.6±5.3a <0.001 9.6±3.8a <0.001
25-29 109 19.6±6.1b 11.4±3.5b
≥30 60 18.1±6.3b 9.0±4.4a
Marital status Unmarried 206 18.0±6.0 0.425 10.4±3.8 0.150
Married 62 17.3±6.7 9.5±4.4
Education status College 156 17.7±6.0 0.653 10.7±3.7 0.025
University 111 18.1±5.4 9.6±4.2
Salary satisfaction Never 103 18.6±5.4 0.056 11.5±3.5a <0.001
Moderate 94 18.2±6.5 10.0±3.5b
Great 58 16.2±6.3 8.2±4.3c
Career (yrs)* ≤4 134 16.7±6.1 0.002 10.0±3.7 0.410
>4 126 19.5±5.9 10.4±4.2
Position Staff 175 17.1±6.4 0.005 10.2±3.9 0.924
Supervisor 93 19.3±5.4 10.2±4.0
Working environment Medical institution Hospital 81 18.4±5.8 0.319 10.3±4.0 0.812
Clinics 186 17.6±6.3 10.2±3.9
Working days (weekly) ≤5 170 18.0±6.1 0.521 10.2±3.9 0.781
>5 94 17.5±6.3 10.3±4.1
Working hours (weekly) ≤40 173 17.4±6.3 0.194 9.8±4.0 0.011
>40 90 18.4±5.7 11.1±3.8
Introduction of Yes 173 18.2±6.2 0.169 10.2±3.9 0.910
five working days No 93 17.1±6.1 10.3±4.0

*Divided by subjects’ medium score. P-value obtained from t test or one-way ANOVA.

a ,b,cThe same characters were not significant by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison at α=0.05.

Table 3.
Turnover intention according to role stress
Classification Role stress Turnover intention
Role conflict I receive an assignment without sufficient support 0.222**
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment 0.295**
I have to do things that should be done differently 0.382**
I receive conflicting request from two or more people 0.417**
Occasionally I work on unnecessary tasks 0.331**
Role overlord I don't have enough time to complete my work 0.308**
My assigned tasks are sometimes too difficult or complexs 0.311**
I am responsible for counseling with my subordinates or helping other's work 0.211**
My responsibilities in this organization are more for people 0.210**
I have to take work home in the evenings or weekends to stay caught up 0.238**
Total 0.441**

**P<0.01 by Pearson’s correlation analysis.

Table 4.
Commitment according to socio-demographic characteristics, working environment
Variables N Commitment
Organizational P-value Career P-value Job P-value
Socio- demographic characteristics Age (yrs) ≤24 98 25.5±5.4a <0.001 12.6±4.6ab 0.005 22.8±3.4a <0.001
25-29 109 22.8±6.3b 11.2±4.6a 22.6±4.0a
≥30 60 27.4±5.8a 13.6±4.9b 25.3±4.8b
Marital status Unmarried 207 24.3±6.1 0.014 11.8±4.7 0.005 22.8±3.9 0.001
Married 62 26.5±6.0 13.8±4.6 24.8±4.6
Education status College 156 24.6±5.6 0.634 12.3±4.9 0.976 23.1±4.1 0.528
University 111 25.0±6.8 12.3±4.4 23.5±4.3
Salary satisfaction Never 103 22.9±6.2a <0.001 12.1±4.5ab 0.029 22.7±3.8a 0.028
Moderate 94 25.2±5.4b 11.4±4.6a 23.2±4.0ab
Great 58 27.7±5.9c 13.6±5.2b 24.5±4.5b
Career (yrs)* ≤4 134 24.9±6.0 0.971 12.4±4.7 0.669 22.9±3.8 0.104
>4 126 24.9±6.2 12.2±4.8 23.7±4.5
Position Staff 175 24.5±6.3 0.266 12.4±4.7 0.534 22.8±3.9 0.010
Supervisor 93 25.3±5.7 12.0±4.7 24.1±4.4
Working environment Medical institution Hospital 81 23.7±5.2 0.015 11.9±5.0 0.014 22.1±3.6 0.145
Clinics 186 25.3±6.4 12.4±4.6 23.8±4.3
Working days ≤5 170 24.7±6.4 0.712 12.4±4.9 0.616 23.4±4.1 0.333
(weekly) >5 94 25.0±5.5 12.1±4.4 22.9±4.2
Working hours ≤40 173 25.3±6.3 0.040 12.5±4.9 0.317 23.6±4.2 0.076
(weekly) >40 90 23.7±5.7 11.9±4.4 22.6±4.0
Introduction of Yes 173 24.6±6.1 0.442 12.4±4.8 0.514 23.4±4.0 0.609
five working days No 93 25.2±6.1 12.0±4.7 23.1±4.4

*Divided by subjects’ medium score. P-value obtained from t test or one-way ANOVA.

a ,bThe same characters were not significant by Bonferroni’s multiple comparison at α=0.05.

Table 5.
Commitment according to role stress
Classification Role stress Commitment
Organizational Career Job
Role conflict I receive an assignment without sufficient support ―0.218** ―0.117 ―0.032
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment ―0.331** ―0.209** ―0.410**
I have to do things that should be done differently ―0.434** ―0.220** ―0.311**
I receive compatible request from two or more people ―0.443** ―0.273** ―0.307**
Occasionally I work on unnecessary things ―0.340** ―0.202** ―0.219**
Role overlord I don't have enough time to complete my work ―0.240** ―0.226** ―0.154*
My assigned tasks are sometimes too difficult or complex ―0.332** ―0.197** ―0.225**
I am responsible for counseling with my subordinates or helping ther's work ―0.227** ―0.067 ―0.011
My responsibilities in this organization are more for people ―0.170** ―0.107 0.082
I have to take work home in the evenings or weekends to stay caught up ―0.163** ―0.171** ―0.072
Total ―0.431** ―0.271** ―0.241**

**P<0.01 by Pearson’s correlation analysis.

Table 6.
The mediating effect of commitment in the relationship between role stress and turnover intention
Step Variables b P-value
2nd Mediating variable Organizational commitment ―0.588 <0.001
Career commitment ―0.152 0.003
Job commitment ―0.039 0.500
F=81.854(<0.001) R2=0.482 adj.R2=0.476
3rd Independent variable Role stress 0.388 <0.001
Age ―0.006 0.919
Education status ―0.122 0.027
Income satisfaction ―0.285 <0.001
Working hours (weekly) 0.075 0.172
F=20.360(<0.001) R2=0.296 adj.R2=0.282
4th Independent variable Role stress 0.167 0.001
Age ―0.016 0.718
Education status ―0.119 0.009
Income satisfaction ―0.150 0.002
Working hours (weekly) 0.041 0.363
Mediating variable Organizational commitment ―0.482 <0.001
Career commitment ―0.144 0.004
F=38.548(<0.001) R2=0.529 adj.R2=0.516

P-value obtained from hierarchical multiple regression method. Dependent variable: turnover intention. Education status: 3 year course (0), above 4 year course (1).

TOOLS
Similar articles