ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Permission to use or adapt the scales had been obtained (see Appendix J). A consent form was completed by participants (see Appendix K) and a copy was given to all participants for their own records. Approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee: Human Research (Humaniora) of Stellenbosch University (see Appendix L). Written permission had been obtained (see Appendix M) from the College. All participants in this study were informed of the nature and purpose of this study and were requested to complete the informed consent form. Participants were informed that they had the right to terminate participation at any point in time. Anonymity was assured regarding

53 their responses and the contact numbers of public hospitals in the area close to the

college, together with the numbers of psychologists were included if any participant had psychological distress during or after completion of the

questionnaires. The completed questionnaires and consent forms were stored in a locked facility (a room on the campus with an alarm, armed response, security gate and locked cupboard). Access to the venue is strictly controlled and the keys to the cupboard are kept by the researcher and all electronic research working papers are password-protected. After the successful completion of the research, records will be kept in a safe place for five years, after which all records will be destroyed.

4.8 SUMMARY

Chapter 4 explained the methodology that was used regarding the research design, participants that were used, measuring instruments, different scales, data collection, data analysis and the ethical considerations of the study. The results of the data analysis are presented in chapter 5.

54

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the study. The results are reported according to the different objectives and hypotheses. The main aim of the study was to identify levels of stress overload among lecturers at a college and to investigate the relationships of certain correlates and predictive variables.

The research objectives for the study were as follows and are presented in the same order:

• To calculate the relevant descriptive statistics for the dependent variables across the levels of independent variables

• To investigate the internal consistency of all the scales

• To investigate the relationship between stress overload and the demographic variables, stressors, cognitive variables and coping strategies

• To investigate the correlations between the demographic variables, stress, cognitive variables and coping strategies

• To determine the range of coping strategies reported by the participants and their levels of stress overload across the coping strategies (problem solving, seeking social support and avoidance)

• To compare the levels of stress overload as recorded for the sample across the coping strategies (problem solving, seeking social support and avoidance)

• To determine the amount of variance in stress overload that is accounted for by the linear prediction of the independent demographic variables, occupational stressors and cognitive variables.

55 5.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

With regard to the first objective, the demographic statistics of the sample were calculated and are displayed in Table 4.1 (see chapter 4) and the means and standard deviations for the occupational stressors, cognitive variables and coping strategies and stress overload are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1

Means and Standard Deviations of Occupational Stressors, Cognitive Variables, Coping Strategies and Stress Overload (N = 145)

Measures M SD

Note: QWI = Quantitative Workload Inventory; ICAWS = Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale;

OCS = Organizational Constraints Scale; STRDS = Student and Teaching Demands Scale; CMS = Concern over Mistakes Scale; DTS = Distress Tolerance Scale; A-CSI (PS) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Problem Solving) A-CSI (SSS) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Seeking Social Support; ); A-CSI (A) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Avoidance); A-SOS (PV) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Personal Vulnerability); A-SOS (EL) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Event Load); A-SOS (T) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Total).

56 The means and standard deviations of stress overload scores (PV, EL & TS) of participants within the different coping strategies that they used (PS, SSS & A) and the level of coping (low, medium or high), are displayed in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2

Means and Standard Deviations of Adapted Stress Overload Subscale Scores (PV, EL & TS) within Different Coping Strategies (PS, SSS & A) Used and the Levels of Coping (Low, Medium, High) (N = 145)

Adapted Stress Overload Scale

A-SOS (PV) A-SOS (EL) A-SOS (TS)

Adapted Note: A-CSI (PS) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Problem Solving); A-CSI (SSS) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Seeking Social Support); A-CSI (A) = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Avoidance); A-SOS (PV) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Personal Vulnerability); A-SOS (EL) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Event Load); A-SOS (TS) = Adapted Stress Overload Scale (Total).

57 The means and standard deviations for the A-CSI problem solving subscale with regard to different levels of coping (low, medium and high) and the A-SOS subscales, EL, PV and TS are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3

Means and Standard Deviations for the Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Problem Solving) – with Regard to Different Levels of Coping (Low, Medium and High) and A-SOS EL, PV and TS (N=145)

Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (PS)

A-SOS Level of coping N M SD

Personal Vulnerability Low Note: A-CSI – PS = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator – Problem Solving; EL = Event Load; PV

= Personal Vulnerability; TS = Total Score; A-SOS = Adapted Stress Overload Scale.

According to Table 5.3 participants who used medium levels of problem solving coping style’s mean scores were higher than those who made use of the high levels of coping. The scores for the “low” usage were so low that no further analysis was done regarding “low”

usage.

The means and standard deviations for the A-CSI seeking social support subscale and Adapted Stress Overload scores are reported in Table 5.4

58 Table 5.4

Means and Standard Deviations for the Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Seeking Social Support) – with Regard to Different Levels of Coping (Low, Medium and High) and A-SOS EL, PV and TS. (N = 145)

Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (SSS)

A-SOS Level of coping N M SD

Personal Vulnerability Low Note: A-CSI – SSS = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator – Seeking Social Support; A-SOS=

Adapted Stress Overload Scale; EL=Event Load; PV=Personal Vulnerability; TS=Total Score; A-SOS = Adapted Stress Overload Scale.

According to Table 5.4 participants using SSS coping style’s average stress overload (EL) on all levels of coping (low, medium, and high) revealed higher scores when compared with the average stress overload (PV) on all levels (low, medium, and high).

The means and standard deviations for the A-CSI avoidance subscale are presented in Table 5.5.

59 Table 5.5

Means and Standard Deviations for the Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (Avoidance) – with Regard to Different Levels of Coping (Low, Medium and High) and A-SOS EL, PV and TS (N = 145)

Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator (A)

A-SOS Level of coping N M SD

Personal Note: A-CSI – A = Adapted Coping Strategy Indicator - Avoidance; A-SOS= Adapted Stress Overload Scale; EL = Event Load; PV = Personal Vulnerability; TS = Total Score.

Lecturers using the A-CSI (A) coping strategy SOS (EL) revealed higher scores than those of SOS (PV) as can be seen in Table 5.5.

5.3 INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES OF THE MEASURING SCALES