Table 1
Validation procedure and steps of analysis.
| STEP | RESEARCH QUESTION | TYPE OF ANALYSIS/PROCEDURE | DESCRIPTION | LEVEL OF ANALYSIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 1 | Identification | Identification of relevant constructs and scales | Constructs, scales |
| II | 2 | Content validity | Revision of definitions and adaptation of items. Preliminary study with subject experts. | Constructs, scales, items |
| III | 3 | Item analysis | Analysis of response frequencies, variances, item difficulty, item discrepancy indices, and reliabilities. | Single items, scales |
| First exclusion after step III | ||||
| IV | 3 | Analysis of measurement models | Verification of model goodness-of-fit, average variances extracted (AVE) and loadings of indicators using confirmatory factor analysis. | Single items, scales |
| Second exclusion after step IV | ||||
| V | 3 | Known-group comparison | Verification if scales can measure mean differences in known groups and show measurement invariance. | Entire questionnaire |
| VI | 3 | Analysis of criterion validity | Verification of predictive power of ICT resources and stressors regarding health and work attitudes. | Single scales |
| VII | 3 | Analysis of interaction effects | Examination of moderation effects by ICT resources on the relationship between ICT stressors and health, or work attitudes. | Single scales |
| VIII | 3 | Impact of control variables | Verification if relationships between variables were preserved when relevant control variables were taken into account. | Single scales |
| IX | 3 | Incremental validity | Verification if ICT resources and stressors could explain additional variance above more general resources and demands. | Entire questionnaire |
| Third exclusion after step IX | ||||
Table 2
Identified constructs.
| CONSTRUCT(NR. OF ITEMS) | DESCRIPTION | ORIGIN OF ITEMS |
|---|---|---|
| Techno-complexity (4) | Techno-complexity occurs when users experience their own skills as insufficient due to the complexity of ICTs and they are required to invest time and effort in learning and understanding them (Tarafdar et al., 2007) | Technostress creators (Ragu-Nathan etal., 2008) |
| Techno-uncertainty (4) | Techno-uncertainty arises when ICTs change constantly. As a result, users feel forced to keep up to date and learn new technologies (Tarafdar et al., 2007). | Technostress creators (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008) |
| Literacy facilitation (4) | Organisations can reduce stress from ICTs by promoting the sharing of ICT knowledge within the organisation. It reduces stress by helping users understand ICTs and their impact, and by enabling them to cope with the demands of learning new ICTs (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). | Technostress inhibitors (Ragu-Nathanet al., 2008) |
| Involvement facilitation (3) | By involving employees in the process of technological change, i.e. by informing users about the reasons and expected effects of new technologies as well as motivating them to use new ICTs, organisations can reduce the negative impacts of the implementation process (Ragu-Nathanet al., 2008). | Technostress inhibitors (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008) |
| Usefulness (4) | An ICT is useful when it improves work performance. Technologies that are considered useful reduce feelings of workload, leading to employees accomplishing work tasks faster and being more productive (Ayyagari et al., 2011). | Antecedents of technostress (Ayyagari etal., 2011) |
| Poor communication (3) | ICT-mediated communication offers great potential for errors because very few verbal or non-verbal signals are present (Rainey, 2000). Poor communication skills can lead to frustration and higher levels of strain in employees (Dayet al., 2010). | ICT demands (Day et al., 2012) |
| Employee monitoring (4) | Monitoring employees’ work performance, communication (emails or phone calls) or internet use during work using ICTs, may be perceived as an invasion of privacy. This can lead to higher feelings of stress, anxiety, depression, health complaints, anger, and exhaustion (Amick & Smith, 1992; Day et al., 2012; Lund, 1992; Schleifer & Shell, 1992). | ICT demands (Day et al., 2012) |
| Lack of control (3) | Lack of control describes the degree of influence employees have over the ICTs they use. Individuals with less control over ICTs are more anxious, and experience more frustration and more stress (Day et al., 2010; Day etal., 2012; Hair et al., 2007; O’Driscoll et al., 2010). | ICT demands (Day et al., 2012) |
| ICT resources & upgrades (4) | ICT resources & upgrades means providing current technology, necessary updates and training in the introduction of new ICTs. This can increase employees’ self-efficacy and confidence in using new ICTs, which in turn can reduce stress (Beas & Salanova, 2006; Dayet al., 2012). | ICT resources (Day et al., 2012) |
| Personal assistance (4) | Personal assistance reduces stress following operational problems with ICTs and can be provided by an organisation in the form of an IT support department. Technical IT support can increase employee engagement with ICTs (O’Driscoll et al., 2010). Competent support further leads to faster resolution of problems, which in turn results in fewer work interruptions (Ragu-Nathan etal., 2008) and thus has a positive impact on stress levels. | ICT resources (Day et al., 2012) |
| Telepressure (6) | Workplace telepressure manifests itself by constantly thinking about a received ICT-based message, accompanied by the urge to respond immediately (Barber& Santuzzi, 2015). Telepressure is associated with workaholism, absenteeism, poorer sleep quality, work overload, emotional exhaustion, less detachment from work, and lower satisfaction with one’s work-life balance (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Barber et al., 2019; Grawitch et al., 2018; Santuzzi& Barber, 2018). | Telepressure (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015) |
Table 3
Revised items of the new questionnaire.
