THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB SATISFACTION,
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND TURNOVER INTENT
AMONG CERTIFIED REHABILITATION COUNSELORS
By
Terrie Ellery Hylton

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Rehabilitation Counselor Education - Doctor of Philosophy
2013

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB SATISFACTION,
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND TURNOVER INTENT
OF REHABILITATION COUNSELORS
By
Terrie Ellery Hylton
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intent for certified rehabilitation counselors (CRCs).
Participants included 283 rehabilitation counselors from across the United States who were
certified by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC); they responded
to an online survey containing 10 demographic questions, 65 survey items (instruments: Job
Satisfaction Survey, Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, Turnover Intent Survey, and
two short answer questions) hosted by a data collection service provider. Results indicated that
job satisfaction was only significant and positively related on three aspects of normative
commitment (promotion, supervision, and nature of work), all aspects of affirmative
commitment and negatively related on three aspects of continence commitment (promotion,
operating conditions, and communication). Both job satisfaction and organizational commitment
were negatively and significantly related to TOI. The most rewarding aspect of being a
rehabilitation counselor was “assisting others to reach their goals” (111 responses), and the most
frustrating aspect was “tasks/paperwork” (110 responses). A large number of the participants
were between 40 and 59 years old, Caucasian, female, and worked for a state rehabilitation
program for less than 10 years in an urban setting. Work setting was the only specific control
variable to have a possible mitigating effect on JS, OC and TOI, and the findings suggested older
CRCs were the least likely to have TOI. Discussion, implications, and areas of future research
were addressed.

Copyright by
TERRIE ELLERY HYLTON
2013

DEDICATION
I dedicate this study to my son, Kenneth Hylton III.
He has been a source of inspiration in my achievement of this personal goal.
Success is determined by perseverance, hard work, and being curious
about when, what, where, how, and why things happen.
I also dedicate this study to my parents, George and Hannah Ellery.
They devoted their lives to social justice, civil rights, and life-long learning.
They instilled in me a passion for scholarship and passed away during my studies.

iv

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I am deeply grateful to my family, friends, colleagues, and mentors who have supported
this project in many ways. In particular, I wish to thank my dissertation guidance committee
members: Dr. John Kosciulek, Dr. Connie Sung, Dr. Mark Reckase, and my chairman, Dr.
Michael Leahy, whose support, expertise, encouragement, friendship, and patience were
unwavering during the writing of this dissertation.
I acknowledge the influence and contributions of Dr. Chandra Donnell, who was my first
committee chairperson and accepted employment at another university; Dr. Virginia Thielsen, a
committee member who retired before the conclusion of my studies; and Dr. Samuel Drake, who
tutored me in statistics. I also acknowledge Dr. Nancy Crewe for her kindness and assistance
during the formation of my research topic and first committee meeting. She passed away before
the completion of the dissertation. I make a special thank you to Sue Pauling who assisted with
the final draft and APA formatting of the dissertation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
Problem Statement ...............................................................................................................2
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................5
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................6
Research Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................6
Context of the Study ............................................................................................................7
Assumptions.........................................................................................................................8
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................10
Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................................................10
Organizational Commitment ..............................................................................................17
TOI .....................................................................................................................................21
Control Variables ...............................................................................................................24
Work Setting ..........................................................................................................25
Work State .............................................................................................................25
Geographic Variables.............................................................................................26
Tenure ....................................................................................................................26
Educational Degree and Major ..............................................................................27
Ethnicity .................................................................................................................27
Age .........................................................................................................................28
Gender ....................................................................................................................28
Summary ............................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 3: METHOD ...............................................................................................................30
Participants .........................................................................................................................30
Variables and Instruments..................................................................................................31
Procedures ..........................................................................................................................35
Research Design and Data Analyses..................................................................................37
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...............................................................................................................41
Participation .......................................................................................................................41
Demographics ....................................................................................................................44
Quantitative Analyses ........................................................................................................50

vi

Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................50
Correlations Among Variables ..............................................................................53
Correlation matrix: Job satisfaction and TOI.............................................53
Correlation matrix: Organizational commitment and TOI ........................54
Correlation matrix: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment .......54
Control Variables ...................................................................................................57
Job Satisfaction and Specific Control Variables ....................................................57
Organizational Commitment and Specific Control Variables ...............................60
TOI and Specific Control Variables ......................................................................63
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, TOI, and Specific
Control Variables ...........................................................................................65
Qualitative Analyses ..........................................................................................................65
Rewards..................................................................................................................66
Service to others .........................................................................................67
Assisting others to achieve their goals .......................................................67
Well-being..................................................................................................67
Coworkers and professional contacts.........................................................68
Pay/benefits ................................................................................................68
Recognition for work .................................................................................68
Training new professionals ........................................................................69
Professional and career development.........................................................69
Assisting with organizational chane ..........................................................69
Frustrations ............................................................................................................70
Tasks/paperwork ........................................................................................70
Supervision/leadership ...............................................................................71
Pay/benefits ................................................................................................71
Work environment .....................................................................................71
Policies/regulations ....................................................................................72
Coworkers ..................................................................................................72
Communication ..........................................................................................72
Customers/clients .......................................................................................73
Resources ...................................................................................................73
Professional and career development.........................................................73
Overlapping Themes ..............................................................................................75
Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................76
Hypothesis 1 ..........................................................................................................76
Hypothesis 2...........................................................................................................76
Summary of Results ...........................................................................................................78
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................80
Research Questions ............................................................................................................80
Question 1 ..............................................................................................................81
Question 2 ..............................................................................................................81
Question 3 ..............................................................................................................82
Question 4 ..............................................................................................................83
Question 5 ..............................................................................................................83

vii

Relationship of the Findings to Theoretical Framework ...................................................83
Implications........................................................................................................................86
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselors ...........................................................86
Implications for Rehabilitation Agencies ..............................................................86
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators ............................................90
Future Research .................................................................................................................91
Limitations .........................................................................................................................95
Responsiveness ......................................................................................................95
Certification ...........................................................................................................96
Time of Year ..........................................................................................................96
Historical Setting ...................................................................................................96
Moment in Time ....................................................................................................97
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................97
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................100
APPENDIX A: JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY .......................................................101
APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ...........103
APPENDIX C: TURNOVER INTENT SURVEY .......................................................105
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................106
APPENDIX E: RESEARCH INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION
CONSENT FORM ..............................................................................108
APPENDIX F: EMAIL LETTER ................................................................................110
APPENDIX G: REMINDER EMAIL ..........................................................................111
APPENDIX H: CONTINUING CREDIT EMAIL .......................................................112
APPENDIX I: CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG JOB SATISFACTION
VARIABLES AND TOI .....................................................................113
APPENDIX J: CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT VARIABLES AND TOI ........................................115
APPENDIX K: CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG JOB SATISFACTION
AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT VARIABLES ...........116
APPENDIX L: JOB SATISFACTION AND SPECIFIC CONTROL
VARIABLES.......................................................................................118
APPENDIX M: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND SPECIFIC
CONTROL VARIABLES ...................................................................132
APPENDIX N: TOI AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES ...............................142
APPENDIX O: JOB SATISFACTION, ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT,
TOI, AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES ..............................147
APPENDIX P: REWARDING RESPONSES BY THEME ........................................150
APPENDIX Q: FRUSTRATING RESPONSES BY THEME .....................................162
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................178

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Comparison of Population and Sample Characteristics ............................................45

Table 2:

Professional Tenure as Rehabilitation Counselor .....................................................46

Table 3:

Organization Tenure of Rehabilitation Counselors with Current Organization .......47

Table 4:

Work Settings for Rehabilitation Counselors ...........................................................47

Table 5:

Geographic Work Settings for Rehabilitation Counselors........................................48

Table 6:

Geographic Regions of Rehabilitation Counselors ...................................................49

Table 7:

College Degree Majors of Rehabilitation Counselors .............................................50

Table 8:

Job Satisfaction of CRCs ..........................................................................................51

Table 9:

Organizational Commitment of CRCs ......................................................................52

Table 10:

TOI of CRCs .............................................................................................................52

Table 11:

Counselor Reward Responses by Theme ..................................................................70

Table 12:

Counselor Frustration Responses by Themes ...........................................................74

Table 13:

Overlapping Themes .................................................................................................75

Table 14:

Regression Analysis of Main Model.........................................................................78

Table I1:

Correlation Matrix Among JS Variables and TOI ..................................................113

Table J1:

Correlation Matrix Among OC Variables and TOI ................................................115

Table K1:

Correlation Matrix Among JS and OC Variables ...................................................116

Table L1:

JS and Age ..............................................................................................................118

Table L2:

JS and Age ANOVA ...............................................................................................119

Table L3:

JS and Gender .........................................................................................................120

Table L4:

JS and Gender ANOVA ..........................................................................................121

Table L5:

JS and Ethnicity ......................................................................................................122

ix

Table L6:

JS and Ethnicity ANOVA .......................................................................................123

Table L7:

JS and Geographic Setting ......................................................................................124

Table L8:

JS and Geographic Setting ANOVA.......................................................................125

Table L9:

JS and Work Setting................................................................................................126

Table L10: JS and Work Setting ANOVA ................................................................................127
Table L11: JS and Organization Tenure ....................................................................................128
Table L12: JS and Organization Tenure ANOVA ....................................................................129
Table L13: JS and Professional Tenure .....................................................................................130
Table L14: JS and Professional Tenure ANOVA .....................................................................131
Table M1:

OC and Age.............................................................................................................132

Table M2:

OC and Age ANOVA .............................................................................................133

Table M3:

OC and Gender ......................................................................................................133

Table M4:

OC and Gender ANOVA ........................................................................................134

Table M5:

OC and Ethnicity.....................................................................................................135

Table M6:

OC and Ethnicity ANOVA .....................................................................................135

Table M7:

OC and Geographic Setting ....................................................................................136

Table M8:

OC and Geographic Setting ANOVA .....................................................................136

Table M9:

OC and Work Setting ..............................................................................................137

Table M10: OC and Work Setting ANOVA ..............................................................................137
Table M11: OC and Organization Tenure ..................................................................................138
Table M12: OC and Organization Tenure ANOVA...................................................................139
Table M13: OC and Professional Tenure ...................................................................................140
Table M14: OC and Professional Tenure ANOVA ....................................................................141

x

Table N1:

TOI and Age ...........................................................................................................142

Table N2:

TOI and Age ANOVA ............................................................................................142

Table N3:

TOI and Ethnicity ...................................................................................................142

Table N4:

TOI and Ethnicity ANOVA ....................................................................................143

Table N5:

TOI and Gender ......................................................................................................143

Table N6:

TOI and Gender ANOVA .......................................................................................143

Table N7:

TOI and Geographic Setting ...................................................................................143

Table N8:

TOI and Geographic Setting ANOVA ....................................................................144

Table N9:

TOI and Work Setting .............................................................................................144

Table N10: TOI and Work Setting ANOVA .............................................................................144
Table N11: TOI and Organization Tenure .................................................................................145
Table N12: TOI and Organization Tenure ANOVA .................................................................145
Table N13: TOI and Professional Tenure ..................................................................................145
Table N14: TOI and professional Tenure ANOVA ...................................................................146
Table O1:

JS, OC, TOI and Specific Control Variables ..................................................................................... 147

Table O2:

Coefficients ANOVA..............................................................................................149

Table O3:

Model Change Statistics .........................................................................................149

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Relationship between TOI, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and other control variables ........................................................................5
Figure 2: Variables used in correlation matrix and regression analyses .......................................40
Figure 3: Variables with the highest statistically significant correlations ....................................56
Figure 4: Future theoretical framework on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI with moderating variables.........................................................85

xii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

CARF

Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities

CB

Commission for the Blind

CRC

Certified Rehabilitation Counselor

CRCC

Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification

ICRC

Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient

IRB

Institutional Review Board

JIG

Job in General Scale

JSS

Job Satisfaction Survey

MOAQ

Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire

MSU

Michigan State University

NCCA

National Commission for Certifying Agencies

NRA

National Rehabilitation Association

OCQ

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire

RIPC

Research Information and Participant Consent Form

RSA

Rehabilitation Services Administration

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TOC

Turnover Cognitions

TOI

Turnover Intent

VA

Veteran Administration

VR

Vocational Rehabilitation

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The ability of an organization to reach its goals is dependent upon the individuals who
perform the jobs associated with the goals. Retaining qualified and skilled staff is essential for
the sustainability of an organization. Over the decades, turnover intent (TOI) research has been
examined incorporating a variety of variables for many occupations.
The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational
Outlook Handbook defined the duties of rehabilitation counselors as “helping people with
emotional and physical disabilities to overcome personal, social, and professional effects of
disabilities as they relate to employment or independent living” (2012). The Commission on
Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC, 2012) described rehabilitation counselors as
follows:
The only professional counselors educated and trained at the graduate level specifically to
serve individuals with disabilities. Through a comprehensive and unique counseling
process, rehabilitation counselors help individuals with disabilities set and achieve their
personal, career, and independent living goals. They are the bridge between the person
and self-sufficiency, helping them to live on their own, which typically includes securing,
or returning to, productive, meaningful work.
TOI research has had an empirical focus on attitudinal variables, and job satisfaction has
received a significant amount of attention. Over the decades, the results of the research suggests
a negative relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary TOI (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar,
1992; Brewer & Clippard, 2002; Bright, 2008; Carroll, 1969; Chung-Yan, 2010; Coomber &
Barriball, 2007; Evans & Hohenshil, 1997; Hellman, 1997; Huang, 2012; Hulin, 1965; Mobley,
1977; Poon, 2004; Shaw, 1999; Sweeney, Hohenshil, & Fortune, 2002). Additional research
implies the same is true for rehabilitation counselors (Andrew, Faubion, & Palmer 2002;
Armstrong, Hawley, Blankenship, Lewis, & Hurley, 2008; Biggs, Flett, Voges, & Alpass, 1995;
Garske, 1999; Szymanski & Parker, 1995; Wright & Terrian 1987). Organizational commitment

1

attempts to explain why individuals choose to remain within an organization even when
dissatisfaction is present. The incorporation of organizational commitment into empirical
research on job satisfaction has begun to evaluate the additional determinants of voluntary
turnover (Baird, 2006; Begley & Czajka, 1993; Bozeman & Perrewe, 2001; Chiu & Francesco,
2003; Clugston, 2000; Cramer, 1996; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Huang, 2012; Moynihan, Boswell,
& Boudreau, 2000; Porter, Steers, & Mowday, 1974; Shore & Martin, 1989; Tett & Meyer,
1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992; Vandenberg & Tremblay, 2008).
This chapter describes a study that adds to the understanding of the relationship of TOI to
job satisfaction and organizational commitment among certified rehabilitation counselors
(CRCs). Chapter 1 contains the theoretical framework of the study with its problem statement
and purpose and also presents an overview of the research questions, hypotheses, assumptions,
and operational terms.
Problem Statement
Within the realm of rehabilitation counseling in the United States, researchers have been
concerned about the retention of staff. CRCs voluntarily leaving their employment (TOI) has
been noted as an issue in public and private rehabilitation organizations (Armstrong, Hawley, &
Blankenship et al., 2008; Barrett, Riggar, Flowers, Crimando, & Bailey, 1997; Bishop, Crystal,
& Sheppard-Jones, 2003; Chan, 2003; Crimando, Riggar, & Hansen, 1986; Dew, Alan, &
Tomlinson, 2008; Layne, Hohenshil, & Singh, 2004; Pitt, 2009; Riggar, Hansen, & Crimando,
1987). The National Rehabilitation Association (NRA) in its 2008 Issue Statements noted the
average annual turnover rate of CRCs was approximately 16% in public rehabilitation
organizations (2008). Some counselors left employment due to retirement, but others voluntarily
left their rehabilitation organizations for nonretirement reasons. Direct and indirect costs are

2

associated with turnover to organizations. The costs include the loss of intellectual capital, lower
productivity, declining morale, increased efforts for recruiting, constant training of new
counselors (time, travel, diversion of seasoned counselors, payment for courses/workshops), and
loss of customers, among other reasons (Barrett et al., 1997; Bishop, et al. 2003; Chan, 2003;
Chan, Leahy, Saunders, Tarvydas, Ferrin, & Lee, 2003; Mobley, 1982a; Muthard, & Miller,
1964; Roessler, & Mullins, 1995, Watrous, Huffman, & Pritchard 2006). Rehabilitation
personnel in both private and public sector organizations are experiencing issues with turnover.
Armstrong, Hawley, Lewis, Blankenship, and Pugsley (2008) found that 50% of individuals
working in rehabilitation settings with less than 5 years on the job were planning to leave their
employing organization within 2 years.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study involved the integration of research on TOI and
the constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Rehabilitation organizations
integrate resources to provide employment services to people with disabilities (Bishop, 2001).
Rehabilitation organizations are service providers assisting people with disabilities to obtain and
retain employment. Employment services produced by the rehabilitation organizations are often
the work of counselors who have earned masters’ degrees (Capella & Andrew, 2004). The
United States has approximately 100 universities with master degree programs in rehabilitation
counseling, but not all practitioners have the specific degree major of rehabilitation counseling.
Practicing CRCs may have earned master degrees in various human service fields including
psychology, social work, and education (Chan & Ruedel, 2005). Approximately 40% of the
practicing CRCs became knowledgeable about the field through personal friendships or
professional contacts with rehabilitation practitioners (Bishop et al., 2003; Mitus, 2006).

3

Organizations have a need to reach their service goals to continue their funding and stay
in the business of rehabilitation services. Employees have needs such as those described as
subscale factors of the job satisfaction survey that include pay, promotion, supervision, fringe
benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of the work, and
communication (Spector, 1997). Organizations and employees have needs, and it is important for
the sustainability of rehabilitation service business to meet the needs of both parties.
The theory of organizational commitment is well established (Meyer & Allen, 1991,
1997; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Commitment encompasses various definitions (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982) including behavioral (Sheridan, 1992), psychological (Allen & Meyer,
1996), reward (Twenge, 2010), return-on-investment (Satcher & McGhee, 1996), and costs
(Pepe, 2010). Research on organizational commitment and job satisfaction has found that each
construct contributes uniquely to the turnover process of individuals leaving their employing
organization (Baird, 2006; Biggs et al., 1995; Cramer, 1996; Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Huang,
2012; Moynihan et al., 2000; Pitt, 2009; Shore & Martin, 1989; Silverthorne, 2004; Tett &
Meyer, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992; Vandenberg & Tremblay, 2008). This study built on
the body of research on TOI, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The study also
examined moderators described as demographic control variables for potential influence on job
satisfaction and organizational commitment that may lead to TOI (see Figure 1).

4

Other
Control
Variables

Organizational
Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Turnover Intent
Figure 1. Relationship between TOI, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and other
control variables.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and TOI in rehabilitation counseling organizations. A concurrent
mixed methods approach to the research was utilized to gather both quantitative and qualitative
data. This study examined whether the various job satisfaction factors and specific dimensions of
organizational commitment (independent variables) have a relationship to the TOI (dependent
variable) of a counselor. At the same time the relationship of specific rehabilitation counselor
work conditions were explored using qualitative questions to examine themes of specific rewards
and frustrations of rehabilitation counselor employment.
This study added to the current body of literature. Although research has been conducted
that examines the relationship of job satisfaction and TOI, and organizational commitment and

5

TOI in other occupations, limited research has been specifically undertaken within the field of
rehabilitation counseling. Previous research of CRCs has been in a state rehabilitation
organization, a single worksite of a veteran vocational rehabilitation organization, and in a
private not-for-profit organization. No published research has yet examined all three concepts
across the United States of public and private organizations employing CRCs. In addition, this
study utilized qualitative research to further understand aspects of working as a rehabilitation
counselor that are both rewarding and challenging.
Research Questions
The primary focus of the study was to explore the relationship between CRC job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and intent to turnover, and
organizational commitment and intention to turnover. The study examined the relationship of
specific demographic variables to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to
leave. The research questions were as follows:
Q1

What are the current levels of job satisfaction among CRCs?

Q2

What are the current levels of organizational commitment among CRCs?

Q3

What is the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment?

Q4

What effect does job satisfaction and organizational commitment have on the TOI
of CRCs?

Q5

How do CRCs describe the rewards and challenges of their employment
experiences?
Research Hypotheses

The query of CRC intent to turnover in employment is a broad and complex subject that
includes many variables. The focus of this study was limited to exploring the interrelationships

6

of counselor job satisfaction and organizational commitment (independent variables) on TOI
(dependent variable). Therefore, two hypotheses were tested:
H1

Job satisfaction is significantly related to organizational commitment.

H2

Job satisfaction and organizational commitment is significantly related to TOI.
Context of the Study

This was a national study utilizing a sample of CRCs controlled by the CRCC. This study
was specifically interested in participants who had at least masters’ degrees and were employed
as CRCs. The website of the CRCC (2012) describes its organization as
an independent, not-for-profit organization that sets the standard for quality rehabilitation
counseling services through its internationally recognized certification program.
Individuals passing the voluntary certification examination become qualified as Certified
Rehabilitation Counselors, or CRCs. To maintain the CRC designation, individuals are
required to renew their certification every 5 years, either through re-examination or by
meeting specific ongoing educational requirements. The CRC Certification Program is
accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA).
CRCs assist people with disabilities to prepare for, find, and keep employment.
Counselors work in a variety of settings in the public and private sectors. The public sector
organizations include state vocational rehabilitation services, commissions for the blind, and
federal rehabilitation services for veterans. The private sector of rehabilitation organizations
includes private for-profit (insurance company, private practice) and private nonprofit
(community rehabilitation organization, hospital, school) organizations. CRCs with masters’
degrees have a variety of employment options outside the traditional practice settings in
rehabilitation counseling. Counselors could be employed in businesses (human resources,
employee assistance programs), universities (counseling, employee assistance, job placement,
administration), community organizations (therapy, referral, community services, advocacy),
state departments (human services, labor, education, civil service, social services, civil rights),

7

and federal agencies (education, health, social welfare, census bureau, veteran affairs)
(Patterson, 2009). Given the multiple employment options for CRCs, this study focused on the
sustainability of CRCs within traditional rehabilitation practice settings and organizations
assisting individuals with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment.
Assumptions
Assumptions are ideas the researcher presumes to be true and logical during the course of
the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Several presuppositions of the study were essential and
fundamental for this research. Assumptions associated with participants included representation,
volunteerism, understanding, independence, honesty, delivery, environment, and time. The
researcher assumed the CRCC professional organization is a means to reach counselors who are
certified, have earned at least a masters’ degree, and are working as CRCs. The researcher
supposed each participant would voluntarily complete the online survey without threats or
coercion. The researcher assumed the language of the survey instrument was clear and
understandable by the participants. The researcher expected the participants to complete the
survey on their own and without influence from others. The researcher anticipated the
participants would answer the questions truthfully. The researcher inferred that the delivery of
the online survey was convenient and accessible by the participants. The researcher expected the
participants would be able to complete the survey in a comfortable environment. The researcher
believed the participants’ time to complete the online survey was reasonable and adequate to
obtain information for the study.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions of terms are used throughout this study:

8

Employing organization. Employing organization is defined as an engagement of hire in
which money is exchanged for the employees delivery of services and is operating in the United
States within the public sector (government owned, operated, and funded with tax dollars) or
private sector (individually or company owned and operated).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined as the extent to which people like
(satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs (Spector, 1997). For purposes of this study,
satisfaction was examined on the subscales of pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,
contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of the work, and communication.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is defined as being
multidimensional with three forms: affective commitment as the strength of an employee’s
identification with and involvement within an organization, normative commitment as a sense of
moral obligation or duty to remain with an organization, and continuance commitment as the
recognition of investment loss upon leaving an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1991).
Organizational tenure. Organizational tenure is defined as the amount of time an
employee maintains a position within an organization.
Turnover intent (TOI). TOI is defined as the conscious and deliberate willingness of an
employee to voluntarily leave an organization (Crimando et al., 1986).

