Figure 1
Variables in the Present Study.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
| M (SD)/COUNT (%) | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | 13. | 14. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal background characteristics | |||||||||||||||
| 1. Age | 46.00 (11.23) | ||||||||||||||
| 2. Gender (male) | 268 (44.7%) | .16*** | |||||||||||||
| 3. Children (yes) | 264 (44%) | .05 | .10* | ||||||||||||
| Professional background characteristics | |||||||||||||||
| 4. Skill level | 3.03 (1.15) | .05 | .09* | .13** | |||||||||||
| 5. Tenure | 10.15 (9.07) | .48*** | .13** | .08 | –.05 | ||||||||||
| 6. Work from home | 258 (43%) | –.08 | .03 | .08 | .30*** | –.11** | |||||||||
| Changes in work aspects Quality of working conditions: | |||||||||||||||
| 7. Decrease | 183 (30.5%) | <.01 | .11* | .07 | .05 | –.04 | .10* | ||||||||
| 8. Increase | 162 (27%) | –.16*** | –.15*** | –.04 | .05 | –.05 | .05 | –.40*** | |||||||
| Changes in workload: | |||||||||||||||
| 9. Decrease | 137 (22.8%) | –.06 | –.03 | –.11** | –.10* | –.06 | –.06 | .16*** | –.13** | ||||||
| 10. Increase | 220 (36.7%) | –.04 | –.06 | .07 | .09* | –.02 | –.05 | .01 | .25*** | –.41*** | |||||
| Changes in income: | |||||||||||||||
| 11. Decrease | 128 (21.3%) | .01 | .07 | –.03 | –.05 | .01 | –.06 | .14** | –.06 | .45*** | –.18*** | ||||
| 12. Increase | 33 (5.5%) | –.10* | <.01 | –.02 | –.02 | –.03 | .01 | –.05 | .03 | –.11** | .17*** | –.13** | |||
| Work–home balance challenge: | |||||||||||||||
| 13. Slight increase | 300 (50%) | –.07 | .06 | .08* | <.01 | –.03 | –.01 | .03 | –.03 | .02 | .03 | .01 | –.02 | ||
| 14. Large increase | 122 (20.3%) | –.09* | –.04 | .20*** | .09* | –.02 | .13** | .13** | .07 | –.01 | .11** | .11** | –.03 | –.51*** | |
| Change in duties: | |||||||||||||||
| 15. Yes | 238 (39.7%) | –.01 | –.07 | –.05 | –.04 | .01 | –.21*** | .08 | .11* | .11** | .22*** | .12** | <.01 | .04 | .07 |
| Cross-sectional outcomes | |||||||||||||||
| 16. Overall JS | 3.87 (1.12) | .01 | .09* | –.03 | .17*** | .05 | .07 | .01 | –.06 | .01 | –.02 | –.04 | .01 | –.01 | –.09* |
| 17. Turnover intention | 1.93 (1.23) | –.26*** | –.13** | –.02 | –.03 | –.22*** | .08 | .07 | .08 | .10* | .02 | .09* | –.02 | .02 | .13** |
| 18. Job insecurity | 2.49 (0.60) | .06 | .01 | .10* | –.12** | –.05 | .02 | .11** | –.04 | .16*** | –.04 | .27*** | –.08* | .02 | .13** |
| Aggregated day-to-day outcomes | |||||||||||||||
| 19. Workday JS | 5.13 (1.03) | .11* | .05 | –.02 | .02 | .19*** | –.05 | –.13** | .07 | –.01 | –.05 | .01 | .06 | .04 | –.16** |
| 20. Work engagement | 4.29 (1.13) | .23*** | .06 | .11* | .06 | .20*** | –.07 | –.12** | –.01 | –.03 | <.01 | –.02 | .03 | –.01 | –.05 |
| 21. Exhaustion | 6.25 (1.08) | –.19*** | –.10* | <.01 | –.07 | –.15** | –.02 | .08 | .09 | –.02 | .13** | –.01 | .03 | .07 | .11* |
| M (SD)/COUNT (%) | 15. | 16. | 17. | 18. | 19. | 20. | |||||||||
| Cross-sectional outcomes | |||||||||||||||
| 16. Overall JS | 3.87 (1.12) | –.04 | |||||||||||||
| 17. Turnover intention | 1.93 (1.23) | .07 | –.24*** | ||||||||||||
| 18. Job insecurity | 2.49 (0.60) | .12** | –.20*** | .30*** | |||||||||||
| Aggregated day-to-day outcomes | |||||||||||||||
| 19. Workday JS | 5.13 (1.03) | –.01 | .19*** | –.27*** | –31*** | ||||||||||
| 20. Work engagement | 4.29 (1.13) | –.05 | .22*** | –.35*** | –17*** | .62*** | |||||||||
| 21. Exhaustion | 6.25 (1.08) | .13** | –.17** | .14** | .24*** | –.34*** | –.22*** | ||||||||
[i] Notes: JS = job satisfaction. Multi-categorical changes in work aspects were turned into dummy variables. Point biserial correlations were calculated between the dichotomous and continuous variables.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.