| CONSTRUCT | ITEM CODE | ITEMS |
|---|---|---|
| Techno-complexity | TechCom_rag1 | I do not know enough about the ICTs I use, to handle my job satisfactorily. |
| TechCom_rag2 | I can easily understand and use new ICTs. a | |
| TechCom_rag3 | I do not find enough time to improve my ICT skills. | |
| TechCom_rag4 | I often find new ICTs too complex for me to understand and use. | |
| Techno-uncertainty | TechUnc_rag1 | There are always new developments in the ICTs we use in our organisation. |
| TechUnc_rag2 | There are constant changes in computer software in our organisation. | |
| TechUnc_rag3 | There are constant changes in computer hardware in our organisation. | |
| TechUnc_new1 | I feel insecure due to the constant changes in ICTs in our organisation. | |
| TechUnc_new2 | I wished the ICTs in our organisation were not constantly changing. | |
| TechUnc_new3 | I am overwhelmed by having to learn new ICTs all the time. | |
| Literacy facilitation | LiteFac_rag1 | Our organisation emphasises teamwork in dealing with new ICT-related issues. |
| LiteFac_rag2 | Our organisation provides end-user training before the introduction of new ICTs. | |
| LiteFac_rag3 | Our organisation fosters a good relationship between the IT department and end users. | |
| LiteFac_rag4 | Our organisation provides clear documentation to end users on using new ICTs. | |
| Involvement facilitation | InvoFac_rag1 | We as end users are consulted before introducing new ICTs. |
| InvoFac_rag2 | We as end users are involved in the technological change and implementation of ICTs. | |
| InvoFac_New1 | Our organisation communicates in a transparent way about the reasons for introducing new ICTs. | |
| InvoFac_New2 | Our organisation communicates in a transparent way about the hoped-for effects of the introduction of new ICTs. | |
| Usefulness | Usefuln_ayy1 | The ICTs I use at work enable me to accomplish my tasks more quickly. |
| Usefuln_ayy2 | The ICTs I use at work improve the quality of my work. | |
| Usefuln_ayy3 | The ICTs I use at work make it harder for me to do my job. a | |
| Usefuln_ayy4 | The ICTs I use at work enhance my effectiveness. | |
| Poor communication | PoorCom_day1 | People often misinterpret my ICT-based text messages. |
| PoorCom_day2 | I often receive rude ICT based text messages from my colleagues or clients. | |
| PoorCom_day3 | I often misinterpret the tone of incoming ICT-based text messages. | |
| Monitoring | EmpMoni_day1 | My organisation uses ICTs to monitor my work. |
| EmpMoni_day2 | My organisation monitors my internet usage. | |
| EmpMoni_day3 | My organisation monitors my emails. | |
| EmpMoni_day4 | My organisation monitors my phone calls. | |
| EmpMoni_new1 | I experience the monitoring of my work as an invasion of my privacy. | |
| EmpMoni_new2 | I do not mind my organisation monitoring my work activities. | |
| EmpMoni_new3 | I do not want my organisation monitoring my work activities. | |
| ICT Control | Control_day1 | I have no control over how I use ICTs at work. a |
| Control_day2 | I choose the types of ICTs I use in my work myself. | |
| Control_day3 | ICTs allow me the flexibility to do my work when I want. | |
| Control_day4 | ICTs allow me the flexibility to do my work where I want. | |
| Personal assistance | PersAs_day1 | Technical support is available at work when I need it. |
| PersAs_day2 | Our technical support staff are helpful. | |
| PersAs_day3 | My organisation’s technical support staff respond promptly to all my requests. | |
| PersAs_day4 | Our technical support teaches me how to solve problems in case they happen again. | |
| ICT resources & upgrades | ICTResU_day1 | My organisation implements appropriate software as it becomes available. |
| ICTResU_day2 | My organisation uses the latest technology. | |
| ICTResU_day3 | I receive the upgrades I need. | |
| ICTResU_day4 | New ICT systems in my organisation are implemented on a timely basis. | |
| Telepressure | Telepr_barsan1 | It’s hard for me to focus on other things when I receive a message from someone. |
| Telepr_barsan2 | I can concentrate better on other tasks once I’ve responded to my messages. | |
| Telepr_barsan3 | I can’t stop thinking about a message until I’ve responded. | |
| Telepr_barsan4 | I feel a strong need to respond to others immediately. | |
| Telepr_barsan5 | I have an overwhelming feeling to respond right at that moment when I receive a request from someone. | |
| Telepr_barsan6 | It’s difficult for me to resist responding to a message right away. |
[i] Note. aReverse coded after feedback in a preliminary study.