9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The review of literature relevant to this study provides an overview of research for the
theoretical base. The literature is organized by relationship to the variables. The chapter reviews
literature on job satisfaction and then discusses both organizational commitment and TOI.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a complex construct because it is related to individuals’ feelings about
their jobs. Researchers have attempted to identify components of job satisfaction to understand
TOI. Locke (1969) described job satisfaction as a fulfilled emotional state accomplished through
self-assessment and one’s job being in alignment with one’s job values, and dissatisfaction as an
unpleasant emotional state when the job and values are not harmonious. Job satisfaction was
defined as the emotional response to the job situation based on what the individual wants from
the job (Carroll, 1969; Hulin, 1965). Spector (1997) defined job satisfaction as all the feelings an
individual has about his/her job.
The definitions imply job satisfaction can be netted by using a one-dimensional model for
overall job satisfaction or a multidimensional model or multifaceted construct capturing the
independent aspects that influence the emotional state of job satisfaction. The different aspects
are independent and should be measured separately to capture the degree of influence each has
on job satisfaction. Potter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) argued that the magnitude of an
employee’s job satisfaction was a cumulative level of the individuals’ met expectations. Spector
(1997) utilized seven subscales to measure independent aspects of job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction has been studied for many years in relation to various constructs
including (a) TOI (Hellman, 1997; Shaw, 1999; Smits, 1972), (b) work performance (Miller, &
Muthard, 1965), (c) work location (Faubion, Palmer, & Andrew, 2001), (d) alternative work

10

opportunities (Hwang, & Kuo, 2006), (e) person-environment fit (Lyons, & O’Brien, 2006; Pitt,
2009), (f) leadership style (Packard, & Kauppi, 1999), and (g) organizational commitment (Pepe,
2010; Porter et al., 1974; Vandenberg, & Lance, 1992).
One of the premier studies to examine the job satisfaction of CRCs was produced by
Miller and Muthard (1965). They examined job satisfaction as a predictor of job performance of
141 CRCs from six state agencies. Job satisfaction dimensions of caseload size, security,
promotion, and pay were significantly related to the performance criteria of successful
rehabilitation closures and speed of case movement through the state rehabilitation process.
Faubion, Palmer, and Andrew (2001) investigated job satisfaction difference of CRCs
practicing in rural and urban work locations. The 315 participants represented 16 state VR
agencies. The findings indicated there were no significant differences in overall job satisfaction
or the 15 demographic variables when studying the CRC’s work location.
Job satisfaction was found not to have a significant relationship to TOI unless it was
combined with work opportunities in a study of 259 executives and staff employed in the public
Taiwan government (Hwang & Kuo, 2006). Job satisfaction and perceived alternative
employment opportunities had a negative effect on TOI. When employees perceived their
opportunities as high, their TOI was also high. Employees quit their jobs because they had
already secured other jobs or believed they would quickly find new jobs.
The results of a study among 73 CRCs from one public state rehabilitation agency by Pitt
(2009) found that job satisfaction was positively related to person-environment fit and
continuance commitment. The job satisfaction subscales of pay and continuance commitment
were significantly and negatively correlated with TOI. Lyons and O’Brien (2006) found that

11

among 204 participants from public and private agencies and organizations, variance in job
satisfaction and TOI of African Americans was a result of person-environment fit.
Packard and Kauppi (1999) found the leadership style of supervisors for 105
rehabilitation employees significantly affected job satisfaction and resulted in differences of
service delivery. Employees who had a positive perception of their supervisor’s leadership style
had significant positive job satisfaction. Transference of positive job satisfaction led to timely
and more comprehensive rehabilitation services to people with disabilities.
In a study of 46 managers and clerical support within a retailer, Pepe’s (2010) findings
indicated as job satisfaction increased, so did the employees’ organizational commitment. The
perceived support of the supervisor was also a significant factor of the employees’ job
satisfaction. When the employees’ organizational commitment (affective and continuance) and
job satisfaction increased, their intent to leave significantly decreased and resulted in longer
organization tenure. In a longitudinal study over a 10.5 month period of 60 psychiatric technician
trainees, Porter, Steers, Mawday and Boulian (1974) found the relationship between
organizational commitment and TOI was stronger than the various components of job
satisfaction and TOI. The research studied the relationships at four intervals, and the relationship
with TOI was strongest when employees were close in time to leaving the organization. In a
causal relationship study of management information systems specialists by Vandenberg and
Lance (1992), findings supported the model of organizational commitment causing job
satisfaction.
Job satisfaction has been studied as a variable in explaining the TOI of employees for
many years. Some researchers have studied (a) the magnitude to the influence (Hom & Griffeth,
1991; Shaw, 1999; Tett & Meyer, 1993), (b) the size of the employing organization (Smits,

12

1972), and (c) private verses public sector employment (Hellman, 1997). The relationship
between job satisfaction and TOI is generally reported to be negatively related, but the
magnitude of the relationship varies in the research. Hom and Griffeth’s (1991) turnover model
theorized that job satisfaction and organizational commitment were separate constructs, and both
affected the TOI of employees. Tett and Meyer’s (1993) meta-analysis investigation of relative
contributions of job satisfaction and organizational commitments to TOI supported Hom and
Griffeth’s model, and their track analysis showed job satisfaction and organizational
commitment had independent and magnitude differences on TOI. Tett and Meyer (1993)
revealed job satisfaction was a stronger predictor of TOI than organizational commitment. Shaw
(1999) studied job satisfaction and TOI and the moderating role of positive affect on 194
participants. The results suggested the relationship between job satisfaction and intent to
turnover was negative for both high and low positive affect individuals although the magnitude
of the relationship was stronger for those high in positive affect.
In Smits’s (1972) study of 200 CRCs from 30 agencies across the United States, the
results indicated the turnover rate and variables varied according the size of the employing
organization. TOI in small organizations (100 people or less) was found to be remarkably related
to job satisfaction. Counselors in medium (100-199 employees) and large (200 or more
employees) organizations were significantly less satisfied with their employment than those
employed in small organizations. Counselors in medium organizations expressed dissatisfaction
with work conditions and supervisors. Counselors from large organizations expressed
dissatisfaction with contingent rewards, promotions, and pay.
In a meta-analysis of job satisfaction and TOI, Hellman (1997) found the job satisfaction
levels of public federal employees were significantly less than those of private sector employees.

13

Job satisfaction was negatively related to TOI. The career stage variables of age and tenure were
moderators for both job satisfaction and TOI.
Job satisfaction is an important variable in this study because empirical research has
shown a link associated with rehabilitation counselor TOI. Riggar, Hansen, and Crimando (1987)
examined Commission on Accredited Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) private sector employees
who left their organizations. Job satisfaction was noted as one of the significant variables of
turnover. The financial cost of turnover to the organization budget was also examined as a reason
for systematic organizational change. Barrett et al.’s (1997) investigation of 295 community
rehabilitation organizations in the Midwestern United States supported a link between the TOI of
rehabilitation personnel and job satisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the subscale of supervision was
a significant factor for stress, lack of accomplishment, and emotional exhaustion.
Armstrong, Hawley, Blankenship, Lewis, and Hurley (2008) studied job satisfaction and
TOI of CRCs in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. The results showed 80% of the
participants were satisfied with their job. However, 50% of the participants with less than 5 years
on the job were planning to leave the organization. The researcher noted this may have a
significant impact on the sustainability of desirable counselors to provide rehabilitation services.
Many job satisfaction instruments have been developed over the years. Finding
instruments that are reliable and valid for the study of CRCs is the responsibility of the
researcher. Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, and Frings-Dresen (2003) conducted a systematic
review of studies on job satisfaction instruments. They reviewed 35 studies and analyzed 29
instruments. Only seven instruments met the quality of the criteria: internal consistency
(Cronbach’s Alpha), test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation), and construct validity
(convergent, discriminant and content). Convergent validity of an instrument is the degree of

14

similarity in which two instruments that are supposed to measure the same concept, actually do.
Discriminant validity of an instrument is the degree that separate instruments measure a related
but different concept and the variance. Content validity refers to the degree at which the
instrument covers the whole concept (Van Saane et al., 2003). Four of the seven instruments that
met the criteria outlined by Van Saane et al. (2003) were developed for specific health care
occupations (nurses and emergency room physicians). The three remaining instruments
appropriate for use in this study of rehabilitation counselors were the Job in General Scale (JIG),
the Andrew and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
The Job in General Scale (JIG) is part of the Job Descriptive Index and was developed to
use with a heterogeneous population (Van Saane et al., 2003). It was designed to measure global
job satisfaction with 18 items on a 3-response choice scale: agrees (yes), not sure (?), or does not
agree (no) (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989). Although the instrument was
above the minimum internal consistency coefficient standard of 0.80 with a 0.91 total, it did not
have a score for test-retest and discriminant validity criteria (Van Saane et al., 2003). This
instrument was not selected because the researcher was seeking a multidimensional instrument
with known discriminate validity and at least a 5-point Likert-scale to measure the job
satisfaction of rehabilitation counselors.
The Andrew and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire was intended for use with a
heterogeneous population (Van Saane et al., 2003). It is a one-dimensional instrument designed
to measure global job satisfaction with five items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(delighted) to 7 (terrible) (Rentch & Steel, 1992). This instrument had a 0.81 internal consistency
coefficient but no known test-retest or discriminate validity. This was not the chosen instrument

15

for this study because the researcher was interested in a multidimensional instrument with tested
discriminate validity information because of the anticipated use of multiple instruments.
The JSS developed by Spector (1997) was designed for use in social service
organizations. CRCs work in service organizations. The JSS is a multidimensional instrument
including 36 items with 9 subscales with 4 items (pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,
contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of the work and communication).
The convergent validity can be measured for correlation among the subscales. The response
format is a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much). The
internal consistency coefficient is 0.91, the test-retest is 0.71 with an 18-month waiting period,
the convergent validity ranged from 0.61-0.81, and the discriminant validity range is 0.19-0.59
(Van Saane et al., 2003). JSS was selected as the instrument to measure job satisfaction in this
study due to the comprehensive information available on the reliability, construct validity, and
content validity (see Appendix A). Job satisfaction data are helpful for organizations to use to
improve policies and practices where dissatisfaction is expressed (Spector, 1997).
Other multidimensional job satisfaction instruments were considered for this study.
Gregson (1991) developed a 30-item Job Satisfaction Scale. Gregson identified five subscales of
job satisfaction: work, pay, supervision, coworkers, and promotion. This instrument was not
selected because the researcher wanted more subscales when studying CRCs. Spector’s (1997)
JSS is comparable to the Job Descriptive Index Scale (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) in that it
has the same major components. The JSS was preferred because it uses a Likert scale for
measuring responses. The Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (1967) has two longversions; both have 20 items and use a 5-point Likert scale. The Likert scales are slightly
different for each version. The inventories consist of one item for each subscale and an overall

16

job satisfaction score. The short version uses the 20 items, but the results are condensed into
three scores of intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall satisfaction. These questionnaires were rejected
because the researcher wanted more than one item represented per subscale. The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ) has three questions for the job satisfaction
portion, and a 7-point Likert scale is used to measure responses; however, it only measures
overall job satisfaction. The researcher was seeking information on multiple subscales; therefore,
this instrument was not used in the study.
Although previous studies have found a negative relationship between job satisfaction
and TOI, job satisfaction alone does not explain the variance and organizational commitment has
been studied as a contributor to TOI. This study examined the relationship of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on TOI among CRCs.
Organizational Commitment
The definition of organizational commitment has emerged over the years as an
individual’s connection and involvement in an organization. Buchanan (1974) defined
organizational commitment as a “partisan affective attachment to the goals and values of an
organization, to one’s role in relation to these goals and values and to the organization for its
own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth.” Mowday et al. (1982) defined
organizational commitment as the “relative strength of an individual’s identification with and
involvement in a particular organization.” The concept encapsulates both attitudes and behaviors
of the employee.
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) defined organizational commitment as “a bond or linking of
the individual to the organization.” Meyer and Allen (1997) defined organizational commitment
as “a multidimensional construct. Commitment can take different forms and can be directed at

17

different constituencies in the organization.” Organizational commitment was divided into a
three components: affective, normative, and continuance. As a research construct, organizational
commitment has been studied for many years. Organizational effectiveness and motivation was
studied by nineteenth century philosopher Max Weber over 100 years ago. Although Weber did
not explicitly use the words organizational commitment, his focus was on bureaucracies, goal
attainment, individual drive, and bureaucratic conditions that corresponded to the organizational
commitment construct (Wren, 2005). At the beginning of the twentieth century, philosopher
Mary Parker Follett developed theories on organizational management and commitment.
Follett’s approach to organizational commitment was humanistic and holistic. Follett believed
“An organization must be grounded upon recognition of the motivating desires of the individual
and the group” (Feldheim, 2004). Follett’s fundamental understanding of behavior is based on
(a) how a person reacts to another, (b) the relationship of the two parties, and (c) how both the
person and the relationship affect the response. The individual’s organizational commitment is
through direct and responsible participation (Feldheim, 2004).
Similar to Follett’s theory of organizational commitment, Becker (1960) based his
concept of organizational commitment on recognition of the individual needs. Becker separated
commitment behaviors and the act of being committed. His theory incorporated the side-bet
theory in that the efforts of the employee are directly associated with valued returns. Individuals
make turnover decisions based on weighing the odds and consequences of leaving an
organization. The side bets can be created by both employee and organization. For example,
employees may be disinclined to leave an organization for coworker reasons if it might impact
their professional reputations. Employees exchange their services (work time and effort) to an
organization (employee) for intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and recognitions.

18

Porter et al.’s (1974) concept of organizational commitment contained three dimensions
based on the employee and organization having intertwined principles, needs, and aims. This
affective response (attitude) was based on the employee’s evaluation of the organization. They
described organizational commitment as follows:
1. A strong belief in and acceptance of the organizations goals and values,
2. A willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, and
3. A definite desire to maintain membership in the organization. (Porter et al., 1974)
Similar to Porter et al. (1974), Lincoln and Kallenberg (1990) suggested that employees with
high levels of organizational commitment identified with the organization and internalized the
goals and values of the organization. The employee’s commitment had behavioral components
with the employee exerting effort on behalf of the organization and resulted in the employee
internalizing the organization’s failures and successes as personal failures and successes. The
behavior also included locality with the employee’s continued tenure in the organization or no
TOI.
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) concept of organizational commitment took a different
approach to commitment, considering it to be a psychological state consisting of three
dimensions:
1. Affective commitment items represent the feelings an individual has by being
connected to an organization,
2. Normative commitment items represent the duty or moral obligation to remain with
an organization, and
3. Continuance commitment represents the understanding of investment loss or the costs
associated with voluntarily leaving an organization. (Meyer & Allen, 1991)
Organizational commitment research has evolved to include (a) group diversity
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2004), (b) strategic change (Lines, 2004), (c) leadership practices
(Nicholson, 2009), (d) absenteeism (Somers, 1995), (e) supervisor gender (Potter, 2012), and (e)

19

generational differences (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Researchers have studied organizational
commitment and various populations including call center employees (Nicholson, 2009), hotel
managers (Carbery, Garavan, Obrien, & McDonnell, 2003), coaching staff (Cunningham &
Sagas, 2004); Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001), nurses (Huang, 2012), school career
counselors (Baggerly & Osborne, 2006), psychiatric technicians (Porter, Sterns, & Mowday,
1974), and CRCs (Mitus, 2006; Pitts, 2009; Satcher & McGhee, 1996). Studies have investigated
the differences of private and public sector employees’ organizational commitment and have
consistently shown that private sector employees had greater organizational commitment than
public sector employees (Buchanan, 1974; Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2006). Organizational
commitment has been associated with the job satisfaction subscale of supervision for public and
private sector employees (Buchanan, 1974; Zaffane, 1994). Public sector employees’
organizational commitment has been linked to the nature of their work (intellectually stimulating
and challenging) (Lyons et al., 2006).
The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Meyer and Allen
(1991) extended and incorporated the attitudinal and behavioral intentions of commitment into
one instrument; this was a divergence from Mowday et al.’s (1982) model. The three
commitment dimensions are components of commitment, not commitment types. The
individual’s organizational commitment can reflect various degrees of each component. This
multidimensional model unified the attitudinal elements offered by Porter et al. (1974) with the
behavioral elements of Becker’s (1960) side-bet theory. This three-component model represented
the first methodical model of different commitment constructs (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
The OCQ has been utilized by researchers for quantitative assessment of organizational
commitment studies (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer & Allen, 1990, 1991; Nicholson,

20

2009). The OCQ is a 24-item instrument with three scales and eight items per dimension (see
Appendix B). Meyer and Allen (1991) indicated each commitment dimension was independent
of the others. An employee can feel a strong need, strong desire, and strong obligation to an
organization, and another employee could feel a weak need, moderate desire, but strong
obligation to remain in an organization. Research has shown the OCQ to be a reliable and valid
instrument for quantitative research on organizational commitment as an independent variable. A
meta-analysis scale review yielded median reliabilities for affective (0.85), normative (0.73), and
continuance (0.79) scales (Meyer, & Allen, 1997). Factor-analysis indicated the OCQ
differentiates organizational commitment from job satisfaction (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Mathieu and Zajac’s (1990) analysis of control variables found a weak but positive
relationship with organizational commitment to age and tenure. Marchiori and Henkin (2004)
revealed a significant correlation between affective commitment and tenure. Nicholson (2009)
used the OCQ and found that tenure in an organization was not significantly correlated with
organizational commitment. The employee’s relationship with the employing organization could
be better understood when using all three organization commitment constructs of the OCQ.
Meyer and Allen (1974) found a positive correlation between affective commitments and
perceived working conditions, and a mixed correlation with continuance commitment to age and
tenure. Normative commitment was found to be positively correlated with working conditions
but was weaker than affective commitment.
TOI
Organizational commitment constructs are well studied, and a common research
approach is the consequences inquiry that includes individual TOI. Organizational commitment
has been inversely associated with TOI (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meta-analysis organizational

21

commitment studies by Cohen (1993) and Mathieu and Zajac (1990) and factor analysis studies
(Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Tetrick & Farkas, 1988) have shown a distention between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relationship to TOI.
The voluntary turnover of desirable employees, the event of physically separating from
an organization, is date- and event-specific, but empirical research has found that the intent to
turnover is a process (Mobley, 1977; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002; Watrous, Huffman,
& Pritchard, 2006; Wells & Peachey, 2011). Inherent in the process are the elements of change,
action, and time (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000; Begley & Czajka, 1993; Bozeman & Perrewe, 2001;
Price, 1989; Riggar, Hansen, & Crimando, 1987; Williams 1990). Over time employees must
desire a change in their current work status, weigh the consequences, and eventually take action
to terminate their employment.
Turnover involves the individual weighing and calculating the risks and benefits to
staying employed within an organization (Cohen, 1993). The study of organizational
commitment continues to be of interest due to the ability to predict employee TOI (Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982; Vandenberg & Tremblay, 2008). Employees could be
temporarily dissatisfied with their job but remain committed to the organization and not have
plans to voluntarily leave the organization (turnover).
Riggar, Hansen, and Crimando (1987) examined the costs of TOI, and Barrett et al.
(1997) produced a chart of monetary costs over a 10-year period to community rehabilitation
agencies: “The average agency had a 23.5% turnover rate that represented between $128,000 and
$200,600 of their annual budget.” The results of a study by Layne, Hohenshil, and Singh (2004)
indicated the occupational stress of being a counselor accounted for the TOI and not coping

22

resources or demographic variables. The participants were CRCs with membership in the
American Rehabilitation Counseling Association.
Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) found that turnover of new professionals could be attributed
to job satisfaction, and individual and organizational characteristics. They suggested supervisors
not dismiss the perceptions of the new employees but use them for the recruitment and retention
strategies. Nicholson (2009) found that affective, normative, and continuance commitments were
inversely related to TOI.
Turnover within an organization is generally thought to be associated with negative
consequences. In 1982 Mobley outlined the positive and negative consequences of turnover for
the employee and the organization. Negative consequences for an organization included costs
(recruiting, hiring, and training), productivity loss, loss of high performers, disruption of office
culture, decreased satisfaction for those that stay, and negative public relations. Positive
consequences for an organization included displacement of poor performers, infusion of new
energy and knowledge, increased mobility opportunities, increased satisfaction for those that
stay, and decreased withdrawal behaviors. Negative consequences for an individual employee
who decided to turnover included loss of seniority, disruption to family, and transition stress.
Positive consequences for an individual included increased earnings, less stress, better personorganization fit, and enhanced self-efficacy and self-development.
The relationship between job satisfaction and TOI is generally thought to be inversely
related (Tett & Meyer, 1993), but the significance of the relationship is not always consistent.
Hellman (1997) in a meta-analytic procedure determined that there was disparity in significance
when using the correlation coefficient as determined by Cohen (1993) (low r = .10, medium r =
.30 to large r = .50). Tett and Meyer (1993) in a meta-analysis from 155 studies found that

23

results varied when the studies used a single-item scale verses multi-item scales for job
satisfaction and organizational commitment both independently contributed to TOI. The
magnitude of the effect of job satisfaction and TOI was small (r =.10).
Job satisfaction alone may not be a consistent predictive factor of significant TOI, and
organizational commitment may moderate the relationship of the individual within the
employing organization. Therefore, using both a job satisfaction survey and an organizational
commitment survey should produce more information regarding the variance in the subscales of
job satisfaction (Vandenberg & Tremblay, 2008). Barrett et al. (1997) examined the TOI within
community rehabilitation agencies in Rehabilitation Services Administration Region 5 that
consisted of six states. The study results of the 295 participants indicated four variables were
significant predictors of personnel to leave the agency: limited advancement, job dissatisfaction,
stress, and supervisor’s style (Barrett et al., 1997; see Appendix C).
Using the constructs of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, this study used
inductive data analysis of the responses to two qualitative questions to learn more about the
meaning of the quantitative data produced by counselors on TOI (see Appendix C). The
researcher organized the narrative responses into broad patterns and analyzed the data to form
themes or categories as outlined in qualitative data analysis in Creswell (2009).
Control Variables
The researcher examined job satisfaction and organizational commitment with the control
variables of tenure (organization, job), type of employing organization (public, private),
geographic setting (urban, suburban, rural), work state, age, gender, ethnicity, level of degree,
and educational major (see Appendix D). This additional information assisted in the explanation

24

of the data specific to the field of rehabilitation counseling; all of these variables have been used
in studies involving various occupations.
Work Setting
The differences between an employing organization being private or public sector has
been given some attention (DeSantis & Durst, 1996; Farruggia, 1986). Most studies have focused
on one-occupation employers such as public sector federal, state, or county (Bishop, 2001;
Bright, 2008; Lambert & Paoline, 2010; Miller & Muthard, 1965 Satcher & McGhee, 1996;
Smits, 1972) or private sector (Larrabee, Janney, Ostrow, Withrow, Hobbs, & Burant, 2003;
Wagner, 2004). Argyriades (2003) found work setting (public vs. private) choices were the
results of employees maximizing their self-interests. The employee sought to obtain the greatest
personal rewards (pay, promotional opportunities, prestige, type of work, etc.) from the
organization.
In a meta-analysis study, Hellman (1997) found that employees in a federal agency were
less likely than private sector employees to leave their employing organization. In a 16-state
study, Armstrong, Hawley, Blankenship, Lewis, and Hurley (2008) found work setting does
affect the job satisfaction and TOI of rehabilitation counseling personnel. In the field of
rehabilitation services, a rehabilitation counselor’s work setting might be a factor influencing job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI.
Work State
A national study using a random sample from an organization membership list might not
produce representation from every state in the United States. Therefore, the researcher asked in
which state the participants worked and compared each to the total membership population of
CRCC to better understand the sample populace.