Table 2
Comparison of alternative latent class models.
| FIT INDICESCOMPARED MODELS | AIC | BIC | SABIC | ENTROPY | LMR (P-VALUE) | BLRT (P-VALUE) | SMALLEST PROFILE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 class | 5502.985 | 5542.557 | 5513.985 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2 classes | 5351.582 | 5435.124 | 5374.804 | .570 | <.001 | <.001 | 40.5% |
| 3 classes | 5243.094 | 5370.605 | 5278.538 | .682 | <.001 | <.001 | 21.4% |
| 4 classes | 5240.442 | 5411.923 | 5288.108 | .743 | .043 | .150 | 6.2% |
| 5 classes | 5244.509 | 5459.959 | 5304.397 | .778 | .037 | 1.000 | 5.4% |
| 6 classes | 5249.880 | 5509.299 | 5321.990 | .779 | .145 | .667 | 5.2% |
[i] Note: N/A – not applicable for a one-class (baseline) model.
Figure 2
Latent Classes (Challenged, Status Quo, Precarious) Denoting Experienced Changes at Work During the Pandemic.
Table 3
Background characteristics as predictors of latent class membership.
| PREDICTOR VARIABLES | COMPARED CLASSES† | ODDS RATIO | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal characteristics: | |||
| Age | 2 vs. 1 | 1.031 | [1.003; 1.059] |
| Gender (male) | 3 vs. 1 | 1.770 | [1.023; 3.061] |
| Children (yes) | 1 vs. 2 | 1.685 | [1.008; 2.815] |
| Professional characteristics: | |||
| Skill level | 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 2 | 1.372 1.396 | [1.061; 1.772] [1.104; 1.766] |
| Tenure | ns | ns | ns |
| Work from home (yes) | 2 vs. 1 | 2.320 | [1.346; 3.999] |
[i] Notes: † Reference class appears on the right side. Class 1 = challenged, Class 2 = status quo, Class 3 = precarious. Only significant results are summarized, based on higher odds of belonging to a given class over the reference class. Example: Older participants are more likely to be classified in the status quo than the challenged class. CI = confidence intervals. Ns = no significant effects found.
Table 4
Mean level comparisons of occupational well-being outcomes across the latent classes.
| OUTCOME VARIABLES | CLASS 1‘CHALLENGED’ | CLASS 2‘STATUS QUO’ | CLASS 3‘PRECARIOUS’ | OVERALL COMPARISON |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall job satisfaction | 3.78 | 3.94 | 3.87 | 1.37(2) |
| Turnover intention | 2.05a | 1.68a,b | 2.18b | 10.74(2)** |
| Job insecurity | 1.97a | 1.85b | 2.28a,b | 10.71(2)** |
| Daily workday satisfaction | 5.02 | 5.21 | 5.17 | 1.66(2) |
| Daily work engagement | 4.25 | 4.39 | 4.17 | 1.95(2) |
| Daily exhaustion | 3.46a,b | 2.91a | 3.08b | 13.74(2)** |
[i] Notes: The analyses were based on the BCH procedure. Shared superscript letters indicate which classes significantly differ from each other on a given outcome (e.g., with regard to turnover intention, class 1 differs from class 2 but not class 3). Overall comparison refers to the overall between-group tests, indicating Wald χ2 statistic and degrees of freedom in parentheses. Aggregated day-to-day scores were used in daily outcome analyses. ** p < .01.