Figure 1
Overview of sample characteristics.
Note. To enhance readability, plot 1 shows the ten most reported work areas (n = 308). One respondent did not provide information on education or years of employment (n = 355). The total number of respondents for importance of ICTs is 356. The work areas were derived from the general classification of economic activities, and the education levels from the educational degrees and certificates by the Federal Statistical Office (FSO, 2008, 2020).
Table 4
Descriptive item statistics.
| ITEM | M | SD | MED | MIN | MAX | ITEM DIFFI- CULTY | DISCRIMI- NATION INDEX | α WHEN DELETED | SKEW | KURTOSIS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TechCom_rag1 | 1.87 | 0.98 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .37 | .61 | .67 | 1.10 | 0.62 |
| TechCom_rag2 | 2.19 | 0.87 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .44 | .46 | .75 | 0.93 | 0.98 |
| TechCom_rag3 | 2.74 | 1.09 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .55 | .54 | .72 | 0.08 | –0.92 |
| TechCom_rag4 | 2.04 | 0.90 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .41 | .64 | .66 | 0.84 | 0.35 |
| TechUnc_rag1 | 2.91 | 1.03 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .58 | .71 | .72 | 0.06 | –0.68 |
| TechUnc_rag2 | 2.82 | 1.10 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .56 | .68 | .75 | 0.19 | –0.84 |
| TechUnc_rag3 | 2.33 | 1.00 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .47 | .64 | .79 | 0.58 | –0.23 |
| TechUnc_new1 | 1.73 | 0.87 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .35 | .73 | .79 | 1.24 | 1.19 |
| TechUnc_new2 | 2.08 | 1.13 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .42 | .73 | .79 | 0.86 | –0.24 |
| TechUnc_new3 | 1.74 | 0.97 | 1 | 1 | 5 | .35 | .72 | .79 | 1.28 | 0.98 |
| LiteFac_rag1 | 3.18 | 1.09 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .64 | .58 | .74 | –0.33 | –0.59 |
| LiteFac_rag2 | 3.02 | 1.23 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .60 | .60 | .73 | –0.12 | –0.94 |
| LiteFac_rag3 | 3.21 | 1.17 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .64 | .61 | .73 | –0.28 | –0.78 |
| LiteFac_rag4 | 3.16 | 1.20 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .63 | .58 | .74 | –0.29 | –0.82 |
| InvoFac_rag1 | 2.86 | 1.23 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .57 | .68 | .81 | 0.03 | –1.08 |
| InvoFac_rag2 | 2.88 | 1.11 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .58 | .62 | .83 | –0.05 | –0.86 |
| InvoFac_New1 | 3.29 | 1.19 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .66 | .73 | .78 | –0.43 | –0.73 |
| InvoFac_New2 | 3.30 | 1.11 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .66 | .70 | .80 | –0.37 | –0.65 |
| PoorCom_day1 | 1.73 | 0.75 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .35 | .54 | .55 | 0.92 | 0.86 |
| PoorCom_day2 | 1.44 | 0.76 | 1 | 1 | 5 | .29 | .43 | .68 | 2.01 | 4.45 |
| PoorCom_day3 | 1.84 | 0.82 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .37 | .54 | .54 | 0.79 | 0.25 |