25

Geographic Variables
Community organizations and employment options are essential to assisting people with
disabilities find employment compatible with the client skills, abilities, and desired work. CRCs
rely upon and coordinate community supports, vendors, and employers for a range of client
services including, referrals, diagnostics, vocational evaluations, transportation, interpreting
services, employment, etc. The volume of clients may be factor of TOI. Urban areas of the
country have more people in a concentrated geographic area but may offer more community
supports harmonious with the needs of clients receiving rehabilitation services.
CRCs might also have more opportunities for personal employment in an urban area.
Private and public employers are more numerous in densely populated areas than sparsely
inhabited areas. Studies have found social workers (Little, 2010) and nurses (Reitz, 2010) who
worked in urban settings were significantly more likely to have TOIs than those from rural areas.
However, Chaaban (2006) found no significant difference in the TOI of nurse anesthetists who
worked in urban verses rural areas.
Tenure
Bedeian, Ferris, and Kacmar (1992) concluded there was a positive relationship between
tenure and job satisfaction. Studies have deducted that employees learn to modify their jobs over
time, adjust their personal needs, or feel more confident as they gain experience. Other studies
such as Brown, Hohenshil, and Brown (1998) did not find a significant relationship between
tenure on the job and job satisfaction. Mobley et al. (1979) and Price (1989) found that length of
time in an organization had a small but significant negative impact on employee turnover.
Organizational commitment has been positively correlated with tenure on the job (Bedeian et al.,

26

1992). As tenure increases within an organization, conceptually so do the employees’ benefits,
seniority, and status among peers (Hellman, 1997).
Educational Degree and Major
CRCs work with persons with different types and severities of disabilities. They also
work with employers providing personnel and business services. Studies related to rehabilitation
counselor qualifications found that individuals must acquire specific skills to meet the national
standard of a “qualified rehabilitation counseling service provider” (Armstrong, Hawley,
Blankenship, et al., 2008; Leahy, 2004). Rehabilitation counseling organizations have utilized
the graduate degree programs at universities to maximize their recruitment and retention of
counselors (Tansey, Bishop, & Smart, 2004). Not all master-degreed counselors have degrees in
rehabilitation counseling. Those with master degrees in other human service fields must take
additional classes and workshops to supplement their training and update their skills (Chan, et
al., 2003; Chan & Ruedel, 2005).
Ethnicity
Studies that specifically look at ethnicity as a moderator in job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI are limited. The dynamics of the individual’s cultural
ethnicity, role and function in the family may influence job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI. In a study by Lyons and O’Brien (2006), ethnicity did not emerge as a
moderator for TOI. African-American counselor satisfaction with employment ranged from
satisfied to very satisfied in a national study conducted by Jones, Hohenshil, and Burge (2009).
Difference of ethnicity within an organization was found to be associated with organizational
commitment. In a study by Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly (1992), large organization ethnic
differences were associated with the work unit and the individual, not the organization as a
whole. When in the minority, Caucasians were found to be more significantly affected by the
27

ethnic difference than non-Caucasians. The researcher added ethnicity as a control variable to
consider as a moderator for job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI.
Age
Age has been one of the most frequently utilized personal variables in research and has
shown to have positive effects on organizational commitment and TOI. Age has been associated
with continuance commitment factors. The individual understands the investment over time
(retirement, pension, pay raises position), the costs associated with voluntarily leaving an
organization, and if at their age a better option is available for employment (Bedeian, Ferris &
Kaemar, 1992; Carbery, Garavan, O’Brien, & McDonnell, 2003; Hellman, 1997; Meyer &
Allen, 1991). However, Sager, Varadarajan and Futrell (1988) found there was no significant
relationship between age and TOI.
Gender
Numerous studies have attempted to understand the differences in the job satisfaction and
organizational commitment between men and women. Some studies have established that
women were more satisfied and committed to their employing organization than men
(Cunningham, 2006), and others have shown that men were more satisfied than women (Lambert
& Paoline, 2010). Some studies have concluded that there were no significant differences
between the genders in job satisfaction (Oshagbemi, 2000; Smola & Sutton, 2002) or
organizational commitment (Baggerly & Osborne, 2006). Research found differences in gender
responses to the subscales of job satisfaction when there was no significant difference for overall
job satisfaction (Moynihan & Landuyt, 2008). Individuals who used sex as self-identification
were found to have higher rates of job satisfaction if the organization were comprised of higher
numbers like themselves (Tsui et al., 1992). With the varied correlations from previous studies,
the researcher decided to include gender as a control variable.
28

Summary
Research supports links between job satisfaction and TOI, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, and organizational commitment and TOI. The decision to leave an
organization is done on an individual level and over time. The process of evaluating the
circumstances for voluntary TOI is impacted by organizational, situational, and personal factors.
Studying the relationship of job satisfaction and organizational commitment with additional
work aspects and the voluntary TOI of CRCs may yield specific information for rehabilitation
organizations to consider and strategically plan for the recruitment and retention of desirable
CRCs.

29

CHAPTER 3: METHOD
This chapter describes the participants, variables, instruments, and procedures used in this
study. The chapter concludes by describing the selected research design and the proposed data
analyses.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on TOI of CRCs. In addition, this study examined whether the
various job satisfaction subscale variables mediated the relationship. For example, the
supervision subscale may mediate the relationship more strongly than the fringe benefits
subscale. In addition, the data were reviewed to determine if the separate organizational
commitment dimensions mediated the relationship. This study also looked for information on the
current field experiences of CRCs. Analysis of these data provided a picture of the workplace
qualities that may be required for the retention of CRCs.
Research questions were developed after a review of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI literature. The questions included the following:
1. What are levels of job satisfaction among CRCs?
2. What are the current levels of organizational commitment among CRCs?
3. What is the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment?
4. What effect does job satisfaction and organizational commitment have on the TOI of
CRCs?
5. How do CRCs describe the rewards and challenges of their employment experiences?
Participants
The population of interest in this study was CRCs with masters’ degrees working in
rehabilitation programs. The sample was drawn from a member list of the CRCC. Membership in

30

CRCC represents over 16,000 certified rehabilitation professionals working in public and private
institutions of rehabilitation service (CRCC, 2012). The CRCC was selected for this study
because it has the largest membership list of certified rehabilitation professionals. To maintain
membership, individuals must take an exam, pass the exam, and maintain their CRC through
ongoing professional development. The researcher asked CRCC to provide a random 10%
sample from its membership, or approximately 1,600 potential participants in this study.
Variables and Instruments
Independent variables are those variables that affect the outcome of the study. Job
satisfaction and organizational commitment were the independent variables of this study.
Dependent variables are the result of the independent variables’ influence. TOI was the
dependent variable of this study. Control variables are independent variables that potentially
influence the dependent variable. This study examined seven control variables such as age,
gender, ethnicity, work setting, geographic setting, organization tenure and professional tenure.
The quantitative portion of this study utilized three instruments: the Job Satisfaction Survey
(JSS), Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), and Turnover Intent Survey (TOI).
Two questions were developed for the qualitative portion of the study and a demographics
questionnaire was designed and included in addition to a research information and participant
consent form.
The Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix D) was developed by the researcher to
understand if the additional seven control variables influenced the dependent variable (TOI). The
seven control variables included age gender, ethnicity, work setting, geographic setting,
organization tenure and professional tenure. This portion of the instrument contained 10

31

questions. Consultation with an experienced researcher provided guidance for the format and
type of variables.
The job satisfaction survey developed by Spector (1997) was used to measure the job
satisfaction of CRCs within nine subscales: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,
contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of the work, and communication.
This portion of the instrument contains 36 items and uses a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much). Nineteen (19) items are negatively worded and
reversed scored, and seventeen (17) items are worded positively (see Appendix A). The
subscales consist of the following:


Pay (4 items, 1, 10, 19, 28, alpha .75)



Promotion (4 items, 2, 11, 20, 33, alpha .73)



Supervision (4 items, 3, 12, 21, 30, alpha .82)



Fringe Benefits (4 items, 4, 13, 22, 29, alpha .73)



Contingent Rewards (4 items, 5, 14, 23, 32, alpha .76)



Operating Conditions 4 items, 6,15,24,31, alpha .62)



Coworkers (4 items, 7,16, 25, 34, alpha .60)



Nature of the Work (4 items, 8, 17, 27, 35, alpha .78)



Communication (4 items, 9, 18, 26, 36, alpha .71)

The subscale scores for the four items were combined for a total score for the individual item.
The total satisfaction score of all 36 items, adding the subscales, yielded an alpha of .91, which is
considered good internal consistency reliability for an instrument (Spector, 1997).
The JSS was utilized in this study for a number of reasons. First is the ability to
separately study each subscale. Second is the frequent use of the instrument: 148 samples and

32

40,618 participants in the United States (Spector, 1997). Third, Spector originally developed the
instrument for use in human service organizations. Fourth, the instrument has been used for
many studies involving degreed professionals working in the social sciences: 125 samples and
8,242 participants (Spector, 1997). Fifth is the comprehensiveness of the subscales (subscales)
with multiple items. Sixth, it uses a Likert scale, which is a suitable design for this study.
The OCQ, developed by Meyer and Allen (1990, 1991), was used to measure
organizational commitment of CRCs on three dimensions: affective (identification), normative
(duty), and continuance (investment). The authors of the instrument concluded that
organizational commitment includes these three components that develop autonomously and
have different significances on the individual.
The OCQ by Allen and Meyer (1990) contains 24 items with eight items for each of the
three dimensions of organizational commitment. Seven of the items are worded negatively and
reverse scored (Appendix B):


Affective Commitment: The employee wants to stay with the organization
(emotional attachment) eight items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.



Normative Commitment: The employee feels obligated to stay with the
organization (moral attachment) eight items: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.



Continuance Commitment: The employee needs to stay with the organization
(consequences of leaving are too high) eight items: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.

The instrument utilizes a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) score the responses to the items. See Appendix B. The possible range of the
scores is 8 to 56. Higher scores are associated with higher levels of commitment to an
organization.

33

The acceptable threshold of internal consistency reliability coefficient (ICRC) for an
instrument is 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Meyer and Allen (1990) reported the internal
consistency reliability coefficients for each dimension of organizational commitment as 0.87 for
Affective Commitment, 0.75 for Normative Commitment, and 0.79 for Continuance
Commitment. The OCQ was utilized in this study for a number of reasons, including the
demonstrated validity of the instrument, each form of commitment, can be separately scored and
measured and the use of a Likert scale is a compatible design match for this study.
TOI was measured by the Turnover Cognitions (TOC) items combined by Bozeman and
Perrewe (2001) based on the TOI items developed by Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978)
and Mowday, Koberg, and McArthur (1984). Five statements are part of the TOI instrument.
Three of the TOI items are worded positively and reverse scored. The items have a 5-point Likert
scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The score range is
5 to 25. The coefficient alpha for this instrument is from 0.90 to 0.94 as cited by Bozeman and
Perrewe (2001). The TOC was selected for the TOI portion of this study for a number of reasons
including the briefness of the instrument—five statements, demonstrated high internal
consistency reliability and is the Likert scale design is a match for this study.
The internal-consistency method of estimating reliability of the surveys used in this study
involved comparing responses to different sets of items (job satisfaction, OCQ, TOI) that are part
of the whole instrument (survey emailed to CRCs). Cronbach’s alpha was used because it
requires only one test administration of the instrument for estimating internal consistency
reliability.
The participants were also asked to respond to two open-ended questions regarding job
characteristics. The questions were located at the end of the Turnover Intent Survey (Appendix

34

C). These questions were the qualitative portion of the study: (a) “What is the most rewarding
aspect of your current job?” and (b) “What is the most frustrating aspect of your current job?”
These qualitative questions were used for three reasons: (a) the brevity of the instrument (two
questions), (b) the grounded discovery for understanding the data being collected, and (c) the
“real” and “in depth” data of rehabilitation counselor work practices.
Participants were asked to review the Research Information and Participant Consent
(RIPC) Form prior to beginning the online survey. This portion of the instrument contained
information on the purpose of the study; defined participation, participant rights, potential
benefits and risks, and privacy and confidentiality; gave researcher contact information; and
outlined the process for providing informed consent. This form was developed under the
guidelines of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Michigan State University (MSU; see
Appendix E).
Upon completion of the online instrument, the participants were thanked for their
contribution to the research and given information on how to request a copy of the results. The
participants were also given an opportunity to receive one continuing education credit hour and
provided the link to another on-line survey to complete with their name and contact information.
The two surveys were not connected and participants who completed the education credit survey
were emailed a credit form to send to CRCC. The participants were also given the opportunity to
contact the researcher about any concerns or suggestions on this study and future research.
Procedures
Due to the national dispersion of CRCs, this instrument was administered through an
online data collecting tool, surveymonkey.com. The instrument was available for one month to

35

the participants. The instrument was designed to prevent receiving multiple responses from the
same individual.
Prior to the disbursement of the instrument, the researcher received the necessary
approval for research involving human subjects from the MSU IRB. After receiving approval,
the researcher received permission from the CRCC administrative office to conduct research
utilizing its membership. Telephone calls with the membership administrator clarified the time
frame of the study, cost, and steps for obtaining a random sample of the CRCs. The email
contained a request for CRCC to compile a 10% random sample of its 16,000 members,
permission to utilize the organization’s listserv to disburse an email letter containing a link to the
study a copy of the instrument, and a summary of the study.
After CRCC approval was granted and the sample obtained, the potential participants
were sent an email soliciting participation in the study (Appendix F). A second request
(Appendix G) to participate was sent two weeks after the initial email. Completion of the
instrument was estimated at 15 minutes or less. Potential participants who chose to take part in
the study were able to access the instrument from a web address and link provided in the email.
At the completion of the instrument participants were offered the opportunity to obtain one free
continuing credit hour toward their CRCC membership and were provided the address to another
survey for them to complete their name, membership number and email address. The second
survey was used to ensure the separation of participant responses and the issuance of the credit
hour. The researcher emailed the credit approval form to those who completed the second survey
(Appendix H). Submission of the JSS, OC, TOI survey instrument assumed consent to
participate in the study. The instrument contained six sections with multiple items:
1.

Research information and participation consent,

36

2.

Demographic Survey (10 items)

3.

Job Satisfaction Survey (36 items)

4.

Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (24 items)

5.

Turnover Intent Survey (Five items) and

6.

Two qualitative questions.
Research Design and Data Analyses

The nature of the study’s problem statement, research questions, and hypotheses
indicated a quantitative and qualitative design as an appropriate method of research. The focus of
the problem statement was exploratory, and the research questions identified the relationship
among variables, all of which were indicative of quantitative research. Quantitative studies are
descriptive, explanatory, and statistically-oriented; they measure variables and assess the effects
of variables on an outcome (Creswell, 2009). The qualitative research questions also look to
obtain specific information on the work rewards and challenges of CRCs, which is indicative of
qualitative design. Qualitative studies are inductive and focus on the individual complexity of a
situation, and the researcher analyzed the text and built themes from the data.
The researcher applied a concurrent mixed methods strategy for this inquiry into the
relationship of JSS, organizational commitment, and TOI among CRCs. The data collection was
through a survey at a single point in time. This survey research approach utilized quantitative and
qualitative procedures, integrating them to best understand the counselors’ TOI. This method
employed both closed- and open-ended questions. This design was used to broaden the
understanding of the survey questionnaire statistics (quantitative) by integrating the short answer
question data (qualitative) and formulating results into a comprehensive study of the research
questions.

37

The researcher conducted a pilot qualitative study with 10 participants during her
doctoral studies on The Trends and Interests of Rehabilitation Counselors Continuing to Work in
the Profession. The results of the previous study provided specific and detailed information
about counselor rationale for turnover and remaining in the field. This information guided the
researcher in developing the two qualitative questions and provided experience in analyzing
qualitative data.
Prior to the implementation of the study, the online instrument was piloted by six CRCs
to resolve any technical difficulties that might occur. Using a concurrent mixed methods design
for the current study allowed the researcher to combine the systematic approach of quantitative
research with the emerging approach of qualitative research and expand on the TOI information
specific to CRCs. This information might be useful for the recruitment and retention of CRCs.
The quantitative portion of the study contained closed-ended questions with
predetermined approaches by the survey creators and produced numeric data. The data was
scored and coded with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The SPSS
computer program provides descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the data. Upon
closure of the survey the data was checked for errors and outliers by examining scatterplots and
running basic quantitative analyses (i.e. mean, standard deviation, and range). When measuring
multiple constructs as in this study, Cronbach’s alpha is the appropriate estimate of reliability
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Cronbach’s alpha provides an estimate of internal consistency of
item variances and covariance’s among each of the instrument components.
In the qualitative portion of the study data, the researcher looked for broad patterns
formed in the text from the open-ended questions. The researcher analyzed the data and followed
steps of grounded theory to place the information into groups or categories that included the

38

process of open and axial coding (Creswell, 2009). According to Creswell (2009), open coding is
the “coding of data for its major categories of information,” while axial coding “emerges in
which the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (called the ‘core’
phenomenon), and then goes back to the data and create categories around this core
phenomenon.” The concurrent mixed method of research design provided a method of analyzing
the text and numeric data.
A foundational knowledge base of the job experiences of CRCs was generated from the
text responses. Gaining insight into the job experiences can build on the TOI information that
reflects the specifics of current practitioners in the field. Over time, if additional research in this
area is pursued, this information could lead to the development of a unique theory of TOI within
the context of VR organizations.
This study included two independent variables (job satisfaction and organizational
commitment) and one dependent variable (TOI). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and TOI were also measured as continuous variables with data analysis of correlation and
regression. Five control variables (demographic information) were included with the regression
analysis model along with the independent variables to assess their effect on TOI, the
independent variable. A correlation matrix of the control, independent, and dependent variables
were calculated and presented. Figure 2 presents the multiple regression analysis using job
satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors while controlling for five demographic
variables to predict the criterion variable of TOI.

39

Organizational
Commitment
(Predictor Variables)

Job Satisfaction
(Predictor Variables)










Pay
Promotion
Supervision
Fringe Benefits
Contingence Rewards
Operating Conditions
Coworkers
Nature of Work
Communication

 Affective
 Normative
 Continuance

Turnover Intent
(Criterion Variable)

Figure 2. Variables used in correlation matrix and regression analyses.

40

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
In this chapter the findings of the study are examined for the purpose of understanding
the relationship between job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI of CRCs. The
hypotheses were statistically analyzed using the survey results. The descriptive statistics,
correlation analyses, and regression analyses were calculated utilizing the data produced from
the participants of the study. The SPSS at MSU was used for all quantitative analyses and
downloaded into a Microsoft Word document, placed on a computer flash drive, and loaded onto
the researcher’s personal computer. The qualitative results were downloaded into a Word
document and analyzed using open coding. Chapter 4 presents the results utilizing the
methodology defined in Chapter 3.
Participation
Survey respondents were from a randomly drawn sample of the 16,000 CRC members of
CRCC. The sample was drawn using an algorithm formula in conjunction with the CRCC
proprietary database software. CRCC provided the researcher with an email list of 1,700
members. The researcher sent the initial request for participation to the entire email list, and 161
emails were returned as incorrect, undeliverable, or no longer in use. Therefore, 1,539 members
of CRCC were given an opportunity to participate in the voluntary online study. A total of 323
members responded to the email, and 283 provided usable data for the study. The unusable data
included those who agreed to participate, but no additional data was submitted into the survey,
those who were no longer working as rehabilitation counselors, and retirees. Of those who
participated, 143 requested the continuing education credit and were provided with a signed and
dated certificate from the researcher via email (142) or postal mail (1).
The usable emails were 9.6% (1539) of the total population (16,000) and 90.5 % of the
sample email list provided (1,700) by CRCC. The participant response rate of usable data was
41

18.389% (283 participants) of the sample (1,539). The power of a sample is based on the size of
the sample and the statistical minimum needed as a representative of the population. Obtaining
an adequate sample size from a population allows the researcher to make inferences from the
sample statistics to the statistical population (Cohen, 1988). According to Cohen (1988), four
factors can be used to estimate the sample size when performing a statistical power analysis: (a)
significance level of criterion, (b) effect size, (c) desired power, and (d) estimated variance.
Cohen’s statistical power analysis was used to determine the sample size for this study.
The statistical level of significance used was alpha = .05. Alpha is the probability of incorrectly
rejecting the null hypothesis (Type I error). Setting the alpha at .05 is considered the
conventional level of significance in the behavioral sciences because a higher alpha would risk
falsely rejecting the null hypotheses and a lower alpha might fail to reject the null hypothesis
(Cohen, 1988).
The statistical power analysis’s effect size is the degree to which the phenomenon is
present in the population. The effect size of the null hypothesis is 0, and Cohen (1992)
standardized the effect size index depending upon the statistical tests utilized and divided the
effect sizes into small, medium, and large values. The smaller the effect size, the more
challenging it would be to distinguish the degree of deviation from the null hypothesis. Cohen
(1992) proposed a medium effect size to estimate the average size of observed effects in the
behavioral science research. This study utilized the medium effect size for the ANOVAs (.25)
and the Pearson correlations (.30; Cohen, 1992).
The desired statistical power is the probability the statistical significance test would lead
to the rejection of the null hypothesis (Cohen, 1992). A power that is too low may not detect the
significant effect, and a power that is too high can detected small differences and is of little value

42

to the study’s findings. To avoid these problems, Cohen (1992) suggested fixing the power at
.80. When alpha is set at .05 and the power is at .80, this result in a ratio of 4:1 (.20 and .05),
lowering the risk of committing a Type II error. This study utilized .80 as the desired statistical
power.
The standard deviation (SD) is used to estimate the variation in a response of interest. The
SD can be obtained from previous studies using the instruments or a pilot study. The SD is not
always required to obtain the sample size. If standardized measures that include d-values or
correlation coefficients are used, then the SD is not needed for the study (Cohen, 1988). All parts
of the instrument used in this study have standardized measurements, and the SD was not needed
to calculate the sample size.
The factors predetermined to estimate an adequate sample size for this study were as
follows: alpha = .05, the effect size of medium (.30 for the Pearson correlations and .25 for the
ANOVAs), and the desired power =.80. A preferred sample size of at least 85 is needed to test
the relationships of the variables using Pearson correlations as indicated by Cohen (1992) in his
tables and formulas. The sample size for ANOVA tests is calculated utilizing the number of
groups within each of the variables. The variables and the number of groups per variable were as
follows: Age-5, Ethnicity-5, Gender-2, Geographic Setting-3, Work Setting-5, Organizational
Tenure-6, and Professional Tenure-6. Utilizing the ANOVA portion of Cohen’s (1992) tables
and formulas, the estimated sample size for each variable were as follows:
Age 5(39) = 195 estimated sample size
Ethnicity 5(39) = 195 estimated sample size
Gender 2(64) = 128 estimated sample size
Geographic Setting 3(52) = 156 estimated sample size

43

Work Setting 5(39) = 195 estimated sample size
Organizational Tenure 6(35) = 210 estimated sample size
Professional Tenure 6(35) = 210 estimated sample size
The desired sample size for this study to test the relationships of the variables using ANOVAs
ranged from 128 to 210. Conducting a study with too few participants may pose difficulty in
detecting the effect of the phenomenon studied (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, a minimum of 210
participants was desired to produce meaningful results in this study.
Based on the formulas from Cohen’s (1992) statistical power of analysis, the estimated
sample size needed to perform the calculations using Pearson correlations (85 estimated sample
size) and ANOVAs (210 estimated sample size), a 210 estimated sample size used in this study
would allow execution of all the statistical analyses. A sample size of 210 participants would be
sufficient to answer the research questions using the statistical analyses. This sample size is
necessary to maintain the predetermined statistical criterion of alpha=.05, the medium effect
sizes (.30 and .25), and the desired.80 power value. The number of CRCs who participated in the
study (283) was beyond the 210 participants needed in the estimated sample size.
Demographics
CRCC provided characteristics of the population (CRCs) as of May 2013, and the
researcher compared these to the characteristics of the sample participants. Table 1 shows the
percentages of gender, age, and ethnic identity. The population and the sample are very similar.

44

Table 1
Comparison of Population and Sample Characteristics
Characteristic

Population %

Sample %

Gender
Male
Female
Gender not stated

26.8
77.9
0.04

26.1
73.9

Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Age not stated

6.6
18.8
22.1
26.5
25.9
0.07

9.2
20.1
21.6
28.3
19.4
1.4

Ethnic Identity
Asian/Asian-Indian American
2.4
Hispanic/Latino Spanish American
4.2
African American/Black
10.2
Caucasian/White
79.1
Other or Multi-Ethnic *
4.1
*Other: more than one ethnicity or did not answer.

1.4
3.9
5.3
85.2
4.2

Female participants were the highest group of respondents for this study at 73.9%. This
number is consistent with the high number of females as CRCs. CRCC data showed females
totaling 77.9%. Of the study participants, the largest age group was 50-59 years old at 28.3%;
this was the largest age group of the population at 26.5%. The age range of the participants was
from 23 years old to 74 years old. Nearly half (47.7%) of the CRCs were in the older adulthood
age range of 50+ years old.
The ethnic diversity of the CRCs was on May 2013 information. The CRCC membership
information showed 79.1% of the members being Caucasian. Non-Caucasian membership totaled
16.8%, and 4.1% were multiethnic or did not indicate their ethnicity. The greatest discrepancy of
participation was African Americans. The population makeup was 10.2%, and only 5.3% of the

45

sample participants were African American. When combined with the other non-Caucasian
participants, the difference was less notable. The participants’ ethnicity was similar to the
population with 85.2% identifying as Caucasian, 10.6 % being non-Caucasian, and 4.2% being
multiethnic or not indicating their ethnicity. The sample participants were similar to the
population of CRC in gender, age, and ethnicity; thus the sample can be described as being
representative of the population.
Table 2 summarizes data gathered regarding professional tenure. The largest percentage
of participants worked 5 years or less (23%) as a CRC. When combined with the next most
frequent professional tenure distribution, 44.2% had worked 10 years or less as a rehabilitation
counselor.

Table 2
Professional Tenure as Rehabilitation Counselor
Years as Rehabilitation Counselor
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26 + years
Total

Frequency
65
60
40
33
38
47
283

Percent
23.0
21.2
14.1
11.7
13.4
16.6
100%

Table 3 illustrates the dispersal of organizational tenure among the participants. The
majority of the participants, 59.3%, had worked 10 years or less for their current organization.

46

Table 3
Organization Tenure of Rehabilitation Counselors with Current Organization
Tenure with Current Organization
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26 + years
Total

Frequency
96
72
42
33
22
18
283

Percent
33.9
25.4
14.8
11.7
7.8
6.4
100%

Although the participants worked in a variety of settings, over 40% worked for a public
state vocational rehabilitation program (see Table 4). The category of “other” was the second
most frequently selected category with 21.9%. The responses included working at a community
college, university, hospital, long-term care, outpatient intensive therapy program, emergency
management, public school system, private special educational high school, mortgage lending
institution, tribal (Native American) vocational rehabilitation, community mental health, private
corporate environment, public county work, transportation, and the federal prison system. The
third workplace setting was “Private for Profit” with 19.4%.

Table 4
Work Settings for Rehabilitation Counselors
Work Setting
Public VR State
Public VR Federal/Veteran
Private for Profit
Private Nonprofit
Other
Total

Frequency
114
13
55
39
62
283

Percent
40.3
4.6
19.4
13.8
21.9
100%

Rehabilitation counselors work in a variety of geographic settings. Table 5 displays the
distribution of the urban, suburban, and rural settings among the study participants. More
47

participants worked in urban (42%) settings than suburban (34.6%) or rural (23.3%) settings. A
review of the work setting (Table 4) and geographic setting (Table 5) indicated a large number of
the participants work for a state VR program in an urban setting.

Table 5
Geographic Work Settings for Rehabilitation Counselors
Geographic Settings
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Total

Frequency
119
98
66
283

Percent
42.0
34.6
23.3
100%

More of the CRCC population lived in southern United States (36.41%), and the study
sample respondents (30.7%) were reflective of this geographic characteristic for the states in
which they worked. The percentage range of the respondents working in the four regions of the
United States (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) was from 22.5% to 30.7%. This range was
approximately 25% or one fourth for each of the regions. The participants were grouped into
geographic regions according to the United States Census Bureau (see Table 6).

48

Table 6
Geographic Regions of Rehabilitation Counselors
Regions*

Frequency

Percent

Northeast: New England (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode
Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut); Mid-Atlantic (New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey)

58

20.5

Midwest: East North Central (Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio); West North Central (Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa)

72

25.4

South: South Atlantic (Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia,
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida); East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Alabama); West South Central (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas,
Louisiana)

87

30.7

West: Mountain (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah,
Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico); Pacific (Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, California, Hawaii)

64

22.6

Other: No answer or various states

2

0.7

283

100%

Total
*Geographic Regions designated by US Census Regions and Divisions

The participants earned a variety of degrees to qualify as a CRC but a vast majority,
69.3%, had degrees in rehabilitation counseling. A doctorate degree was earned by 7.8% of the
participants. The second most prevalent degree major was “other,” and the majors included
Counselor education, educational specialist, rehabilitation administration, business
administration, sociology, business law, human services, habilitative science, business,
management of human resources, occupational therapy, education, criminal justice, behavioral
science, college student personnel, MAT, and French. Nine respondents combined or listed
rehabilitation counseling with other degrees and placed the information about both degrees in
this section. Seven respondents listed or combined one and more counseling specialties and

49

placed the information in this section. Table 7 shows the distribution of the various college
degree majors among the CRC participants.

Table 7
College Degree Majors of Rehabilitation Counselors
College Degree Major
Rehabilitation Counseling
Rehabilitation Psychology
Rehabilitation Specialty
Other Counseling Specialty
Psychology
Social Work
Special Education
Other degree major
Total

Frequency
196
5
10
11
11
11
7
32
283

Percent
69.3
1.8
3.5
3.9
3.9
3.9
2.5
11.3
100%

The overall professional profile for the CRCs was female with a master’s degree in
rehabilitation counseling who has worked in the profession for less than 10 years. A large
number of the participants were Caucasian, between 40 and 59 years old, and worked for a state
rehabilitation program for less than 10 years in an urban setting.
Quantitative Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Tables 8, 9, and 10 illustrate the descriptive statistics for each of the study variables
including the number of responses, the range, mean, and standard deviation. The range of scores
for job satisfaction (Table 8) in the present investigation was 4 to 24 (e.g., the higher scores
indicating a higher level of job satisfaction), and the overall mean for each dimension ranged
from 12.0 to 20.0. The descriptive statistics show CRC participants ranked nature of the work (M
= 20.09, SD= 3.53), supervision (M = 18.56, SD=5.33) and coworkers (M = 18.40, SD=4.08), on
average, as the highest features of job satisfaction.

50

Table 8
Job Satisfaction of CRCs

N
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283

Descriptive Statistics
Range
Minimum Maximum
16.00
4.00
20.00
18.00
4.00
22.00
20.00
4.00
24.00
20.00
4.00
24.00
20.00
4.00
24.00
20.00
4.00
24.00
18.00
6.00
24.00
16.00
8.00
24.00
19.00
5.00
24.00

Mean
12.01
13.46
18.56
15.95
14.49
11.37
18.40
20.09
16.51

SD
3.33
3.12
5.33
4.88
4.92
4.13
4.08
3.53
4.71

JSpay
JSprom
JSsup
JSfrinbene
JSconrwds
JSoper_cond
JScowkrs
JSnat_wrk
JScomm
Valid N
(listwise)
NOTE: JSpay= Job Satisfaction pay, JSprom= Job Satisfaction promotion, JSsup= Job
Satisfaction supervision, JSfrinbene= Job Satisfaction fringe benefits, JSconrwds = Job
Satisfaction contingent rewards, JSoper_cond= Job Satisfaction operating conditions, JScowkrs
=Job Satisfaction coworkers, JSnat_wrk= Job Satisfaction nature of the work, JScomm= Job
Satisfaction communication.

As indicated in Table 9, the range of scores for the different forms of organizational
commitment within the present investigation was 9 to 56 for affective commitment, 11 to 55 for
normative commitment, and 12 to56 for continuance commitment. Continuance commitment had
the highest mean (M = 40.18, SD= 9.99) followed by affective commitment (M=36.71, SD=
10.96) and normative commitment (M=31.88, SD=7.99) (see Table 9). Continuance was the
highest type of commitment found in this investigation and was similar to findings of a national
rehabilitation related study on organizational commitment among state VR counselors (Satcher
& McGhee, 1996).

51

Table 9
Organizational Commitment of CRCs
Descriptive Statistics
Range
Minimum Maximum
47.00
9.00
56.00
44.00
11.00
55.00
44.00
12.00
56.00

N
Mean
SD
OCaff
283
36.71
10.96
OCnorm
283
31.88
7.99
OCcontine
283
40.18
9.99
Valid N (listwise)
283
NOTE: OCaff= Organizational Commitment Affective, OCnorm= Organizational Commitment
Normative, OCcontine= Organizational Commitment Continuance

The possible range of scores for TOI (see Table 10) in this investigation on the five items
within the instrument was 1 to 5 with the highest scores indicating higher TOI. The mean scores
on all items were very similar from 2.17 to 2.66 (SD from 1.20 to 1.41), and the overall mean
score was 2.3, indicating a slightly low intent to turnover.

Table 10
TOI of CRCs

I will probably look for a new
job in the near future.
At the present time, I am
actively searching for another
job in a different organization.
I do not intend to quit my job.
It is unlikely that I will
actively look for a different
organization to work for in the
next year.
I am not thinking about
quitting my job at the present
time.
Valid N (listwise)

Descriptive Statistics
N
Range Minimum Maximum
283
4.00
1.00
5.00

Mean
2.66

SD
1.35

283

4.00

1.00

5.00

2.17

1.31

283
283

4.00
4.00

1.00
1.00

5.00
5.00

2.17
2.41

1.20
1.41

283

4.00

1.00

5.00

2.27

1.35

283

52

Correlations Among Variables
The correlation study included the two predictor variables of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment and the criterion variable of TOI. The variables included three forms
of organizational commitment from Meyer and Allen’s Three-Component Model (TCM)
Employee Commitment Survey, nine categories of job satisfaction from Spector’s JSS, and the
intent to turnover from Bozeman and Perrewe’s Turnover Cognitions. By computing the Pearson
correlation coefficients of the means for scores on the three instruments, the researcher looked at
the statistical significance between the variables. If p < .05 was achieved, the researcher
determined that a tangible relationship occurred between job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI (Frankel & Wallen, 2006).
Correlation matrix: Job satisfaction and TOI. The correlation supported a relationship
between job satisfaction and TOI. Appendix I shows that TOI has a negative linear relationship
with all nine dimensions of job satisfaction (p < 0.01). The significant correlation was less than
the p < .05. The highest levels of correlation were with nature of work (-.45), contingent rewards
(-.39), and communication (-.36).
The findings suggest that counselors who perceived the nature of their work as closely
aligned with their work desires had less intentions of turnover. It also suggests that counselors
who received positive reinforcement from their supervisors or administration as contingent
rewards for their good work or positive outcomes were less likely to seek employment with
another organization. The findings endorse the view that counselors who believed their
employing organization had a positive communication exchange were less likely to have
turnover intentions.

53

Correlation matrix: Organizational commitment and TOI. There was a negative
linear association (p < 0.01) between the three forms of organizational commitment and TOI of
rehabilitation counselors. Data for the correlation can be found in Appendix J. Affective
commitment had the strongest relationship with TOI (-.60), next was normative commitment
(-.30), and then continuance commitment (-.19). Rehabilitation counselors who strongly
identified with the goals of their employers and desired to be a part of the organization were
perceived to have a positive affective commitment, and the findings showed they were less likely
to leave their employer. The counselor desired to work in their places of employment.
The outcomes of the study propose that counselors who perceived a sense of moral
obligation or duty to remain with an organization would be less likely to have turnover
intentions. With the normative commitment the counselor stayed with the organization because
they "ought to" out of a sense of loyalty. The results support the idea that counselors who
perceived there to be a “high cost” if they left the rehabilitation organization would have high
continuance commitment and would more likely have lower intentions of turnover. The high cost
is an evaluation of investment. The investment could include loss of retirement benefits,
association with being employed at the organization, job title, coworkers, status, income, etc.
(Meyer & Allen, 1997). The counselor recognition of investment loss upon leaving the employer
is a “need to” component of working in an organization.
Correlation matrix: Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The correlation
matrix, as shown in Appendix K, displays the significance level and the Pearson productmoment correlations associated with the nine dimensions of job satisfaction and the three types
of organizational commitment. The table shows there was a statistically significant correlation at
the p < .01 in a positive direction on all the nine dimensions of job satisfaction to affective

54

commitment and three of the nine dimensions of job satisfaction (promotion, supervision, and
nature of the work) to normative commitment. The continuance commitment results show there
was negative and statistically significant correlation with three of the nine dimensions of job
satisfaction (promotion, operating conditions, and communication). The highest statistical levels
of job satisfaction and affective commitment were nature of the work (.60), communication
(.56), and contingent rewards (.58). The findings suggest that counselors who perceived the
nature of work to be in line with the types of work they desired, were comfortable with their
organizations’ operating conditions and channels of communication, and were more likely to
have an affective commitment toward their employers. The highest positive significant
correlation for levels job satisfaction and normative commitment were for nature of work (.26),
supervision (.21), and promotion (.17). The findings suggest that counselors who felt supported
by their supervisor, enjoyed the nature of their work, and had promotion options would more
likely have a sense of loyalty or normative commitment toward their rehabilitation organizations.
Negative significant correlations for job satisfaction and continuance commitment were
highest for promotion (-.19), operating conditions (-.17), and communication (-1.43). The
findings suggest that rehabilitation counselors who perceived their workplace to have poor
promotion options, were not pleased with the operating conditions, and were unsatisfied with the
communication were more likely to have intentions to turnover at their rehabilitation
organizations. The desire would most likely be low for continuance commitment at their current
workplace. The possible reasons for this negative relationship are that the counselors weighed
their options and decided the pension or other options were worth staying for and tolerated the
lack of promotion, poor communication and working conditions, and knowing that no place of
employment is perfect.

55

The correlation results in Appendices K, L, and M showed relationships on the nine
dimensions of job satisfaction, three types of organizational commitment, and TOI. The
strongest statistically significant correlations for job satisfaction and TOI, organizational
commitment and TOI, and job satisfaction and organizational commitment are illustrated in
Figure 3.

Normative
Commitment

.25
Nature of
Work
.21
.29

-.45

Operating
Conditions

.16

Supervision
Turnover
Intent

.39

Promotion

Contingent
Rewards

-.17
.60

-.19

-.60

.19

.55
Continuance
Commitment

.36

Affective
Commitment

-.14
.56
Communication

Figure 3. Variables with the highest statistically significant correlations.

56

Control Variables
Specific demographic control variables were analyzed to examine if the relationship
between the independent variables (job satisfaction and organizational commitment) and the
dependent variable (TOI) could account for any anomalies in the study. The control variables are
held constant during a study and are used to assess or clarify the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables (Creswell, 2009). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted with a post hoc analysis to test the statistical differences between the means of the
variables. The F value was checked for statistical significance; the larger the value is different
than 1, the more likely a statistical significance exists for corresponding degrees of freedom at
the p < .05 level (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). The control variables analyzed in this study were
age, gender, ethnicity, geographic setting, work setting, organization tenure, and professional
tenure.
Job Satisfaction and Specific Control Variables
A review of the means for job satisfaction and specific control variables (Appendix L)
indicated possible differences from the average mean on some of the job satisfaction subscales.
An analysis of each of the control variables (age, gender, ethnicity, geographic setting, work
setting, organization tenure, and professional tenure) revealed additional information that could
assist with an understanding of the counselors continuing to be employed in rehabilitation
organizations.
Each counselor age group had a mean that differed from the overall mean for pay job
satisfaction. The participants under 30 years old had the highest mean pay job satisfaction score
(M=14.00, SD= 2.72) with the average mean being M=11.99 (SD=3.31), and the counselors
between the ages 50 and 59 years old had the lowest mean (M=10.95, SD =3.21; see Appendix L
Table L1). Age and pay of counselors revealed a significant relationship with job satisfaction (F
57

= [4, 275] 5.18, p =.00; see Appendix L Table L2). Therefore, age was suggested as a mitigating
factor in job satisfaction.
The gender of counselors had a mean different than the average mean for contingent
rewards (males M= 15.68, SD= 4.61 and females M=13.9, SD= 4.92) and promotion (males
M=14.22, SD= 2.90 and females M=13.12, SD= 3.15; see Appendix L Table L3). A review of
the ANOVA showed a statistically significant relationship with gender and promotion (F =
[1,281] 6.83, p = .01), and contingent rewards (F = [1, 281] 6.62, p = .01; see Appendix L Table
L4). It appeared the males were more satisfied working as CRCs than females, and gender might
be a mitigating factor in the study as it relates to job satisfaction.
Ethnicity had the greatest mean difference among Asians/Asian Americans showing a
below average mean in job satisfaction with operating conditions (M=8.50, SD= 3.31); the
average mean was M=11.37 (SD= 4.12). Counselors who identified as being Hispanic/Latino
American had the highest mean score with job satisfaction with operating conditions with
M=11.82 (SD=3.34; see Appendix L Table L5). When reviewing the ANOVA, ethnicity and job
satisfaction with operating conditions the results did not demonstrate a statistically significant
relationship (F= [4, 278] 1.33, p = .26; see Appendix L Table L6). Thus, ethnicity was not
supported as a mitigating factor in job satisfaction.
Counselors who worked in different geographic settings had means different than the
average mean on some of the job satisfaction subscales. Those who worked in urban settings
were more satisfied (M=12.27, SD=3.41) than average (M=11.96, SD=3.32) with their pay, and
those who worked in rural areas had the lowest mean score (M=11.05, SD=2.87; see Appendix L
Table L7). A review of the ANOVA data indicated a statistical significance (F = [2, 280] 3.30, p

58

= .04 level) with geographic setting and job satisfaction. Geographic setting might be a
mitigating factor as it relates to job satisfaction (See Appendix L Table L8).
Counselors who worked in different work settings had means that were different than the
average mean on job satisfaction subscales. CRCs working in the Federal Veteran Vocational
Rehabilitation Services had a below average mean (M=9.3, SD= 3.5) for job satisfaction with
operating conditions with an average mean of M=11.3 (SD=4.12), and those in the private-forprofit work settings had an above average mean (M=13.6, SD=4.78; see Appendix L Table L9).
Counselors in private-for-profit settings were more satisfied with their operating conditions than
all of the other work settings. Those who worked in federal veteran VR work settings were the
most dissatisfied with the operating conditions of their workplace. An ANOVA revealed six of
the nine job satisfaction dimensions were statically significant: pay (F = [4, 278] 15.13, p = .00
level), promotion (F = [4, 278] 11.66, p = .00 level), contingent rewards (F = [4, 278] 14.09 , p =
.00 level), operating conditions (F = [4, 278] 9.80, p = .00 level), coworkers (F = [4, 278] 3.80,
p = .01 level), and communication (F = [4, 278] 6.17, p = .00 level; see Appendix L Table L10).
Therefore, counselor work settings might have an effect on six of the job satisfaction dimensions.
The means for organization tenure was different than the average mean on some of the
job satisfaction subscales. The greatest difference was with the contingent reward. CRCs with 26
years or more tenure had the highest mean at M=15.0 (SD=6.11) with average being M=14.4
(SD=4.89), and those with 16-20 years of tenure in the workplace had the lowest mean average
(M=12.8, SD=5.60; see Appendix L Table L11). Those who worked for a rehabilitation
organization over 26 years were more satisfied with the contingent benefits than those who
worked for the organization between 16 and 20 years. An ANOVA review revealed statistical
significance for the job satisfaction dimension of pay (F = [5, 277] 2.74, p = .02 level; see