| EmpMoni_day1 | 1.80 | 0.90 | 2 | 1 | 4 | .45 | .60 | .84 | 0.72 | –0.64 |
| EmpMoni_day2 | 1.74 | 0.95 | 1 | 1 | 4 | .43 | .74 | .78 | 1.08 | 0.05 |
| EmpMoni_day3 | 1.57 | 0.84 | 1 | 1 | 4 | .39 | .76 | .77 | 1.42 | 1.15 |
| EmpMoni_day4 | 1.41 | 0.73 | 1 | 1 | 4 | .35 | .64 | .82 | 1.86 | 2.94 |
| EmpMoni_new1 | 1.98 | 1.07 | 2 | 1 | 4 | .50 | .41 | .76 | 0.64 | –0.94 |
| EmpMoni_new2 | 2.79 | 1.02 | 3 | 1 | 4 | .70 | .59 | .55 | –0.23 | –1.18 |
| EmpMoni_new3 | 2.80 | 1.06 | 3 | 1 | 4 | .70 | .60 | .53 | –0.37 | –1.11 |
| Control_day1 | 3.45 | 1.18 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .69 | .29 | .77 | –0.31 | –0.91 |
| Control_day2 | 2.58 | 1.23 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .52 | .48 | .68 | 0.33 | –0.92 |
| Control_day3 | 3.21 | 1.41 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .64 | .68 | .55 | –0.27 | –1.24 |
| Control_day4 | 3.43 | 1.46 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .69 | .62 | .59 | –0.47 | –1.17 |
| PersAs_day1 | 3.77 | 1.06 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .75 | .67 | .79 | –0.72 | –0.08 |
| PersAs_day2 | 4.03 | 0.98 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .81 | .73 | .77 | –0.96 | 0.64 |
| PersAs_day3 | 3.63 | 1.07 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .73 | .73 | .77 | –0.56 | –0.37 |
| PersAs_day4 | 3.24 | 1.14 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .65 | .56 | .84 | –0.25 | –0.74 |
| ICTResU_day1 | 3.12 | 1.13 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .62 | .75 | .83 | –0.14 | –0.78 |
| ICTResU_day2 | 3.08 | 1.15 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .62 | .74 | .83 | –0.10 | –0.92 |
| ICTResU_day3 | 3.70 | 1.04 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .74 | .65 | .86 | –0.62 | –0.15 |
| ICTResU_day4 | 3.16 | 1.06 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .63 | .77 | .82 | –0.12 | –0.71 |
| Telepr_barsan1 | 2.63 | 1.20 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .53 | .73 | .88 | 0.31 | –0.92 |
| Telepr_barsan2 | 3.31 | 1.20 | 3.5 | 1 | 5 | .66 | .69 | .89 | –0.36 | –0.81 |
| Telepr_barsan3 | 2.39 | 1.10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .48 | .73 | .88 | 0.42 | –0.64 |
| Telepr_barsan4 | 3.02 | 1.24 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .60 | .72 | .88 | –0.19 | –1.07 |
| Telepr_barsan5 | 2.55 | 1.27 | 2 | 1 | 5 | .51 | .70 | .89 | 0.27 | –1.14 |
| Telepr_barsan6 | 2.78 | 1.22 | 3 | 1 | 5 | .56 | .81 | .87 | 0.20 | –0.99 |
| Usefuln_ayy1 | 3.94 | 0.98 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .79 | .71 | .69 | –0.94 | 0.59 |
| Usefuln_ayy2 | 3.75 | 0.95 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .75 | .64 | .73 | –0.72 | 0.37 |
| Usefuln_ayy3 | 4.18 | 0.89 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .84 | .35 | .86 | –1.24 | 1.72 |
| Usefuln_ayy4 | 3.90 | 0.95 | 4 | 1 | 5 | .78 | .76 | .67 | –0.85 | 0.61 |
[i] Note. n = 356. Item difficulties and reliabilities without item (α when deleted) refer to the corresponding scale, not to the entire questionnaire.