59

Appendix L Table L12). Therefore, organization tenure might be a mitigating factor on job
satisfaction of pay for counselors.
The means for professional tenure on the nine subscales of job satisfaction were different
than the average means. The two subscales of contingent rewards and communication had
similar differences in their means. Counselors with 26 or more years of experience as
rehabilitation counselors had an above average means (M=16.2, SD=5.14) with the average being
M=14.4 (SD=4.89) for job satisfaction with the contingent rewards. Counselors with 11-15 years
of experience had the lowest below average means with M=12.4 (SD=4.52) for contingent
rewards. Counselors with 26 or more years of experience had an above average means (M=18.4,
SD=4.91) for communication in the workplace when the average was M=16.4 (SD=4.72).
Counselors with 21-25 years of experience had a below average job satisfaction means (M=14.7,
SD=4.60) for communication (see Appendix L Table L13). ANOVA test results exhibited
statistical significance for three job satisfaction dimensions: pay (F = [5, 277] 2.66, p = .02),
promotion (F = [5, 277] 3.13, p =.01) and contingent benefits (F = [5, 277] 3.22, p = .01; see
Appendix L Table L14). The professional tenure of rehabilitation counselors might conceivably
be a mitigating factor in this study’s findings on the job satisfaction of CRCs.
A review of the statistical analysis on job satisfaction and specific control variables
indicated age, gender, work setting, geographic setting, organization tenure, and professional
tenure might have played a moderating role in this study. The ethnicity of CRCs was statically
not significant and was probably not a moderating factor on job satisfaction of participants.
Organizational Commitment and Specific Control Variables
A review of the means for the three types of organizational commitment (affective,
normative, and continuance) showed a difference in the average means on some of the specific

60

control variables (see Appendix M). The seven control variables of age, gender, ethnicity, work
setting, geographic setting, organization tenure, and professional tenure means were reviewed to
see if they could possibly be attributed to the anomalies in this study.
There were mean differences detailed in Appendix M for the affective, normative, and
continuance commitment when gender, ethnicity, geographic settings, and work settings of
rehabilitation counselors were used as control variables. The means for the variables were
slightly different than the average means, but an ANOVA test showed the F values were not
statistically significant at the p < .005 levels. Thus, gender, ethnicity, geographic settings, and
work settings were probably not mitigating factors of counselor organizational commitment.
The age groups of counselors had mean differences than the average means for affective
commitment. Participants 60 years old or older had the highest mean (M=40.4, SD=10.82) with
the average mean being M=36.5 (SD=10.92), and the counselors under 30 years old had the
lowest mean (M=34.1, SD=9.47; see Appendix M Table M1). Organizational commitment did
not have statistically significant mean scores different from the average mean (see Appendix M
Table M2). Therefore, age was not considered a mitigating factor in counselor organizational
commitment.
The means for organization tenure was different than the average means on affective and
continuance commitment. Normative commitment difference was not statistically significant
when the ANOVA test F values were reviewed. The mean difference of affective commitment
was highest (M=40.6, SD=12.42) for counselors with 26 or more years of working for an
organization with an average of 36.5 and lowest for counselors with less than 5 years (M=33.1,
SD=11.67; see Appendix M Table M11). The ANOVA test F value was F= (5, 277) 4.44, p = .00
level (see Appendix M Table M12), which is statistically significant. CRCs with 26 years or

61

more of tenure mean differences for continuance commitment had the highest mean with M=
43.4 (SD=9.56) mean with average being M=40.2 (SD=9.99), and those with 5 years or less of
tenure in the workplace had the lowest mean average (M=36.9, SD=10.61; see Appendix M
Table M11). ANOVA review displayed statistical significance for the continuance commitment
of counselors (F = [5, 277] 3.83, p = .00 level; see Appendix M Table M12). Therefore,
organization tenure might be a mitigating factor on the affective and continuance commitment of
rehabilitation counselors.
The means for professional tenure on counselor affective commitment were different than
the average means. Counselors with 26 or more years of experience as rehabilitation counselors
had an above average means (M=41.0, SD=9.79) with the average being M=36.5 (SD=9.99), and
counselors with 5 years or less professional tenure had the lowest below average means with
M=33.9 (SD=11.77; see Appendix M Table M13). ANOVA test results exhibited statically
significance for affective commitment (F = [5, 277] 3.35, p = .01; see Appendix M Table M14).
The professional tenure of rehabilitation counselors might be a mitigating factor in this study’s
findings for affective commitment.
The means for the professional tenure of counselors for normative and continuance
commitment of counselors had very similar differences in their means. The ANOVA test F
values support these scores depicting a statistically non-significant relationship with the mean
outcomes. Hence, professional tenure might not be a predictor in the normative and continuance
commitment of counselors. The normative commitment of counselors did not appear to have any
of the specific control variables as possible mitigating factors in this study. Affective
commitment might have had age, organizational tenure, and professional tenure as mitigating

62

factors. Counselor continuance commitment might have had organization tenure as a mitigating
factor in this study.
TOI and Specific Control Variables
An examination of the means for the specific control variables and TOI (see Appendix N)
shows gender, geographic setting, and work setting were not different than the average means.
An ANOVA test review also supported this finding with non-significant F values for gender (F =
[1, 281] .53, p = .47; see Appendix N Table N6); geographic setting (F = (2, 280) .01, p =1.00;
see Appendix N Table N8) and work setting (F = [4, 278] 1.17, p = .32; see Appendix N Table
N10). These control variables were not considered likely predictors of differences in the TOI of
CRCs in this study.
Ethnicity had the greatest mean difference with Asians/Asia Americans showing an
above average mean (M=16.0, SD=6.16; see Appendix N Table N3) in TOI with the average
being M=11.6 (SD=5.90), and counselors who identified as being Caucasian had the lowest mean
score with M=11.3 (SD=5.90). A review of the ANOVA indicated these differences in the mean
scores were not statistically significant (F = [4, 278] 1.64, p = .16; see Appendix N Table N4).
Counselors who worked in different work settings had a difference in the means from the
average mean. CRCs working in the Federal Veteran Vocational Rehabilitation Services had an
above average mean (M=13.5, SD=6.76) for TOI, and those in the private-for-profit had a
slightly below average mean (M=11.2, SD=5.97) for TOI. The means for tenure with an
employer (M=13.8, SD=6.87) and within the profession (M=14.4, SD=6.65) indicated those with
5 years or less experience is possibly a predictor of TOI with individuals with 26 years or more
experience having below average turnover means for organization tenure (M=9.4, SD=4.60) and
professional tenure (M=9.6, SD=5.08; see Appendix N Table N9). An ANOVA test indicated

63

that although differences were present for the different work settings for TOI, they were not
significant (F = [4, 278] 1.17, p = .32; see Appendix N Table N10). Therefore, the work setting
of rehabilitation counselors was probably a not mitigating factor for TOI.
The age of rehabilitation counselors mean differed from the average mean for TOI.
Counselors who were under 30 years old had the highest mean for TOI (M=13.1, SD=6.55) with
an average mean of M=11.6 (SD=5.90), and counselors 60 years old or older had the lowest
mean (M=10.5, SD=5.42 see Appendix N Table N1). An ANOVA test review revealed age (F =
(4, 275) 2.34, p = .056; see Appendix N Table N2) might be mitigating factor. Older counselors
might possibly be less likely to have intention of turnover than those who are less than 30 years
old.
The mean for counselor organization tenure differed than the average mean for TOI.
Those with less than 5 years of organization tenure had a higher mean (M=13.8, SD=6.87) than
the average of M=11.68 (SD=5.91), and those with 26 years of tenure or more had below average
mean score (M=9.4, SD=4.60; see Appendix N Table N11). ANOVA results indicated
organizational tenure (F = [5, 277] 4.41, p = .00; see Appendix N Table N12) might be a
mitigating factor for the TOI of counselors.
The mean score for counselor professional tenure differed from the average mean for TOI
(see Appendix N Table N13). Counselors with less than 5 years of professional tenure had an
above average mean (M=14.4, SD=6.65) with an average of M=11.6 (SD=5.91), and those with
26 years or more professional tenure had the lowest mean score (M=9.61, SD=5.08). ANOVA
results suggested that professional tenure (F = [5, 277] 5.00, p = .00; see Appendix Table N14)
might be a mitigating factor in the TOI of rehabilitation counselors.

64

The TOI and control variable means information combined with the ANOVA testing
showed the possibility of age, organization tenure, and professional tenure as mitigating factors
in the TOI of CRCs. A review of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI variables
with specific control variables pointed to the ethnicity of counselors as not being predictors of
anomalies in this study.
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, TOI, and Specific Control Variables
A two-tiered regression analysis was used for the analysis of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, TOI, and the specific control variables. Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment were statistically significant predictors of turnover intent (F= [12,
270] 16.60, p = .00); see Model 1 Appendix O Table O2. The specific control variables were
also considered significant predictors of TOI (F= [36, 246] 6.79, p = .00); see Model 2 Appendix
0 Table 02. A review of the second-tier analysis showed work setting (private for profit and
private nonprofit) had a statically significant relationship in the study, but this did not affect the
overall change in the initial model of the study on job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and TOI (Model 1: F = [12, 270], 16.60, p = .00). Adding the specific control variables (Model
2: F= [24, 246] 1.51, p = .07) did not change the results of the study (see Appendix O Table O3).
The quantitative results of the study were statistically significant and were not affected by the
specific control variables.
Qualitative Analyses
The following results were from a careful manual reading and a qualitative review of the
data acquired from two questions, “What is the most rewarding aspect of your current job?” and
“What is the most frustrating aspect of your current job?” The data analysis initially involved
open coding, followed by focused axle coding concentrating on key emergent themes associated

65

with each question. The rich data gained from the open-ended questions shed considerable light
on practicing rehabilitation counselors.
The findings enhanced the understanding of the quantitative results on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI of the study. Several themes emerged and defined the
current satisfying and unsatisfying features of working as rehabilitation counselors. Participants
sometimes gave more than one answer, and each part of the response was separately coded. Nine
themes emerged as rewarding (theme frequency ranged from 2 to 111 responses), and 10 themes
emerged as frustrating aspects of the counselor’s current job (theme frequency ranged from 8 to
117 responses). Four of the rewarding and frustrating themes overlapped in the outcomes:
Professional and Career Development, Pay/Benefits, Coworkers, and Customers. The theme of
“customers” corresponded with two of the reward response themes (service to others and
assisting others to achieve their goals). The two reward themes were combined and used as an
overlapping theme for comparison with one of the frustrating response themes of “customers.”
Rewards
The nine rewarding themes that emerged from the results of data provided by CRCs were
Service to Others, Assisting Others to Achieve Their Goals, Coworkers and Professional
Contacts, Well-Being, Pay/Benefits, Recognition for Work, Training New Professionals,
Professional and Career Development, and Assisting with Organizational Change. One
participant responded “None” as to rewards of working as a VR counselor. All of the rewarding
responses are found in Appendix P.
Based on the roles and responsibilities of rehabilitation counselors (Leahy et al., 2003),
counselors have a variety of counselor experiences. Counselors encounter people with multiple
disabilities and must be multifaceted in their skill sets to provide rehabilitation services.

66

Counselors influence the lives of people by assisting others to obtain and maintain employment.
By the nature of the job, rehabilitation counselors have the power to change lives and
circumstances of people with disabilities (Neely, 1974). Two themes of influence and power
emerged from the data: service to others and assisting others to achieve their goals. When the
responses were combined, the two themes had the largest number of responses with 217.
Service to others. This theme is a construct based on the counselor being generally
altruistic and giving of him/herself. There were 107 responses that stated or implied service to
others was the most rewarding aspect of being a rehabilitation counselor. Examples of this theme
were “working with clients,” “the services I provide to the clients,” “helping my consumers,”
“providing professional services,” “helping people,” and “helping consumers and their families.”
Assisting others to achieve their goals. This theme differs from the previous theme in
that the construct relates to the connectedness related to a concern and support for the customer
reaching a specific end. This theme received 111 responses, the largest number of responses of
all nine themes. Examples were “helping people move forward with their lives,” “helping injured
workers return to the workforce,” “assisting individuals with disabilities to become independent
and accomplish goal of securing meaningful work,” “when the clients I serve benefit and are
working/happy/ productive,” “helping people get employed,” and “helping clients to experience
success and see their dreams become reality.”
Well-being. The rewarding theme of well-being was viewed as meeting the personal
needs of the counselor. Specifically having a life, work, and self-balance were important to
counselors. There were 35 responses placed in this category and included were the following:
“stability,” “flexibility,” “using my social and verbal skills,” ” the low level of stress,”

67

“geography--it is close to my home. No commute,” “flexibility to participate in my children's
activities,” “autonomy,” “my sense of personal satisfaction,” and “being comfortable.”
Coworkers and professional contacts. Rehabilitation counseling often involves
coordination of services and resources with the customer, coworkers, community organizations,
schools, business, health institutions, public and private agencies, etc. (Leahy et.al, 2003). The
counselors identified these relationship paradigms as rewarding aspects of their employment.
The 23 responses in this theme included “professional interactions with people in medical,
counseling, and vocational services,” “relationships built with consumers,” “great boss,”
“coworkers and community providers,” “my coworkers,” “trust and respect among staff and
supervisor,” and “my team (coworkers).”
Pay/benefits. Counselor pay and benefits was reported as a reward for counselors
working in rehabilitation services. Having adequate compensation buffered the demands and
challenges at work and might be viewed as part and parcel of the service they provide to people
with disabilities. Thirteen answers included “salary,” “good health insurance,” “having a job that
pays the bills” “money,” and “pay, benefits, especially retirement system.”
Recognition for work. Some type of personal and professional recognition while
working might add to the office culture and feeling of purposeful and meaningful work.
Validation of time and effort for delivery of rehabilitation services was a recognized reward by
eight counselors. Given the nature of rehabilitation counselor work and the massive paperwork,
even small symbolic gestures of appreciation were desired. Illustrative quotes include
“Customer's expressing appreciation of my quality, compassionate services,” “feedback from
people I work with, being appreciated, coworkers, supervisor,” and “be valued as an employee
and an individual.”

68

Training new professionals. Being a rehabilitation counselor is an evolutionary process.
Counselors completing their masters, programs morph from being students to professional
counselors. The process is individualized but often involves being under the attentive watch of a
senior counselor practicing in the field. This relationship could include formal or informal
mentorships. Counselor enhancement of new counselor performance received five responses
including “the ability to train new counselors,” “teaching,” and “mentoring.”
Professional and career development. This theme focused on the personal ambition,
continuous improvement, and preparation for doing work. Professional growth is part of a
counselor’s self-determination. Educational opportunities were valued among the participants.
The analysis of the three replies showed professional growth was part of two rewards listed.
Responses included “ability to innovate with new technics, policy and procedures,” “learning
new skill,” and “appreciative of knowledge acquired.”
Assisting with organizational change. Validation as a professional also includes having
one’s suggestions and opinions heard, acknowledged, and utilized to change the work process or
culture. Two counselors listed organizational change as a reward: “mission and agency
improvement” and “the ability to impact and change the organization.”
Rehabilitation counselor work is multifaceted, and developing the skills and resources
over time to be effective in providing services appears in the answers from the open-ended
questions. Counselors found their rewards in providing services to others as a meaningful
support to goals. The counselors also realized that their own needs were important including
their well-being, and receiving pay and benefits. The social aspect of their work was also
rewarding, and they valued the relationships of their coworkers. Table 11 provides a depiction of
the number and percentages of the counselor reward responses organized by theme.

69

Table 11
Counselor Reward Responses by Theme
Rewards
Assisting Others to Achieve Their Goals
Service to Others
Well-Being
Coworkers
Pay/Benefits
Recognition
Training New Professionals
Professional and Career Development
Assisting with Organizational Change
Nothing
Total

Number
111
107
35
23
13
8
5
3
2
1
308

Percentage
36.0
34.7
11.4
7.5
4.2
2.6
1.6
1.0
.7
.3
100%

Frustrations
The counselors reported the frustrations of being rehabilitation counselors. A review of
the data reaped 10 major themes that were frustrating for counselors: Tasks/Paperwork,
Supervision/Leadership, Pay/Benefits, Work Environment, Policies/Regulations, Coworkers,
Communication, Customers/Clients, Resources, and Professional and Career Development.
Three participants stated “nothing,” “none,” and “NA” as frustrations of working as a counselor
(see Appendix Q).
Tasks/paperwork. Counselors described their workloads, tasks, and casework as being
excessively heavy; these and other frustrations included an increase in customers/clients,
excessive paperwork, and an ever growing number of tasks to perform. This theme received the
largest number of responses (117) with a strong dimension sentiment that bureaucracy within the
rehabilitation services process needed to be reduced. Bureaucracy or “red-tape” was quoted 30
times. The phrase “red-tape” is defined as an “official routine or procedure marked by excessive
complexity which results in delay or inaction” (Woolf, 1980). Responses that provide the context
for this theme included “too much bureaucracy, process!” “too much to do,” “high workload,”

70

“the amount of redundant paperwork,” “the escalating document requirements,” and “red tape,
rules upon rules upon rules. Nothing can be simple!”
Supervision/leadership. Counselors expressed a desire for improved supervision and
leadership. There was an apparent dissatisfaction with skills and abilities of managers. This was
the second most cited frustration (47) among the participants. There was strong sentiment that
supervisors needed to have both counselor and management skills, and administrators needed to
be in touch with field. Responses included “lack of competent supervisors,” “disengaged
administrators,” “my supervisor and his lack of ethics,” “inconsistency of management direction
to staff,” “I feel that my boss is incompetent and lazy,” “dealing with administration's decisions
without considering the effects of field offices,” and “overall lack of supervision.”
Pay/benefits. Adequate compensation is part of insuring the basic needs of counselors
are met. Rehabilitation organizations are in competition with each other and other human service
agencies to obtain and maintain qualified and desirable counselors to provide services to people
with disabilities. Thirty-four participants expressed discontent with the wages and benefits.
Responses included “salary freeze--no raises,” “not enough pay,” “no salary increases or
incentives,” “losing benefits, low salary,” and “billable hours.”
Work environment. The work environment is often multi-dimensional including
physical and political policies and practices. This theme materialized from the answers provided
by 33 participants. The work environment culture theme contained the following: “Agency
politics–nepotism,” “dysfunctional work environment,” “disorganization of the agency,” “cliques
are rewarded, outcomes are fudged,” “equipment that is sometimes really slow in functioning,”
“lack of respect as a professional,” and “lack of institutional support.”

71

Policies/regulations. The application of policies and rehabilitation regulations by
funding and accreditation institutions is a matter of translation into the practice setting.
Dissemination strategies of the policies and regulations many need to be enhanced with an
emphasis on improving the complex rehabilitation process and promoting sustainability of
programs and the organization. Policies and regulations were listed 29 times as a frustration
theme. Sponsoring a structured approach and engaging staff on methods and plans to translate
and implement policies engages practitioners and decision makers for better understanding and
investment in the outcome. Illustrative quotes included “contradictory, arbitrary policy,”
“meaningless regulations,” “workers' compensation is an illogical system,” “agency bad
policies,” “auto no fault law,” and “policy is made for to protect the agency not to move clients
forward in the most productive way.”
Coworkers. The rehabilitation service profession is part of the human service field and
involves a team approach to address the needs of the customers/clients and to assist them to
reach their goals. Counselors rely on the skills, services, and professionalism of others during the
rehabilitation process. Coworker frustrations were cited 27 times: “dealing with incompetent
people,” “coworkers w/personal agendas,” “a lack of accountability with colleagues,”
“coworkers or supervisors who are not committed to the cause,” and “high turnover, lack of
personal investment.”
Communication. Participants stated a frustration with communication within the
workplace. The availability of a supervisor to listen and provide guidance and support was
important to counselors along with respect of the professional skills and acknowledgement for
the work performed. Practitioners also wanted communication from administrators of impending
change and direction. The 27 responses included “constantly changing their minds on how things

72

should be done,” “unclear directives from the leadership,” “poor communication,” “feeling that
my agency doesn't care if I stay or go,” “lack of respect,” and “no acknowledgment for all we
do.”
Customers/clients. Notable exasperating experiences for counselors ranged from the
customers’ support systems to the customers’ attitude, expectations, and motivation to participate
in rehabilitation services. Twenty-four responses reflected on the customer/clients: “individuals
that are unmotivated and angry,” “working with people who take advantage of this system,” “the
lack of parental support,” “lack of motivation by clients or a sense of entitlement,” and “people
who want services 'handed' to them but do not want to work to get to where they want to be.”
Resources. Counselors work in coordination with other professionals and community
services. Many different resources are needed to perform rehabilitation services. Funding is
needed for the counselor payment of services, and sometimes the counselor manages the
payment for customer services. Having the funding, staffing, office equipment, and
customers/clients is part of the rehabilitation tools. Twenty-four counselors mentioned resources
as a frustration: “lack of funds,” “lack of employment opportunities for clients with disabilities,”
“insufficient resources,” “transportation for getting people to work,” “marketing,” and
“technological challenges.”
Professional and career development. Professional and career development has
multiple dimensions including maintaining skills, expanding current skills, obtaining new skills,
and using skills for promotion to another job. Counselors mentioned development in eight
statements as a source of frustration: “the lack of room for growth,” “little opportunity to use my
skills/experiences,” “little opportunity to be intellectually creative and practice what I was taught

73

at school”, “they need more legitimate training” and “the training they provide and the value is
poor.”
The frustration of paperwork (23.4%) and elements of bureaucracy (8.1%) totaling 31.5%
far outweighed all the other frustrations listed by rehabilitation counselors (see Table 12). When
compared to the largest reward themes, assisting others to achieve their goals (36%) and service
to others (34.7%) encompassed 70.7% of the responses. The data give the impression that
counselors enjoy providing service to customers and tolerate the bureaucratic paperwork.