Table 5
Fit indices of measurement models.
| SCALE | χ2 | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR | AIC | BIC | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Literacy facilitation | 7.903 (df = 2; p < .05) | .107 [.037, .189] | .979 | .937 | .029 | 4’126 | 4’157 | .48 |
| Involvement facilitation | 29.521 (df = 2; p < .001) | .219 [.153, .292] | .945 | .835 | .052 | 3’879 | 3’910 | .58 |
| ICT control | – | – | – | – | – | .59 | ||
| Personal assistance | – | – | – | – | – | .54 | ||
| ICT resources & upgrades | – | – | – | – | – | .68 | ||
| Telepressure | 41.326 (df = 9; p < .001) | .113 [.079, .149] | .966 | .944 | .035 | 5’703 | 5’750 | .60 |
| Overall model | 340.136 (df = 215; p < .001) | .040 [.033, .048] | .965 | .959 | .038 | 22’236 | 22’472 | .58 |
| Alternative A | 1178.783 (df = 229; p < .001) | .0.114 [.108, .121] | .730 | .702 | .084 | 23’147 | 23’329 | .40 |
| Alternative B | 857.084 (df = 227; p < .001) | .093 [.087, .100] | .821 | .800 | .066 | 22’791 | 22’981 | .47 |
[i] Note. n = 356. ICT control, personal assistance and ICT resources & upgrades had each three indicators and were exactly identified. Therefore, no fit indices could be estimated for these models.
Table 6
Squared loadings of individual items.
| ITEMS | λ2,a | ITEMS | λ2,a |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiteFac_rag3 | .51 | PersAs_day1 | .60 |
| LiteFac_rag2 | .49 | PersAs_day4 | .41 |
| LiteFac_rag1 | .46 | ICTResU_day1 | .69 |
| LiteFac_rag4 | .46 | ICTResU_day4 | .68 |
| InvoFac_New1 | .74 | ICTResU_day2 | .67 |
| InvoFac_New2 | .68 | Telepr_barsan6 | .75 |
| InvoFac_rag1 | .49 | Telepr_barsan1 | .61 |
| InvoFac_rag2 | .41 | Telepr_barsan3 | .60 |
| Control_day3 | .92 | Telepr_barsan4 | .59 |
| Control_day4 | .65 | Telepr_barsan5 | .55 |
| Control_day2 | .20 | Telepr_barsan2 | .53 |
| PersAs_day3 | .61 |
[i] Note. n = 356.
aλ2 = squared loadings.
Table 7
Bivariate correlations of the latent variables in the overall model.
| VARIABLES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Literacy facilitation | |||||
| 2 | Involvement facilitation | .76*** | ||||
| 3 | ICT control | .30*** | .21*** | |||
| 4 | Personal assistance | .75*** | .48*** | .30*** | ||
| 5 | ICT resources & upgrades | .60*** | .55*** | .27*** | .46*** | |
| 6 | Telepressure | .08 | .07 | .16** | .03 | .09 |
[i] Note. n = 356.
ƚ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 8
Fit indices of the different measurement invariance models regarding ICT importance.
| MODEL | χ2 | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | SRMR | AIC | BIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural MIa | 375.151 (df = 284; p < .001) | .052 [.036, .065] | .959 | .951 | .056 | 13’857 | 14’336 |
| Metric MI | 389.889 (df = 298; p < .001) | .050 [.035, .064] | .959 | .953 | .058 | 13’841 | 14’271 |
| Scalar MI | 423.799 (df = 312; p < .001) | .054 [.040, .066] | .951 | .947 | .060 | 13’843 | 14’223 |
| Same means | 479.218 (df = 317; p < .001) | .064 [.052, .075] | .930 | .925 | .091 | 13’883 | 14’245 |
| Differenceb | 55.419 (df = 5, p < .847) | .01 | –.021 | –.022 | .031 | 40 | 22 |
[i] Note. n1 = 87, n2 = 178.
aMI = Measurement invariance.
bDifference between the same means model and model of scalar invariance.
Figure 2
Prediction of health outcomes and attitudes towards work.
Note. Only significant paths are shown.
ƚ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 9
Bivariate correlations between predictors and outcome variables.
| VARIABLES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | InvoFac | ||||||||||
| 2 | Control | .18** | |||||||||
| 3 | ICTResU | .56*** | .25*** | ||||||||
| 4 | PersAs | .48*** | .27*** | .47*** | |||||||
| 5 | Telepre | .05 | .16* | .08 | .02 | ||||||
| 6 | JobSat | .38*** | .23** | .36*** | .35*** | –.05 | |||||
| 7 | IntQuit | –.30*** | –.30*** | –.22** | –.28*** | –.03 | –.77*** | ||||
| 8 | AffComm | .36*** | .35*** | .28*** | .33*** | .10ƚ | .81*** | –.88*** | |||
| 9 | Exhaustion | –.32*** | –.17* | –.26*** | –.22** | .26*** | –.49*** | .31*** | –.27*** | ||
| 10 | Wellbeing | .19** | .15* | .15* | .17* | –.15* | .50*** | –.36*** | .40*** | –.64*** | |
| 11 | GenHealth | –.01 | .01 | .14* | .09 | –.12* | .17* | –.11ƚ | .11ƚ | –.40*** | .47*** |
[i] Note. ƚ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Figure 3
Relationship between telepressure and job satisfaction at different levels of ICT control.
Note. Job satisfaction at different levels of ICT control: one standard deviation below the mean (solid line), at the mean (dotted line) and one standard deviation above the mean (dashed line).
Table 10
Comparison of regression weights between models with and without control variables.
| VARIABLES | JOB SATISFACTION | INTENTION TO QUIT | AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MODEL A | MODEL B | MODEL A | MODEL B | MODEL A | MODEL B | |||||||
| β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | |
| InvoFac | .21 | .031* | .20 | .036* | –.20 | .017* | –.18 | .022* | .24 | .004** | .21 | .007** |
| Control | .13 | .072ƚ | .12 | .114 | –.23 | .001** | –.18 | .013* | .26 | .000*** | .19 | .006** |
| ICTResU | .16 | .062ƚ | .18 | .031* | .01 | .914 | –.05 | .547 | .02 | .819 | .09 | .265 |
| PersAs | .15 | .097ƚ | .12 | .159 | –.12 | .152 | –.08 | .350 | .14 | .092ƚ | .09 | .232 |
| Telepre | –.09 | .141 | –.08 | .212 | .02 | .763 | .00 | .990 | .04 | .452 | .06 | .292 |
| Age | – | – | .11 | .057ƚ | – | – | –.26 | .000*** | – | – | .28 | .000*** |
| DigOpen | – | – | –.05 | .500 | – | – | .00 | .997 | – | – | .06 | .373 |
| EXHAUSTION | WELL–BEING | GENERAL HEALTH | ||||||||||
| MODEL A | MODEL B | MODEL A | MODEL B | MODEL A | MODEL B | |||||||
| β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | |
| InvoFac | –.25 | .003** | –.22 | .008** | .13 | .141 | .10 | .237 | –.15 | .067ƚ | –.15 | .06ƚ |
| Control | –.14 | .034* | –.11 | .116 | .13 | .049* | .06 | .422 | –.02 | .806 | .00 | .960 |
| ICTResU | –.10 | .219 | –.09 | .291 | .04 | .670 | .06 | .475 | .20 | .016* | .19 | .028* |
| PersAs | –.02 | .862 | –.04 | .634 | .06 | .490 | .06 | .520 | .07 | .383 | .09 | .281 |
| Telepre | .30 | .000*** | .33 | .000*** | –.18 | .002** | –.19 | .001** | –.13 | .033* | –.15 | .022* |
| Age | – | – | .11 | .084ƚ | – | – | .10 | .114 | – | – | –.11 | .072ƚ |
| DigOpen | – | – | –.18 | .009** | – | – | .17 | .017* | – | – | .03 | .664 |
[i] Note. n = 324 (one missing indication of age). Model A = original structural model, model B = with control variables.
ƚ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 11
Bivariate correlations of ICT resources and stressors, outcome variables, and general resources and stressors.