Table 12
Counselor Frustration Responses by Themes
Frustrations
Tasks/Paperwork
Bureaucracy/”Red-Tape”
Supervisors/Leadership
Pay/Benefits
Work Environment
Policies/Regulations
Communication
Coworkers
Resources
Customers/Clients
Professional and Career Development
Nothing
Total

Number
87
30
47
34
33
28
27
27
24
24
8
3
372

Percentage
23.4
8.1
12.6
9.1
8.9
7.5
7.3
7.3
6.5
6.5
2.2
.8
100%

The total numbers of participants in the study were 283, and the majority of the
participants provided more than one response on a source of frustration while working as a
rehabilitation counselor for a total of 372 responses (see Appendix Q). The “Tasks/Paperwork”
or “Bureaucracy/Red-Tape” listed as source of frustration by participants (117) included
“Supervisors/Leadership” (9), Coworkers (9), “Pay/Benefits” (7), “Policies/Regulations (6), or

74

“Communication” (5). Participants who listed “Supervisors/Leadership” (47) as a source of
frustration also included “Communication” (7), “Policy/Regulations” (4), or “Work
Environment” (2). Participants who listed” Pay/Benefits” as a sources of frustration included
“Coworkers” (4) and “Communication (4).
Overlapping Themes
An analysis of the themes that emerged from the qualitative data provided by
rehabilitation counselors found four that were viewed as being both a reward and a frustration.
The four overlapping themes were Professional and Career Development, Pay/Benefits,
Coworkers, and Customer/Client. The frustration theme of Customer/Client was interconnected
with the reward themes of Service to Others and Assisting Others to Achieve Their Goals. See
Table 13. The weight of the themes varied within the categories. The rewards of providing
service to customers/clients (70.7%) far outweighed the few frustrating aspects (6.5%) of some
customers. The Pay/Benefits was more frustrating (9.3%) than rewarding (4.2%). Coworkers
garnered about an equal amount of reward and frustration responses, and Professional and Career
Development was slightly more frustrating (2.2%) than rewarding (1.0%).

Table 13
Overlapping Themes
Theme
Customer/Client and
Service to Others/Assisting
Others to Achieve Their
Goals
Pay/Benefits
Coworkers
Professional and Career
Development

N Frustration
24

Frustration %
6.5

N Reward
217

Reward %
70.7

34
27
8

9.3
7.3
2.2

13
23
3

4.2
7.5
1.0

75

Hypotheses Testing
Two hypotheses were tested employing quantitative techniques. By computing the
Pearson correlation coefficients of the means for the job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI, the researcher examined statistical significance between the variables. If
p <.05 were reached, it would determine that a relationship existed between job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI (Frankel & Wallen, 2006). If p <.05 were not reached for
the hypothesis, it would be concluded a relationship did not exist between job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI. The significance level established for rejection of the null
hypothesis was p >.05.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that job satisfaction is significantly related to organizational
commitment. Null hypothesis 1 predicted that job satisfaction will not have a significant
correlation to organizational commitment. The correlation matrix as presented in Appendix P
illustrates the positive and significant correlation of the nine dimensions of job satisfaction to
affective commitment, three of the nine dimensions of job satisfaction (promotion, supervision,
and nature of the work) to normative commitment, and two of the nine dimensions of job
satisfaction (promotion and operation conditions) to continuance commitment. Because there
were significant correlations in some of the nine features of job satisfaction to the three forms of
organizational commitment, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was
accepted.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 predicted that job satisfaction and organizational commitment is
significantly related to TOI. Null hypothesis 2 predicted that job satisfaction and organizational

76

commitment will not have a significant correlation related to TOI. The correlation matrix in
Appendix I revealed the negative statistically significant relationship of all nine dimensions of
job satisfaction to TOI. The correlation matrix in Appendix N displays the negative statistically
significant relationship of the correlation with all three forms of organizational commitment to
TOI. Therefore, null hypothesis 2 was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.
A multiple linear regression model was used to determine the best predictors of TOI. Using the
12 independent variables of organizational commitment and job satisfaction (affective
commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment, pay, promotion, supervision,
fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of the work and
communication) accounted for 40% (adjusted R square) of the explained variance in the
dependent variable (TOI; see Table 14). These findings provide moderate support for Hypothesis
2, job satisfaction and organizational commitment will significantly related TOI.

77

Table 14
Regression Analysis of Main Model
a

Model
1
(Constant)
OCaff
OCnorm
OCcontine
JSpay
JSprom
JSsup
JSfrinbene
JSconrwd
JSoper_cond
JScowkrs
JSnat_wrk
JScomm
Model
1

Coefficients
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
33.66
2.66
12.66
.00
-.23
.04
-.42
-5.51
.00
-.03
.04
-.04
-.77
.44
-.12
.03
-.22
-4.15
.00
.04
.11
.02
.32
.75
-.02
.12
-.01
-.17
.87
.04
.07
.03
.49
.62
-.10
.06
-.08
-1.53
.13
-.11
.10
-.09
-1.05
.29
-.05
.08
-.03
-.60
.55
.05
.09
.04
.57
.57
-.26
.10
-.15
-2.47
.01
-.05
.09
-.04
-.58
.56
Model Summary
R Square
Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.42
.40
4.58

R
a
.65
a. Predictors: (Constant), JScomm, OCnorm, OCcontine, JSfrinbene, JSnat_wrk,
JSpay, JSoper_cond, JScowkrs, JSprom, JSsup, OCaff, JSconrwd
Dependent Variable: TOI (TOI).
Independent Variables: Nine subcategories of Job Satisfaction; Affective Commitment,
Normative Commitment, and Continuance Commitment
Significance level = p < .05
Summary of Results
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI and to determine whether the relationship was generalized
across individual differences such as professional and organization tenure, work setting,
geographic setting, gender, ethnicity, and age. According to the results of the study, the
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment to TOI was negatively,
78

significantly, and consistently different than zero. Affective organizational commitment was
positive and significantly different than zero on all aspects of job satisfaction. Normative
commitment was positive and significantly different with three aspects of job satisfaction
(promotion, supervision, and nature of work) and continuance commitment on three aspects
(promotion, operational conditions, and communication). The control variables of age, gender,
geographic setting, work setting, organization tenure, and professional tenure might pose as
mitigating factors with the variables of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job
satisfaction. The themes that emerged from the counselors’ statements were Service to Others
and Assisting Others to Achieve Their Goals as the most rewarding facets of their work. Tasks
and Paperwork (specifically bureaucracy) were the most frustrating aspects of rehabilitation
counseling.

79

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
This study was conducted to examine the relationship between job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI of CRCs. This study also examined several control
variables related to the aforementioned variables. The results of the quantitative and qualitative
data revealed a number of positive and negative relationships between the study variables. This
study provides data in support of TOI literature regarding job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and specific information on certified rehabilitation counselors.
This chapter contains a summary of the study as well as conclusions and
recommendations based on the results of the investigation. This review of the study’s research
questions and important findings explores the connection of the findings to the theoretical
framework, discusses implications for rehabilitation agencies and counselor educators, and
presents future research.
Research Questions
After a review of the job satisfaction, organizational commitment, TOI, and rehabilitation
counselor literature, the following questions were designed to guide the study:
1.

What are the current levels of job satisfaction among CRCs?

2.

What are the current levels of organizational commitment among CRCs?

3.

What is the effect of job satisfaction on organizational commitment?

4.

What effect does job satisfaction and organizational commitment have on the TOI
of CRCs?

5.

How do CRCs describe the rewards and challenges of their employment
experiences?

80

The results of the quantitative and qualitative data analyses provided the answers to the research
questions. Statistical correlations, means testing, and multiple linear regression models were used
as the primary analyses.
Question 1
The findings of this study indicate that current level of job satisfaction among CRCs was
high overall on all dimensions of job satisfaction. The highest satisfaction was with “nature of
work,” and “pay” obtained the lowest satisfaction level. Age, work setting, organization tenure,
and professional tenure might have mitigating effects on the job satisfaction of counselors. The
age variable might moderate the job satisfaction of counselor in that statistically more counselors
less than 30 years old reported being more satisfied with their wages than any of the other age
groups. The work setting variable might moderate job satisfaction in that counselors who worked
in private for profit work settings reported being more satisfied with their pay, promotion
opportunities, contingent rewards, operating conditions, and communication than counselors who
worked in other settings. The organizational tenure control variable might moderate the job
satisfaction in that statistically significant amount of counselors who worked for their current
employer between 21 and 25 years were more satisfied with their pay than those with different
years of tenure. Professional tenure might be a mitigating factor for job satisfaction in that
counselors with 26 or more years of experience in the field of rehabilitation counseling reported
being more satisfied than those with less professional experience with promotion, contingent
rewards, and communication in their current job (see Appendix L).
Question 2
The current level of organizational commitment among CRCs was high and positive
overall and continuance commitment mean was the highest type of commitment. Continuance

81

commitment is being committed to an organization because a counselor feels he/she “must” after
weighing the options and comparing the losses and benefits of leaving. The lowest commitment
was normative commitment or staying with an organization because of loyalty. The
organizational tenure control variable might moderate organizational commitment in that the
longer counselors worked for their current employer, the more they wanted to be there and they
felt they had to continue to work at their current place of employment. Professional tenure might
be a mitigating factor for organizational commitment in that counselors with more years of
experience in the field of rehabilitation counseling reported being more committed because they
wanted to be with the organization and felt they had to continue to work at their at their place of
employment (see Appendix M).
Question 3
Job satisfaction had a positive and significant association with affective and normative
organizational commitment among CRCs. Affective commitment had the strongest association
with job satisfaction in that it was significantly associated on all nine job satisfaction dimensions
(see Appendix K). The affective commitment indicated counselors had a strong identification
with and involvement within their rehabilitation organization. It is expected that higher job
satisfaction translates to higher organizational commitment. Continuance commitment was
negatively and statistically significant related to job satisfaction, the most negative relationship
being promotion, working conditions, and communication. The continuance commitment to an
organization might not rest on the counselor having promotion options, open communication,
and positive working conditions. Perhaps individuals continue to work at their organizations to
earn pensions or health benefits, or for reasons unrelated to the employer such as proximity to
home.

82

Question 4
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment were statistically significant and
negatively associated with turnover intent (see Appendixes I and J). The findings suggested the
higher the job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the more likely the counselor would
continue to work for their current employer and have lower turnover intent.
Question 5
CRCs described their employment experiences as rewarding and frustrating. The
counselors found providing services to people with disabilities and making a difference in the
lives of others a personally gratifying experience (see Appendix P). The counselors responded
that the most challenging part of being a rehabilitation counselor was the procedures that took
time away from working with the customers/clients (tasks and paperwork; see Appendix Q). The
findings suggest the bureaucracy and “red tape” of the rehabilitation process in the CRCs
workplace was frustrating, but counselors tolerate it to do the work they enjoy, providing
services to people with disabilities.
Relationship of the Findings to Theoretical Framework
The job satisfaction theory is commonly associated with employee TOI. The primary
focus for using this theory was for the measurement of the job satisfaction subscales to TOI. The
organizational commitment theory has been closely aligned with turnover TOI. The primary
focus for using this theory was for the measurement of the three types of organizational
commitment to the turn over intent of CRCs and if any of the job satisfaction subscales were
statistically significant to organizational commitments.
This research contributes to the TOI research by providing empirical findings and
theoretical interpretations of the role of nine subscales of job satisfaction and the three forms of

83

organizational commitment among CRCs. The theoretical framework for guiding this study
suggested that job satisfaction and organizational commitment influenced TOI (see Figure 2).
The findings from the main model regression model including all 12 independent variables
(Table 11) suggested affective commitment (.00), continuance commitment (.00), and the job
satisfaction dimension “nature of work” (.01) were significant predictors of TOI. The open and
axel coding of the responses to the open-ended questions suggested organizations and the VR
field should look at what counselors consider rewarding and frustrating about rehabilitation
counseling to sustain the workforce.
Findings from the study may be of assistance in future research by utilizing the
moderating variable of work setting as a possible constant on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI. A future theoretical framework with the moderating variable from this
study could reinforce the current study’s findings and expand the research on TOI in the
rehabilitation counseling field (see Figure 4).

84

Pay
Operating
Conditions

Nature of
Work

Affective
Commitment

Fringe
Benefits

Job
Satisfaction

Supervision

Communication
Coworkers

Continuance
Commitment

Promotion

Contingennt
Rewards

Normative
Commitment

Work Setting

Turnover
Intent

Figure 4. Future theoretical framework on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI
with moderating variable.

85

Implications
To be viable a service to the community, rehabilitation organizations are reliant upon
skilled rehabilitation counselors to perform their jobs. The sustainability of rehabilitation
counselors is a concerning, yet not often investigated issue. Of the existing studies only one had
a national focus and few had a theoretical framework of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. The focus of this study was to explore these variables and possible influence on the
turnover intent of certified rehabilitation counselors. The finding had implications for
rehabilitation counselors, rehabilitation agencies, and counselor educators.
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselors
Rehabilitation counselors might use the information provided in this research to be
proactive in the workplace by suggesting ways to reduce the paperwork, volunteer to be part of
work teams to create changes in policy, work rules, documentation, approaches to the work,
supervision, working conditions, wages etc. Counselors might use the information to find ways
to create leadership and professional growth from their current positions.
Communication is very important for the workplace, and counselors might need to be
preemptive in building a bridge of communication between the different layers of staff in their
organizations. Being respected, heard, understood, recognized, and included in the decisions that
affect your work is what employees want in the workplace. Counselors have a responsibility to
create the change they want to see in their rehabilitation agency.
Implications for Rehabilitation Agencies
For rehabilitation agencies, research into what rehabilitation counselors consider as
significant work factors could provide information on how to best retain desirable counselors.
The results of the correlation among variables suggest job satisfaction is an important variable

86

for counselors to be committed to an organization and continue to remain in their employment
providing rehabilitation services. Implications for rehabilitation agencies are provided since it is
expected the agencies will need to lead in the efforts to retain their rehabilitation counselors.
Incorporating job satisfaction and organization commitment principles into the
organization structure of rehabilitation organizations might involve some obstacles but result in
the invaluable retention of CRCs. Based on the findings, several patterns emerged for
rehabilitation agency to consider for the sustainability of their business, succession planning of
their rehabilitation counselors (recruitment), and retention of CRCs currently employed in the
agency.
One pattern of the results suggests organizations may need to find ways to look at and
improve their office culture. Each rehabilitation agency has a unique culture of its own.
Development of an agency culture that values the job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of rehabilitation counselors could assist in making the agency a more positive work
environment resulting in the sustainability of CRCs.
Succession planning also emerged as a possible pattern that may address the issues of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Rehabilitation agencies may need to be prepared
for their new rehabilitation counselor hires to turnover. Incorporating a method of addressing the
TOI within a rehabilitation agency may be part of succession planning. Rehabilitation counselors
may be committed to the profession but not necessarily a specific organization. The methods of
addressing turnover may contribute in ensuring rehabilitation counselors with years of
experience continue to work and provide a positive and supportive environment for counselors
with less experience to be satisfied with their jobs, be committed to the organization, and reduce
their TOI.

87

The process of succession planning with an emphasis addressing TOI might include the
monitoring and current employees and exit surveying or interviewing of counselors departing an
agency. This will require the leadership of an agency to embrace and address issues related to the
bureaucracy, paperwork, and lack of competent supervision described by counselors as major
reasons impacting their work as a counselor.
Another pattern within the results suggests rehabilitation organizations might consider
providing learning opportunities for those in management and leadership positions. Just because
someone is a good counselor does not mean he/she has the skills, abilities, or knowledge to be a
manager. Also, managers need to understand the nature of counselor work and address the
clinical and administrative needs of the organization. Access to ongoing educational information
for the skill development of a rehabilitation manager may have implications for the job
satisfaction and organizational commitment of counselors. However, to have the desired impact
on TOI, several agency processes may need to be considered for manager development. For
example, training sessions on the clinical supervision process and administrative procedures
should be infused into the orientation and ongoing training of managers. This training might
incorporate the following to provide the rehabilitation managers with a foundational knowledge
concerning the role of a clinical supervisor: supervision models, knowledge competencies, case
work analysis, communication, fiscal responsibilities, personnel operations, ethics,
professionalism, and internal and external politics. The process of having a training program for
managers might begin with obtaining information from current managers of what they feel they
need to improve their development and include the counselors’ perspective of the management
skills and training process.

88

An additional pattern that emerged from this study suggests rehabilitation agencies might
need to seek ways to continuously develop resources for counselors to do rehabilitation work.
Having resources to perform the functions of the job was cited as a concern for rehabilitation
counselors. Obtaining and maintaining resources include having competent and adequate agency
support staff, funding for counselor salary and benefits, funding for service acquisition and
provision, a steady flow of customers that are able to benefit from rehabilitation services, and
community organizations that can be utilized as partners, vendors, or referral sources.
Rehabilitation services are a business and must be treated as such to remain a viable organization
in the community providing services to individuals with disabilities. Rehabilitation agencies
might need to consider hiring or training current staff to seek additional funding options and
marketing services, building partnerships, providing political leverage, conducting training for
new and seasoned employees, and developing succession plans which include current staff in the
process.
Another pattern that emerged was finding ways to take care of the counselor by looking
at workplace policy and programs that can support counselor well-being and provide a
competitive wage with benefits. It is imperative that rehabilitation agencies have rehabilitation
counselors to provide the services to people with disabilities. Providing a workplace that
supports the well-being of the staff may assist with job satisfaction and organizational
commitment thus resulting in the retention of employees. The leadership of the agency might
look at the concept of counselor well-being connected to counselor work outcomes and
implementing agency strategies to increase counselors’ personal health, rewards, wages, and
benefits while reducing the agency paperwork, and improving the skills of supervisor, resources,
and the work environment.

89

A replication of this study and analysis of the results within individual rehabilitation
organizations could provide a basis for the content of in-service trainings of current counselors,
managers, and leaders for organization succession planning. Retaining current counselors and
attracting new hires are essential for organizations to continue the provision of rehabilitation
services.
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators
For rehabilitation counselor educators in an academic setting or within an organizational
training unit, the results of the study suggest developing seminars or programs focused on the job
satisfaction and organizational commitment may affect the TOI of counselors. Increasing and
updating the counseling skills are important for counselors to feel prepared when addressing the
needs of people with multiple and varied disabilities. Counselor educators should consider
developing partnerships with rehabilitation organizations to assist with continuous improvement
of counselor expertise and assist with programming for the development of rehabilitation
managers. This process might include engaging the entire workforce within an organization to
obtain information on what is needed to improve the job satisfaction and organization
commitment. The counselor educators might invite other university departments such as the
school of business to look at the agency configurations to suggest strategies to increase work
flow, create or change policy, improve procedures, build positive communication, develop
marketing tactics, agency branding, reduce redundancy, and address the challenges of
rehabilitation counselors to decrease TOI.
The researcher observed the disparity of the ethnic diversity of CRCs in comparison to
the United States Census Bureau of the population. The minority population of CRCs was 21%,
and this is below the United States Census Bureau data of minorities (36.6 % of the US

90

population). Counselor educators should consider the development or improvement of
recruitment and retention strategies of minority students in master’s degree programs as a means
to build the minority population of CRCs. Rehabilitation agencies might seek a diverse
workforce as an organization operating in a human service field. The diversity of the workforce
might affect the internal operations of a rehabilitation agency and obtaining outcomes, the
attraction of customers to the rehabilitation agency, and the ability to build partnerships with
external stakeholders in the community.
A replication of this study and analysis of the research for an organization might provide
counselor educators with the content for ongoing rehabilitation counselor and supervisor training
courses. The preservice counselor understanding of workplace expectations might conceivably
assist with job satisfaction and organizational commitment once the counselor is employed by a
rehabilitation organization. Counselor educators’ assistance with implementing strategies to
reduce TOI to enhance the recruitment and retention of counselors at an agency may benefit both
the university programs and the rehabilitation agency. The university program might be
considered a program that assists to ensure a positive future for the rehabilitation counselor
graduates and a valuable resource for agencies to use when seeking methods to reduce TOI.
Future Research
Future research can build on the findings of this study by identifying specific
organizational practices that might trigger TOI and formulate ways for administrators to detect
and transform procedures or behaviors within rehabilitation organizations. Once the practices or
procedures are identified, additional research can study the methods used by organizations to
transform the agency.

91

Additional research in the area of generational differences with a look at career stage and
TOI of rehabilitation counselors could expand the information on age differences found in this
study. Older rehabilitation counselors were found to be more satisfied and committed to their
rehabilitation agency than younger counselors. Investigating the reason why and what methods,
procedures, and policies might be attractive to younger counselors may be important for the
retention of counselors. The information could be useful for the succession planning of
rehabilitation agencies.
Practicing rehabilitation counselors come from many professional disciplines
(counseling, psychology, and social work); they might hold membership and certifications in
professional organization other than CRCC, the selected professional organization for this study.
Not all states require practicing rehabilitation counselors to be CRCs; therefore, practicing
rehabilitation counselors might not hold membership in the professional organization (CRCC)
utilized by the researcher. The population sample selected for this study was dues paying and
successful test taking members of CRCC, a specific rehabilitation professional organization.
While this allowed the researcher to focus on a predisposed group of rehabilitation counselors
and was representative of CRCs, it may have underrepresented the overall practicing
rehabilitation counselor population. Gaining a broader sample of “practicing” rehabilitation
counselors might allow for a more in-depth understanding of the understanding of the potential
differences in the in the TOI of those who are certified and noncertified rehabilitation counselors.
Research on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of a broader sample of
“practicing” rehabilitation counselors might add to information training, agency supports, and
strategies for the retention of rehabilitation counselors.

92

Research on the efforts of university programs and rehabilitation agencies to recruit and
retain non-Caucasian counselors may broaden the finding of this study. The researcher observed
the percentage of the non-Caucasian CRC population was far below the US Census Bureau
population of non-Caucasians. With a constant growth of the non-Caucasian population in the
United States, rehabilitation educators and agencies might need to develop strategies to recruit
and retain counselors who reflect the communities they will serve.
Research on rehabilitation supervision, promotion, and training in relation to counselor
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI could also increase information on the
current information on supervision and counselor retention within rehabilitation agencies. The
research could be used to develop policies and procedures within agencies for use with
succession planning and the sustainability of counselors.
Supervision is an important component to the retention of rehabilitation counselors. In
The qualitative finding showed supervision to be challenge for CRCs. Gaining more
understanding of how rehabilitation counselors define and perceive their supervisors could be an
area for future research. The research could provide the field and an agency with information for
the opportunities to develop strategies to address the supervisor’s role in the job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI of the rehabilitation counselors.
Research on counselor job satisfaction and promotion could be an expansion of this
study. How counselors perceive the promotion process and opportunities within a rehabilitation
agency could be used to review personnel and supervision practices for implications on
counselor TOI. The research could provide rehabilitation agencies with a solid foundation for
changes in communication, counselor professional growth, and supervisor preparation and
training.