| VARIABLES | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | InvoFac | ||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | ICTControl | .19** | |||||||||||||||||
| 3 | ICTResU | .56*** | .26*** | ||||||||||||||||
| 4 | PersAs | .48*** | .28*** | .47*** | |||||||||||||||
| 5 | Telepre | .05 | .16* | .08 | .02 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | JobSat | .38*** | .23** | .37*** | .35*** | –.05 | |||||||||||||
| 7 | IntQuit | –.29*** | –.3*** | –.22** | –.28*** | –.03 | –.76*** | ||||||||||||
| 8 | AffComm | .36*** | .36*** | .28*** | .33*** | .10ƚ | .81*** | –.87*** | |||||||||||
| 9 | Exhaustion | –.32*** | –.17* | –.26*** | –.21** | .26*** | –.49*** | .31** | –.27** | ||||||||||
| 10 | Wellbeing | .20** | .16* | .15* | .18* | –.15* | .50*** | –.36*** | .40*** | –.64*** | |||||||||
| 11 | GenHealth | –.01 | .01 | .14* | .09 | –.13* | .16* | –.10 | .1ƚ | –.40*** | .48*** | ||||||||
| 12 | Age | .03 | .19** | –.07 | .14* | –.05 | .14* | –.31*** | .34*** | .03 | .16* | –.10ƚ | |||||||
| 13 | DigOpen | .16* | .36*** | .11 | .08 | .14* | .06 | –.15* | .23** | –.20** | .20** | –.01 | .16* | ||||||
| 14 | JobCtrl | .20** | .68*** | .18** | .27*** | .10 | .31*** | –.37*** | .38*** | –.25*** | .16* | .12* | .28*** | .20** | |||||
| 15 | TaskComp | .09 | .15* | .09 | .08 | –.08 | .3*** | –.22** | .24*** | –.11ƚ | .22*** | .05 | .12* | .01 | .2** | ||||
| 16 | Particip | .41*** | .32*** | .16** | .24*** | –.05 | .47*** | –.44*** | .47*** | –.24*** | .20** | .09 | .15** | .14ƚ | .43*** | .21*** | |||
| 17 | QualOverl | –.10 | .09 | .02 | –.05 | .17* | –.03 | –.09 | .07 | .42*** | –.26*** | –.11ƚ | –.16* | –.07 | .07 | –.07 | –.05 | ||
| 18 | SocStres | –.27** | –.31*** | –.25** | –.26** | .10 | –.62*** | .52*** | –.53*** | .47*** | –.37*** | –.15ƚ | –.16** | –.11 | –.38*** | –.25** | –.40*** | .15ƚ | |
| 19 | POWT | –.46*** | –.21** | –.56*** | –.48*** | .03 | –.49*** | .34*** | –.33*** | .48*** | –.37*** | –.28*** | –.04 | –.17* | –.23** | –.20** | –.37*** | .29** | .40*** |
[i] Note. n = 324 (one missing indication of age).
ƚ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Table 12
Difference in explained variance in outcome variables.
| VARIABLES | ORIGINAL MODEL | INCL. ICT RESOURCES AND STRESSORS | ONLY TELEPRESSURE | ONLY ICT RESOURCES | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | R2 | Δ R2 | Δ in % | R2 | Δ R2 | Δ in % | R2 | Δ R2 | Δ in % | |
| GenHealth | .117 | .164 | .047 | 40.5% | .130 | .014 | 11.6% | .154 | .037 | 32.0% |
| Exhaustion | .461 | .517 | .056 | 12.1% | .506 | .045 | 9.7% | .469 | .007 | 1.6% |
| AffComm | .472 | .505 | .034 | 7.2% | .487 | .015 | 3.3% | .493 | .022 | 4.6% |
| Wellbeing | .254 | .265 | .011 | 4.3% | .264 | .010 | 4.1% | .254 | .000 | 0.0% |
| JobSat | .515 | .531 | .016 | 3.1% | .516 | .001 | 0.2% | .531 | .016 | 3.0% |
| IntQuit | .441 | .452 | .010 | 2.4% | .444 | .003 | 0.8% | .449 | .008 | 1.8% |
[i] Note. The original model contained the outcome variables general health, exhaustion, affective commitment, well-being, job satisfaction, intention to quit, the control variables age, attitude towards digital change and the predictors job control, completeness of work tasks, participation, qualitative overload, social stressors and problems with the organisation of work tasks.
Table 13
Overview of results for the final questionnaire.
| SCALE | RELIABILITY | CONSTRUCT VALIDITY | CRITERION VALIDITY | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEASUREMENT MODELS | MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE | MEAN DIFFERENCES IN ICT IMPORTANCE | PREDICTION OF HEALTH OUTCOMES | PREDICTION OF WORK ATTITUDES | MODERATION | ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL VARIABLES) | INCREMENTAL VALIDITY | ||
| Involvement facilitation | α = .85, ω = .85 | acceptable | yes | no | in part | yes | no | yes | yes |
| ICT control | α = .77, ω = .82 | acceptable | yes | no | in part | yes | for Job satisfaction | in part | yes |
| ICT resources & upgrades | α = .86, ω = .86 | acceptable | yes | no | in part | no | no | yes | yes |
| Telepressure | α = .90, ω = .90 | acceptable | yes | no | yes | no | - | yes | yes |
[i] Note. Measurement invariance, mean differences in ICT importance and incremental validity were analysed regarding the entire questionnaire, not individual scales.