93

Research on the availability and quality of continuous training for rehabilitation
counselors could broaden the scope of this study. The research might be of interest to
rehabilitation counselors, agencies, and rehabilitation educators. Information related to the field
of rehabilitation services is vast and in a constant state of expansion. Rehabilitation counselors’
knowledge base is expected to include information on disabilities, labor market, economic
growth, labor laws, counseling techniques, budgeting, computer usage, and job accommodations.
All of these areas are constantly changing, and counselors should have opportunities to increase
and improve their knowledge to perform the essential functions of the job. Gaining the
information on the prevalence, accessibility, and quality of training for rehabilitation counselors
could provide rehabilitation educators with an opportunity to be a partner with rehabilitation
agencies by providing continuous training. This partnership could keep the educators connected
to the field for research and funding opportunities. The agencies would gain evidence-based
training from qualified university educators, and the counselors would gain the opportunity to
participate in quality trainings.
Another suggestion for future research would be to explore the relationships of the
supervisor training and proficiency in clinical supervision to counselor job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and TOI. Supervisory clinical supervision is cultured skill, meaning
actions can be taken to create individual clinical supervision knowledge and skills, and
rehabilitation agencies can create policies and procedures to encourage the use of clinical
supervision in the workplace.
The development of quantitative and qualitative research studies related to the job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI of counselors within rehabilitation agencies
will be beneficial to the field of rehabilitation counseling. Research with a quantitative

94

methodology provides a means of testing the variables, and the results are measured in numerical
data and analyzed using statistical procedures. Research with a qualitative methodology provides
a means of exploring and understanding the counselor’s experiences as rehabilitation counselor.
Future research using qualitative methodology could assist in gathering initial data for agencies
to develop distinct areas to address for reducing TOI. Additional questions could examine
strategies for improving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Work teams and focus
groups could probe into system changes to support the reduction in TOI of rehabilitation
counselors. Additional qualitative research could provide a more holistic and in-depth
understanding of TOI and ways to optimize the counselor job satisfaction and organizational
commitment.
Limitations
Although this research was carefully prepared, limitations and shortcomings exist and
might have had an impact on participant responses. The researcher found five main limitations to
this study, including responsiveness, certification, time of year, historical setting, and moment in
time.
Responsiveness
The first limitation in the study is the responsiveness of the participants. The response of
283 participants, while statically representative and beyond the 210 participant minimum might
not have captured differences found in those who did not respond to the email request to
participate. Given the topic of the study (TOI), it is more likely than not counselors most likely
to voluntarily leave their organization may have systematically under participated in the study
and biased the results. Likewise, those who decided to participate in the study might have been
predisposed to continuing to stay with their agency and provided positive responses.

95

Certification
The second limitation is the researcher’s selection of CRCs versus rehabilitation
counselors who are not certified. Not all rehabilitation agencies require certification of their
rehabilitation counselors. Therefore, it is each counselor’s personal choice to take the
professional CRC exam, pay annual dues, and take continuing education seminars to maintain
the professional membership. Due to the time and commitment of the certified counselor to the
field of rehabilitation counseling, the participants in this study might have been more inclined to
provide positive responses.
Time of Year
The third limitation is the time of year the study was conducted. Summer is the time of
year when people leave their places of employment for vacations and do not access their email
accounts. The research was conducted using an online computer survey provider during the
summer (June). The email list provided by CRCC may have contained personal or work email
listings for the participants. It is unknown if access to the email was limited or unavailable by the
employers and if participants were indisposed during month the survey was open.
Historical Setting
The fourth limitation is the historical setting of the survey, which refers to the events that
may have taken place and impacted the response of the participants. The research was conducted
in 2013. The economy of the United States was in the beginning stages of recovery from a
downturn in the real estate market from home foreclosures. The participants might have possibly
been experiencing high levels of uncertainty about obtaining other employment and not wanting
to leave their organizations until the economy was more stable.

96

Moment in Time
The fifth limitation is the data set being limited to responses provided at a single moment
in time. While the study is representative of certified rehabilitation counselors across the United
States, it can only be generalized as the current relationship of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and TOI among CRCs and not intended to be a stable or ongoing representation of
the population.
Conclusion
The mixed methods design of this study provided data to better understand the job
satisfaction and organizational commitment of CRCs. This studied identified factors that
impacted turnover within the field of rehabilitation counseling.
Job satisfaction was a significant predictor of TOI on the three of nine subscales: nature
of the work, contingent rewards, and communication. All three types of organizational
commitment were found to be significant predictor of TOI. Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment were significantly and negatively statistically significant related to TOI.
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment were found to be significant and
positively related on all subscales of affirmative commitment; three job satisfaction subscales
(promotion, supervision, and nature of work) and normative commitment; and three job
satisfaction subscales (promotion, operating conditions, and communications) and continuance
commitment. The finding suggest age may have a mitigating effect on the TOI of rehabilitation
counselors older workers with more years of organization and professional tenure were found to
have less TOI than younger counselors with 5 years or less of organization or professional
tenure. Ethnicity was not found to have an effect on the TOI of counselors.

97

Rehabilitation counselors involved in this study reported being satisfied with their job
and committed to their rehabilitation agencies. The qualitative responses supported the
participants perceived level of satisfaction and commitment. This information is critical because
rehabilitation counselors enjoy being able to provide services to others and assisting others to
achieve their goals. Working with the customer/client was found to be the most rewarding aspect
of rehabilitation counseling. However, other issues including the amount of paperwork,
bureaucracy, poor supervision, and wages may impact a counselor’s TOI. Addressing these
issues while continuing to understand what satisfies and keeps the counselor committed to an
organization will be critical to the sustainability of rehabilitation counselors.
The incorporation of investigating the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of
rehabilitation counselors within rehabilitation agencies would be major step in addressing the
turnover of counselors. The infusion of the results of the investigation could be part of the
organization succession planning, staff training and development, personnel policies, and
operation procedures of rehabilitation agencies.
The findings imply the need for further research on rehabilitation counselor job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI to add to the body of evidence for system
changes within rehabilitation agencies and university rehabilitation education programs. Future
research may investigate job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and TOI as they relate to
clinical supervision, promotion, disparity of non-Caucasian rehabilitation counselors,
generational differences and career stage, continuous training for current counselors, training of
managers, and qualitative research methodology to obtain specific information for organization
system change. All this might assist rehabilitation organizations in public, private, nonprofit, or
for-profit settings with the improvement of recruitment programs, content of curriculum

98

platforms, personnel policy, and operation procedures for the retention of counselors within
rehabilitation organizations.

99

APPENDICES

100

APPENDIX A
JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY
Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, all rights reserved. Used with permission.
Directions: Select the response for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion
about it.
Rating scale: 1 = Disagree very much
2 = Disagree moderately
3 = Disagree slightly
4 = Agree slightly
5 = Agree moderately
6 = Agree very much
(RS= Reverse Scored)
____ 1.

I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.

____ 2.

There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. (RS)

____ 3.

My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.

____ 4.

I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. (RS)

____ 5.

When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.

____ 6.

Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. (RS)

____ 7.

I like the people I work with.

____ 8.

I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. (RS)

____ 9.

Communications seem good within this organization.

____ 10. Raises are too few and far between. (RS)
____ 11. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.
____ 12. My supervisor is unfair to me. (RS)
____ 13. The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.
____ 14. I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. (RS)
____ 15. My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.

101

____ 16. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of coworkers. (RS)
____ 17. I like doing the things I do at work.
____ 18. The goals of this organization are not clear to me. (RS)
____ 19. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. (RS)
____ 20. People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.
____ 21. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. (RS)
____ 22. The benefit package we have is equitable.
____ 23. There are few rewards for those who work here. (RS)
____ 24. I have too much to do at work. (RS)
____ 25. I enjoy my coworkers.
____ 26. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. (RS)
____ 27. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.
____ 28. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.
____ 29. There are benefits we do not have which we should have. (RS)
____ 30. I like my supervisor.
____ 31. I have too much paperwork. (RS)
____ 32. I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. (RS)
____ 33. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.
____ 34. There is too much bickering and fighting at work. (RS)
____ 35. My job is enjoyable.
____ 36. Work assignments are not fully explained. (RS)

102

APPENDIX B
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Copyright 2004 John Meyer and Natalie Allen. The TCM Employee Commitment Survey was
licensed by the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Used with permission.
Directions: Please read each of the questions carefully and indicate the response that best
corresponds to your answer regarding your current job.
Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly Disagree
4 =Undecided
5 = Slightly Agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly Agree
(RS= Reverse Scored)
____ 1.

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career within this agency.

____ 2.

I enjoy discussing my agency with people outside of it.

____ 3.

I really feel as if this agency’s problems are my own.

____ 4.

I think I could easily become as attached to another agency as I am to this one. (RS)

____ 5.

I do feel like “part of the family” at my agency.

____ 6.

I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this agency. (RS)

____ 7.

This agency has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

____ 8.

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my agency. (RS)

____ 9.

I think people these days move from company to company too often.

____ 10.

I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization. (RS)

____ 11.

Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me. (RS)

____ 12.

One of the major reasons why I continue to work for this agency is that I believe
loyalty is important to and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain.

____ 13.

If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel right to leave my
agency.

103

____ 14.

I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization.

____ 15.

Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most
of their careers.

____ 16.

I do not think that wanting to be a “company man” is sensible anymore. (RS)

____ 17.

I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one
lined up. (RS)

____ 18.

It would be very hard for me to leave my agency right now, even if I wanted to.

____ 19.

Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my agency right now.

____ 20.

It would be too costly for me to leave my job in the near future.

____ 21.

I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving my agency.

____ 22.

Right now, staying with my agency is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

____ 23.

One of the few negative consequences of leaving this agency would be the
scarcity of available alternatives.

____ 24.

One of the major reasons why I would continue working for this agency is that
leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice another organization may not
match the overall benefits here.

104

APPENDIX C
TURNOVER INTENT SURVEY
Combined by Dennis Bozeman and Pamela Perrewe (2001) called Turnover Cognitions.
Based on and from Mowday, Koberg, and McArthur (1984) and Mobley, Horner, and
Hollingsworth (1978). Used with permission.
Directions: This section has five statements related to your intentions of leaving your
organization. Select a response on the rating scale that best applies to your intentions.
Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Undecided
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
(RS= Reverse Scored)
____ 1.

I will probably look for a new job in the near future.

____ 2.

At the present time, I am actively searching for another job in a different
organization.

____ 3.

I do not intend to quit my job. (RS)

____ 4.

It is unlikely that I will actively look for a different organization to work for in the
next year. (RS)

____ 5.

I am not thinking about quitting my job at the present time. (RS)

Short Answer
Directions: This section has two questions related to the attributes of your work. Write a brief
response to the questions.
1. What is the most rewarding aspect of your current job?
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
2. What is the most frustrating aspect of your current job?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

105

APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE
1.

What best describes your work setting as a rehabilitation counselor?
___ Public VR (specify) __________________

____State

____ Federal/Veteran

___ Private for profit (insurance, individual counseling…)
___ Private nonprofit (community rehabilitation organization, advocacy…)
___ Other: __________________________________________
2.

In what state do you work? (i.e...Alabama, Colorado, Utah…) _______________________

3.

In what geographic setting do you work?
__ Urban

4.

__ Suburban

How long have you worked for your current organization?
____0-5 yrs

5.

___6-10 yrs

___6-10 yrs

___11-15 yrs ___16-20 yrs ____21-25 yrs ___26 + yrs

What is the highest degree you have earned?
_____ Bachelors

7.

___11-15 yrs ___16-20 yrs ____21-25 yrs ___26 + yrs

How long have you worked as a rehabilitation counselor?
____0-5 yrs

6.

__Rural

____Masters

____Doctorate

What college degree major was used to obtain your current position?
______ Rehabilitation Counseling
______ Rehabilitation Psychology
______ Rehabilitation Specialty (e.g. vocational evaluation, job placement)
______ Other Counseling Specialty (e.g. substance abuse, school, family, mental health)
______ Psychology
______ Social Work
______ Special Education
______Other degree major (please specify):_______________________________________

106

8.

How do you identify your ethnicity?
___ African American/Black
___Asian/Asian American/Asian Indian
___ Caucasian/White /Non-Hispanic
___ Hispanic/Latino/Spanish
___ Native American/American Indian/Alaskan Native
___ Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
___ Other (please specify):____________________________

9.

What was your age at your last birthday? ____years old

10. What is your gender?
____ Female _____Male

107

APPENDIX E
RESEARCH INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORM
The Research
You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted by Terrie E. Hylton of
Michigan State University. This study examines the relationship of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intent among certified rehabilitation counselors. The
overall purpose of the study is to yield information that will be helpful in addressing the
recruitment and retention efforts of rehabilitation counselors.
Your Participation
Your participation involves completing a survey instrument with three parts and a demographics
form, which should take approximately 15 minutes.
Your Rights
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you can decide at any time to withdraw from
the study. If you choose to participate, you can skip any item you do not wish to answer and/or
withdraw from the study. If you do not wish to submit your responses, you may exit the study at
any time by closing the browser page. No identification information (e.g., name, internet
provider or email, etc.) will be tracked. Your responses will remain confidential.
Potential Benefit and Risks
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation
in this study may contribute to the understanding of trends and interests of rehabilitation
counselors continuing to work in the profession. This study addresses some issues that may be
potentially viewed as sensitive in nature. You will be given the opportunity to receive one (1.0)
continuing education credit from the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
(CRCC) when you complete the survey. You have the right to refuse to answer any question and
withdraw from the study at any time.
Privacy and Confidentiality
The data for this project will be kept confidential. This is a national study, and your information
will not be traceable to your email. The researcher will maintain privacy throughout the research
process by the mechanics of the survey giving each participant an identification code (ID). The
data will be stored using Secure Socket Layer (SSL) security software, which is used for
transmitting private documents or information via the internet.
Your participation in the research will not be traceable by the researcher or anyone reviewing the
data. Only the following will have access to the research data:
 The researcher, Terrie Hylton (Doctoral Candidate)
 Dr. Michael Leahy (Michigan State University Faculty)
 The Institutional Review Board (IRB)
The results of this study may be published in professional journals and presented at professional
meetings/conferences.
108

Contact Information
If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact:
Terrie Hylton, Doctoral Candidate
Michigan State University, CEPSE
455 Erickson Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
hyltonte@msu.edu
517.355.1838
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information, offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may
contact (anonymously if you wish) the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection
Program at 517-355-2180, fax 517-432-4503, email irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Informed Consent
By using your computer mouse and clicking on the “I understand my rights and agree to
participate in the study” box, you voluntarily consent to participate in this study.
After clicking on the “continue” box, you will begin the study with demographic information and
then guided through the survey questions.

109

APPENDIX F
EMAIL LETTER

Dear Potential Research Study Participant:
I am a doctoral student, asking for your assistance with a research study on the relationship of
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intent among certified rehabilitation
counselors. I am excited about this study because I believe that it is important to understand the
nature of rehabilitation counselors continuing to work in the profession. I hope the results of this
study will be used for the recruitment and retention efforts of rehabilitation counselors.
Your opinion would be of great assistance in the research. If you choose to participate in this online study, you will need to connect to the link below and answer the questions. Your
participation is strictly voluntary and confidential. You will be given an opportunity to obtain
one (1.0) continuing education credit from the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor
Certification (CRCC) when you complete the survey.
To participate in the online survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JSOCTI
The home page of the study will have some important information on it. The entire survey and
demographics should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Researchers like me depend upon volunteers like you!
Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you would like a copy of the final results or have
any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at hyltonte@msu.edu.
Sincerely,

Terrie E. Hylton
Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University

110

APPENDIX G
REMINDER EMAIL
Dear Potential Research Study Participant:
I am writing to request 15 minutes of your time. If you have completed the survey, I thank you
for your assistance and time.
If you have not already done so, I respectfully ask your assistance as I conduct a research study
on the relationship of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the intent to leave among
certified rehabilitation counselors. I am doing this research as part of my requirements for my
doctoral program.
Your input is very important and is confidential. While I hope you will choose to participate,
your participation is strictly voluntary. You will be given an opportunity to obtain one (1.0)
continuing education credit from the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification
(CRCC) when you complete the survey.
To participate in the online survey, please go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JSOCTI
Researchers like me depend upon volunteers like you!
Thank you in advance for your assistance. If you would like a copy of the final results or have
any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at hyltonte@msu.edu.
Sincerely,

Terrie E. Hylton
Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University

111

APPENDIX H
CONTINUING CREDIT EMAIL

Dear Participant:
Thank you for completing the survey titled “The Relationship between Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intent among Certified Rehabilitation Counselors.”
Your information will be part of counselor sustainability research.
I have attached the CRCC form with my signature for your 1.0 continuing education credit. You
will need to print it, complete the “participant information” section, and submit it to CRCC
located at1699 E. Woodfield Rd. Suite 300, Schaumburg, IL 60173.
Thank you again for your assistance. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact
me at hyltonte@msu.edu.
Sincerely,

Terrie E. Hylton
Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University

112

APPENDIX I
CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG JOB SATISFACTION VARIABLES AND TOI
Table I1
Correlation Matrix Among Job Satisfaction Variables and TOI

JSpay
JSpay

Pearson Correlation

JSprom
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
JSprom

Pearson Correlation

JSsup

.49

**

JSnatwrk
.18

JScomm

**

.36

**

TOI
-.22

**

291
.49

**

.00

.00

.00

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

283

1

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

291
**

.33

.38

.30

.24

.49

-.27

**

.38

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

283

1

*

**

**

**

**

**

291

291
**

.15

291

**

*

.30

.55

.36

.62

-.31

**

.15

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

291

291

291

291

291

291

283

1

**

**

**

*

**

.00

.01

N

291

291

291

291

**

**

**

**

.60

.34

.17

.13

.27

-.25

**

.34

.00

.00

.03

.00

.00

291

291

291

291

291

283

1

**

**

**

**

.00

.00

.00

.00

N

291

291

291

291

291

**

**

**

**

**

.28

.17

.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

.27

.28

.00

.00

.60

.60

.01

Sig. (2-tailed)

.30

.30

.00

N

.61

.27

.00

.00

.41

.60

.00

.00

JSoper cond Pearson Correlation

.20

**

.00

**

Pearson Correlation

JScowkrs

.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

JSconrwds

.30

**

.00

291

Pearson Correlation

.60

JSopercond

.00

N

JSfrinbene

.41

**

.00

.00

Pearson Correlation

.33

JSconrwds

**

.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

JSsup

JSfrinbene
**

.17

.45

.45

.63

-.39

**

.00

.45

Sig. (2-tailed)

.00

.00

.00

.00

N

291

291

291

291

291

.00

.00

.00

.00

291

291

291

291

283

1

**

**

**

.00

113

.53

.28

.40

.43

-.24

**

.00
291

.00

.00

.00

291

291

291

283

Table I1 (cont’d)
JSpay
JScowkrs

Pearson Correlation

.20

JSprom
**

.30

JSsup
**

.55

JSfrinbene
**

.17

JSconrwds

**

.53

**

JSopercond
.28

**

JScowkrs
1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

N
JSnat_wrk

.00
291

291

291

291

291

291

291

**

**

**

*

**

**

**

Pearson Correlation

.18

.24

.36

.13

.45

.40

.40

**

.40

.00

.00

.00

.03

.00

.00

N

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

.36

.49

.62

.27

.63

.43

.55

**

TOI
-.32

**

.00

.00

291

291

283

1

**

.00

Pearson Correlation

JScomm

.00

Sig. (2-tailed)

JScomm

JSnatwrk

.55

.37

-.44

**

.00

.00

291

291

283

**

1

.37

-.36

**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

N
TOI

.00
291

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

291

283

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

1

Pearson Correlation

-.22

-.27

-.31

-.25

-.39

-.24

-.32

-.45

.00

-.36

Sig. (2-tailed)

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

N

283

283

283

283

283

283

283

283

283

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

114

283

APPENDIX J
CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
VARIABLES AND TOI
Table J1
Correlation Matrix Among OC Variables and TOI
OCaff
Ocaff

Pearson Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
289
Ocnorm
Pearson Correlation
.38**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.00
N
288
Occontine Pearson Correlation
.03
Sig. (2-tailed)
.66
N
285
TOI
Pearson Correlation
-.60**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.00
N
283
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

115

Ocnorm
.38**
.00
288
1
288
.16**
.01
285
-.29**
.00
283

Occontine
.03
.66
285
.16**
.01
285
1
285
-.19**
.00
283

TOI
-.60**
.00
283
-.29**
.00
283
-.19**
.00
283
1
283

APPENDIX K
CORRELATION MATRIX AMONG JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT VARIABLES
Table K1
Correlation Matrix Among JS and OC Variables

JSpay
JSprom
JSsup
JSfrinbene
JSconrwds
JSopercond
JScowkrs
JSnatwrk
JScomm
OCaff

r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

JSpay
1
291
.49**
.00
291
.33**
.00
291
.41**
.00
291
.60**
.00
291
.30**
.00
291
.20**
.00
291
.18**
.00
291
.36**
.00
291
.32**
.00
289

JSprom
.49**
.00
291
1
291
.38**
.00
291
.30**
.00
291
.60**
.00
291
.27**
.00
291
.30**
.00
291
.24**
.00
291
.49**
.00
291
.43**
.00
289

JSsup
.33**
.00
291
.38**
.00
291
1
291
.15*
.01
291
.60**
.00
291
.28**
.00
291
.55**
.00
291
.36**
.00
291
.62**
.00
291
.53**
.00
289

JSfrinbene
.41**
.00
291
.30**
.00
291
.15*
.01
291
1
291
.34**
.00
291
.17**
.00
291
.17**
.00
291
.13*
.03
291
.27**
.00
291
.27**
.00
289

JSconrwds
.60**
.00
291
.60**
.00
291
.60**
.00
291
.34**
.00
291
1
291
.45**
.00
291
.53**
.00
291
.45**
.00
291
.63**
.00
291
.58**
.00
289

JSopercond
.30**
.00
291
.27**
.00
291
.28**
.00
291
.17**
.00
291
.45**
.00
291
1
291
.28**
.00
291
.40**
.00
291
.43**
.00
291
.28**
.00
289

116

JScowkrs
.20**
.00
291
.30**
.00
291
.55**
.00
291
.17**
.00
291
.53**
.00
291
.28**
.00
291
1
291
.40**
.00
291
.55**
.00
291
.54**
.00
289

JSnat_wrk
.18**
.00
291
.24**
.00
291
.36**
.00
291
.13*
.03
291
.45**
.00
291
.40**
.00
291
.40**
.00
291
1
291
.37**
.00
291
.60**
.00
289

JScomm
.36**
.00
291
.49**
.00
291
.62**
.00
291
.27**
.00
291
.63**
.00
291
.43**
.00
291
.55**
.00
291
.37**
.00
291
1
291
.56**
.00
289

OCaff
.32**
.00
289
.43**
.00
289
.53**
.00
289
.27**
.00
289
.58**
.00
289
.28**
.00
289
.54**
.00
289
.60**
.00
289
.56**
.00
289
1
289

OCnorm
.11
.07
288
.17**
.01
288
.21**
.00
288
-.01
.81
288
.14*
.02
288
.15*
.01
288
.12*
.04
288
.26**
.00
288
.11
.06
288
.38**
.00
288

OCcontine
-.11
.07
285
-.19**
.00
285
-.08
.20
285
.05
.36
285
-.15**
.01
285
-.17**
.00
285
-.05
.45
285
-.07
.25
285
-.14*
.02
285
.03
.66
285

Table K1 (cont’d)
OCnorm
OCcontine

r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
r
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

JSpay
.11
.07
288
-.11
.07
285

JSprom
.17**
.01
288
-.19**
.00
285

JSsup
.21**
.00
288
-.08
.20
285

JSfrinbene
-.01
.81
288
.05
.36
285

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

JSconrwds
.14*
.02
288
-.15**
.01
285

JSopercond
.15*
.01
288
-.17**
.00
285

JScowkrs
.12*
.04
288
-.05
.45
285

JSnat_wrk
.26**
.00
288
-.07
.25
285

JScomm
.11
.06
288
-.14*
.02
285

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

117

OCaff
.38**
.00
288
.03
.66
285

OCnorm
1
288
.16*
.01
285

OCcontine
.16**
.01
285
1
285

APPENDIX L
JOB SATISFACTION AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES
Table L1
JS and Age
Age Groups
Below 30 M
N
SD
30 - 39
M
N
SD
40 - 49
M
N
SD
50 - 59
M
N
SD
60 +
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

JSpay
14.00
28
2.72
12.35
57
2.97
12.26
61
3.22
10.95
80
3.21
11.78
54
3.66
11.99
280
3.31

JSsup
19.14
28
5.10
19.86
57
4.27
17.93
61
5.56
17.95
80
5.76
18.52
54
5.57
18.56
280
5.36

JSprom JSfrinbene
13.64
16.64
28
28
2.20
3.74
13.14
16.12
57
57
2.97
4.89
13.41
15.74
61
61
2.79
4.99
13.41
15.50
80
80
3.32
5.43
13.80
16.04
54
54
3.67
4.69
13.45
15.89
280
280
3.10
4.91

118

JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk JScomm
15.71
11.79
17.32
19.61
15.86
28
28
28
28
28
3.86
3.46
4.40
3.48
4.71
14.44
11.19
18.09
19.88
16.67
57
57
57
57
57
4.51
3.93
3.4
3.79
3.60
15.02
11.79
18.86
20.05
16.56
61
61
61
61
61
4.82
4.51
4.00
3.54
4.92
13.40
11.44
18.31
19.88
15.90
80
80
80
80
80
5.02
4.01
4.47
3.75
5.43
14.87
11.02
18.85
20.81
17.63
54
54
54
54
54
5.42
4.39
4.06
3.10
4.39
14.48
11.42
18.39
20.07
16.53
280
280
280
280
280
4.88
4.11
4.10
3.57
4.73

Table L2
JS and Age ANOVA

JSpay

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSprom
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSsup
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSfrinbene
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSconrwds
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSoper_cond Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScowkrs
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSnat_wrk
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScomm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
214.02
2839.92
3053.94
13.19
2674.21
2687.40
159.52
7841.33
8000.84
33.26
6705.53
6738.79
161.85
6478.03
6639.87
23.62
4700.49
4724.11
62.23
4638.34
4700.57
41.14
3506.57
3547.71
110.83
6128.94
6239.77

119

Mean Square
4
53.51
275
10.33
279
4
3.30
275
9.72
279
4
39.88
275
28.51
279
4
8.32
275
24.38
279
4
40.46
275
23.56
279
4
5.91
275
17.09
279
4
15.56
275
16.87
279
4
10.29
275
12.75
279
4
27.71
275
22.29
279

F

Sig.
5.18

.00

.339

.851

1.40

.24

.34

.85

1.72

.15

.345

.85

.92

.45

.81

.52

1.24

.29

Table L3
JS and Gender
Gender
Female

Male

Total

Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation

JSpay
11.80
209
3.36
12.39
74
3.20
11.96
283
3.32

JSprom
13.12
209
3.15
14.22
74
2.90
13.41
283
3.13

JSsup
JSfrinbene JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk JScomm
18.45
15.97
13.99
11.41
18.22
19.97
16.78
209
209
209
209
209
209
209
5.36
5.10
4.92
4.01
4.30
3.55
4.62
18.85
15.73
15.68
11.26
18.89
20.34
16.83
74
74
74
74
74
74
74
5.35
4.29
4.61
4.45
3.52
3.55
5.03
18.55
15.90
14.43
11.37
18.40
20.07
16.50
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
5.35
4.89
4.89
4.12
4.11
3.55
4.74

120

Table L4
JS and Gender ANOVA

JSpay

JSprom

JSsup

JSfrinbene

JSconrwds

JSoper_cond

JScowkrs

JSnat_wrk

JScomm

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
18.90
3096.59
3115.49
65.15
2677.31
2742.45
9.03
8064.98
8074.01
3.06
6753.36
6756.42
155.21
6582.20
6737.41
1.31
4788.73
4790.04
24.31
4743.57
4767.88
7.34
3548.38
3555.72
11.56
6297.19
6308.75

121

df

Mean Square
1
18.90
281
11.02
282
1
65.15
281
9.53
282
1
9.03
28
28.70
282
1
3.06
281
24.03
282
1
155.21
281
23.42
282
1
1.31
281
17.04
282
1
24.31
281
16.88
282
1
7.34
281
12.63
282
1
11.56
281
22.41
282

F
1.72

Sig.
.19

6.84

.01

.31

.56

.13

.72

6.63

.01

.08

.78

1.44

.23

.5

.45

.52

.47

Table L5
JS and Ethnicity
Ethnic Identification
Other

African
American/Black
Asian/Asian
American/
Asian Indian
Caucasian/White/
NonHispanic
Hispanic/Latino/
Spanish
Total

M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD

JSpay
10.83
12
3.49
11.13
15
3.11
12.20
4
3.30
12.
241
3.31
13.0
11
3.70
11.96
283
3.32

JSprom
12.67
12
2.64
12.07
15
2.37
13.75
4
2.75
13.56
241
3.15
12.64
11
3.78
13.41
283
3.12

JSsup
18.00
12
6.45
17.80
15
5.65
19.75
4
2.22
18.56
241
5.35
19.64
11
5.14
18.55
283
5.35

JSfrinbene
JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs
14.58
12.75
9.33
18.42
12
12
12
12
4.36
5.77
3.68
4.10
14.00
13.33
11.20
18.40
15
15
15
15
5.028
3.92
4.26
2.44
14.25
15.50
8.50
17.25
4
4
4
4
4.79
6.45
3.32
4.79
16.09
14.56
11.51
18.47
241
241
241
241
4.92
4.84
4.16
4.15
16.55
14.64
11.82
17.18
11
11
11
11
4.68
5.80
3.34
5.33
15.90
14.43
11.37
18.40
283
283
283
283
4.89
4.89
4.12
4.11

122

JSnat_wrk JScomm
19.00
16.42
12
12
4.43
5.79
21.00
15.87
15
15
2.36
3.83
21.25
12.00
4
4
1.500
3.27
20.04
16.61
241
241
3.5
4.68
20.09
16.55
11
11
4.01
5.91
20.07
16.50
283
283
3.55
4.73

Table L6
JS and Ethnicity ANOVA

JSpay

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSprom
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSsup
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSfrinbene
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSconrwds
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSoper_cond Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScowkrs
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSnat_wrk
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScomm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
40.45
4
10.11
3075.04
278
11.06
3115.49
282
46.18
4
11.55
2696.27
278
9.70
2742.45
282
30.82
4
7.70
8043.19
278
28.93
8074.01
282
98.86
4
24.72
6657.56
278
23.95
6756.42
282
60.78
4
15.20
6676.62
278
24.02
6737.41
282
90.12
4
22.53
4699.93
278
16.91
4790.04
282
22.90
4
5.73
4744.98
278
17.07
4767.88
282
32.48
4
8.12
3523.24
278
12.67
3555.72
282
90.26
4
22.57
6218.49
278
22.40
6308.75
282

123

F

Sig.
.914

.46

1.19

.32

.267

.90

1.03

.39

.63

.64

1.33

.26

.34

.85

.64

.63

1.01

.40

Table L7
JS and Geographic Setting
Geographic Setting
Urban
M
N
SD
Suburban M
N
SD
Rural
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

JSpay
12.27
119
3.41
12.19
98
3.42
11.05
66
2.87
11.96
283
3.32

JSprom
13.38
119
3.16
13.51
98
3.34
13.32
66
2.70
13.41
283
3.12

JSsup JSfrinbene JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk
18.33
16.48
14.55
11.44
18.06
20.27
119
119
119
119
119
119
5.34
4.77
4.90
4.10
4.22
3.26
18.79
15.56
14.77
11.94
18.56
19.95
98
98
98
98
98
98
5.45
5.06
5.27
4.43
4.013
3.84
18.61
15.38
13.72
10.42
18.77
19.88
66
66
66
66
66
66
5.29
4.83
4.25
3.54
4.07
3.65
18.55
15.90
14.43
11.37
18.40
20.07
283
283
283
283
283
283
5.35
4.89
4.89
4.12
4.11
3.55

124

JScomm
16.38
119
4.92
16.98
98
4.36
16.00
66
4.90
16.50
283
4.73

Table L8
JS and Geographic Setting ANOVA

JSpay

JSprom

JSsup

JSfrinbene

JSconrwds

JSoper_cond

JScowkrs

JSnat_wrk

JScomm

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
71.92
3043.58
3115.49
1.66
2740.79
2742.45
11.53
8062.48
8074.01
69.06
6687.36
6756.42
45.22
6692.19
6737.41
93.18
4696.88
4790.04
25.57
4742.31
4767.88
8.55
3547.17
3555.72
40.81
6267.94
6308.75

125

Mean Square
2
35.96
280
10.87
282
2
.83
280
9.79
282
2
5.77
280
28.80
282
2
34.53
280
23.88
282
2
22.61
280
23.90
282
2
46.59
280
16.78
282
2
12.78
280
16.94
282
2
4.28
280
12.67
282
2
20.40
280
22.39
282

F

Sig.
3.31

.04

.09

.92

.20

.82

1.45

.24

.95

.39

2.78

.06

.76

.47

.34

.71

.91

.40

Table L9
JS and Work Setting
Work Setting
Other

Public VR State

Public VR
Federal/Veteran
Private for profit
(insurance, individual
counseling…)
Private nonprofit
(community rehab
organization…)
Total

M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M

JSpay
13.06
62
3.03
10.48
114
2.77
11.54

JSprom
13.47
62
3.07
12.27
114
2.87
15.08

JSsup
JSfrinbene JSconrwd JSopercond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk JScomm
18.15
16.71
15.84
12.21
18.19
20.16
16.56
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
5.99
5.40
5.19
4.21
4.
3.78
4.85
18.18
15.86
12.27
10.00
17.8
19.54
15.51
114
114
114
114
114
114
114
5.41
4.61
4.19
3.48
4.15
3.49
4.37
17.00
15.54
13.69
9.31
18.31
20.08
15.31

N
SD
M
N
SD
M

13
3.55
14.00
55
3.61
11.77

13
2.93
15.36
55
2.91
13.33

13
5.28
20.25
55
4.39
18.41

13
4.93
15.71
55
4.98
15.15

13
4.049
17.36
55
4.40
14.62

13
3.50
13.62
55
4.78
11.56

13
2.53
20.27
55
3.63
17.79

13
3.28
20.51
55
3.60
20.82

13
5.53
19.11
55
4.65
16.00

N
SD
M
N
SD

39
2.69
11.96
283
3.32

39
2.74
13.41
283
3.12

39
5.082
18.55
283
5.35

39
4.80
15.90
283
4.89

39
4.37
14.43
283
4.89

39
3.11
11.37
283
4.12

39
3.10
18.40
283
4.11

39
3.29
20.70
283
3.55

39
4.18
16.50
283
4.73

126

Table L10
JS and Work Setting ANOVA

JSpay

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSprom
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSsup
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSfrinbene
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSconrwd
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSoper_cond Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScowkrs
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSnat_wrk
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScomm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
557.13
4
139.28
2558.36
278
9.20
3115.49
282
394.13
4
98.53
2348.32
278
8.45
2742.45
282
217.95
4
54.49
7856.06
278
28.26
8074.01
282
66.24
4
16.56
6690.18
278
24.07
6756.42
282
1135.72
4
283.93
5601.69
278
20.15
6737.41
282
592.43
4
148.11
4197.62
278
15.10
4790.04
282
247.67
4
61.92
4520.21
278
16.26
4767.88
282
64.64
4
16.16
3491.08
278
12.56
3555.72
282
514.90
4
128.73
5793.85
278
20.84
6308.75
282

127

F
15.12

Sig.
.00

11.66

.00

1.93

.11

.69

.60

14.09

.00

9.81

.00

3.81

.01

1.29

.28

6.18

.00

Table L11
JS and Organization Tenure
Tenure in Current
Organization
0-5 yrs
M
N
SD
6-10 yrs
M
N
SD
11-15 yrs M
N
SD
16-20 yrs M
N
SD
21-25 yrs M
N
SD
26 + yrs
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

JSpay
JSprom
12.51
13.56
96
96
3.19
2.80
11.85
13.88
72
72
3.41
3.17
11.33
13.14
42
42
3.24
3.32
10.45
12.06
33
33
2.75
3.11
12.95
13.55
22
22
3.51
3.65
12.44
13.67
18
18
3.82
3.07
11.96
13.41
283
283
3.32
3.12

JSsup
JSfrinbene JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk JScomm
18.19
15.20
14.30
11.40
17.71
19.34
15.85
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
5.90
5.11
4.42
4.08
4.21
3.96
4.76
20.00
16.90
15.54
11.93
19.33
21.06
17.57
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
4.37
4.58
5.07
4.105
3.85
2.97
4.47
18.26
15.67
13.55
11.19
18.74
19.95
16.64
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
4.67
4.94
4.41
4.23
3.95
3.36
4.10
17.09
14.88
12.85
11.18
17.58
19.94
15.79
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
5.60
5.41
5.60
3.92
4.84
3.71
5.59
18.77
16.23
14.91
11.40
18.55
20.09
16.18
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
4.62
3.75
4.37
3.91
3.56
3.61
4.84
17.78
17.72
15.06
9.72
18.89
20.44
17.00
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
6.92
4.39
6.11
4.79
3.76
2.85
4.92
18.55
15.90
14.43
11.37
18.40
20.07
16.50
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
5.35
4.89
4.89
4.12
4.11
3.55
4.73

128

Table L12
JS and Organization Tenure ANOVA

JSpay

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSprom
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSsup
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSfrinbene
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSconbene
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSoper_cond Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScowkrs
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JSnat_wrk
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
JScomm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
147.27
5
29.45
2968.22
277
10.72
3115.49
282
82.48
5
16.50
2659.98
277
9.60
2742.45
282
249.56
5
49.91
7824.45
277
28.25
8074.01
282
218.54
5
43.71
6537.88
277
23.60
6756.42
282
217.88
5
43.58
6519.52
277
23.54
6737.41
282
74.12
5
14.82
4715.93
277
17.03
4790.04
282
140.64
5
28.13
4627.25
277
16.71
4767.88
282
124.24
5
24.85
3431.48
277
12.39
3555.72
282
146.71
5
29.34
6162.04
277
22.25
6308.75
282

129

F
2.75

Sig.
.02

1.72

.13

1.77

.12

1.85

.10

1.85

.10

.87

.50

1.68

.14

2.01

.08

1.32

.26

Table L13
JS and Professional Tenure
Professional Tenure
0-5 yrs
M
N
SD
6-10 yrs
M
N
SD
11-15 yrs M
N
SD
16-20 yrs M
N
SD
21-25 yrs M
N
SD
26 + yrs
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

JSpay
JSprom
12.68
13.14
65
65
2.97
2.73
11.68
13.73
60
60
3.72
2.81
10.55
12.30
40
40
2.77
2.68
11.91
13.58
33
33
3.21
3.23
11.79
12.84
38
38
2.92
2.59
12.68
14.66
47
47
3.75
4.15
11.96
13.41
283
283
3.32
3.12

JSsup JSfrinbene JSconrwds JSoper_cond JScowkrs JSnat_wrk JScomm
19.15
15.1538
14.85
11.91
18.04
19.65
16.1692
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
4.73
4.93467
4.25
3.76
4.17
3.86
4.81394
19.17
15.8000
14.57
11.48
18.37
20.65
16.64
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
5.28
5.22640
5.01
3.78
3.59
3.13
4.09
18.05
16.1250
12.45
10.30
18.50
20.25
15.98
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4.95
4.14597
4.52
3.50
3.77
3.50
4.00
17.49
16.4848
14.24
11.21
17.91
20.09
16.88
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
6.07
4.89337
5.08
3.93
5.50
3.81
5.61
16.82
15.3421
13.45
11.18
17.66
19.37
14.71
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
5.90
4.84504
4.91
4.73
4.55
3.17
4.60
19.51
16.9362
16.30
11.63
19.79
20.30
18.40
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
5.36
5.04072
5.14
5.0
3.22
3.77
4.91
18.55
15.9046
14.43
11.3710
18.40
20.07
16.50
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
5.35
4.89479
4.89
4.12
4.11
3.55
4.73

130

Table L14
JS and Professional Tenure ANOVA

JSpay

JSprom

JSsup

JSfrinbene

JSconrwds

JSoper_cond

JScowkrs

JSnat_wrk

JScomm

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
143.14
5
28.63
2972.36
277
10.73
3115.49
282
146.90
5
29.38
2595.55
277
9.37
2742.45
282
251.62
5
50.32
7822.39
277
28.24
8074.01
282
112.38
5
22.47
6644.04
277
23.99
6756.42
282
371.03
5
74.21
6366.38
277
22.98
6737.41
282
71.43
5
14.29
4718.61
277
17.04
4790.04
282
127.93
5
25.9
4639.95
277
16.75
4767.88
282
54.31
5
10.86
3501.41
277
12.64
3555.72
282
316.05
5
63.21
5992.70
277
21.63
6308.75
282

131

F
2.67

Sig.
.02

3.14

.01

1.78

.12

.94

.46

3.23

.01

.84

.52

1.53

.18

.86

.51

2.92

.01

APPENDIX M
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES
Table M1
OC and Age
Age Groups
Below 30

30 - 39

40 - 49

50 - 59

60 +

Total

M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD

OCaff
34.07
28
9.47
35.63
57
11.11
36.44
61
9.95
35.55
80
11.63
40.37
54
10.825
36.54
280
10.92

OCnorm
32.89
28
7.21
32.12
57
7.70
31.49
61
8.26
32.15
80
8.16
31.37
54
8.345
31.93
280
8.00

132

OCcontine
38.46
28
9.80
39.53
57
10.11
40.92
61
9.36
40.69
80
10.41
39.78
54
10.21
40.10
280
9.98

Table M2
OC and Age ANOVA

OCaff

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCnorm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCcontine Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
1088.92
4
272.23
32172.56
275
116.99
33261.49
279
60.57
4
15.14
17770.86
275
64.62
17831.43
279
167.71
4
41.93
27644.29
275
100.53
27812.00
279

Table M3
OC and Gender
Gender
Female M
N
SD
Male
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

OCaff
35.90
209
11.01
38.36
74
10.54
36.55
283
10.92

OCnorm
32.21
209
8.01
31.07
74
8.01
31.912
283
8.10

133

OCcontine
41.23
209
9.56
37.4
74
10.68
40.21
283
10.00

F
2.33

Sig.
.06

.23

.92

.42

.80

Table M4
OC and Gender ANOVA
ANOVA

OCaff

Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCnorm Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCcontine Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of
Squares
330.87

df

Mean Square
1
330.87

33317.24
33648.11
71.39

281
282
1
281
282
1
281
282

1.13

.29

8.50

.00

64.12

27343.53
28171.28

Sig.
.10

118.57

18017.40
18088.79
827.75

F
2.79

134

71.39

827.75
97.31

Table M5
OC and Ethnicity
Ethnic Identification
Other

M
N
SD
African American/Black M
N
SD
Asian/Asian American/ M
Asian Indian
N
SD
Caucasian/White/
M
Non-Hispanic
N
SD
Hispanic/Latino/Spanish M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

OCaff
30.67
12
12.71
34.00
15
7.94
36.25
4
8.016
37.20
241
10.92
32.18
11
11.61
36.55
283
10.92

OCnorm
28.33
12
8.32
33.07
15
7.55
28.75
4
6.70
32.15
241
8.05
30.27
11
7.54
31.9117
283
8.01

OCcontine
36.17
12
12.19
37.67
15
8.76
42.00
4
8.91
40.55
241
10.05
40.00
11
8.04
40.21
283
9.99

Table M6
OC and Ethnicity ANOVA

OCaff

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCnorm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCcontine Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
826.02
4
206.50
32822.09
278
118.07
33648.11
282
256.34
4
64.09
17832.45
278
64.15
18088.79
282
334.68
4
83.67
27836.60
278
100.13
28171.28
282

135

F
1.75

Sig.
.14

1.00

.41

.87

.50

Table M7
OC and Geographic Setting
Geographic
Setting
Urban
M
N
SD
Suburban
M
N
SD
Rural
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

OCaff
36.20
119
11.42
36.77
98
10.25
36.85
66
11.12
36.55
283
10.92

OCnorm
31.89
119
7.83
31.79
98
7.82
32.14
66
8.70
31.91
283
8.01

OCcontine
39.26
119
10.29
40.78
98
9.80
41.09
66
9.73
40.21
283
9.99

Table M8
OC and Geographic Setting ANOVA

OCaff

OCnorm

OCcontine

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
24.86
2
12.43
33623.25
280
120.08
33648.11
282
4.94
2
2.47
18083.85
280
64.59
18088.79
282
189.84
2
94.92
27981.44
280
99.93
28171.28
282

136

F
.10

Sig.
.90

.039

.96

.95

.39

Table M9
OC and Work Setting
Work Setting
Other

Public VR State

Public VR Federal/Veteran

Private for profit
(insurance, individual
counseling…)
Private nonprofit
(community rehabilitation
organization…)
Total

M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD
M
N
SD

OCaff
37.07
62
11.01
35.32
114
10.49
35.62
13
12.13
38.78
55
11.66
36.49
39
10.56
36.55
283
10.92

OCnorm
30.68
62
7.06
31.75
114
8.16
29.23
13
5.95
33.87
55
7.75
32.46
39
9.51
31.91
283
8.01

OCcontine
39.34
62
10.42
42.02
114
9.45
39.85
13
12.90
38.64
55
9.19
38.67
39
10.58
40.21
283
9.99

Table M10
OC and Work Setting ANOVA

OCaff

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCnorm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCcontine Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
475.53
33172.58
33648.11
414.01
17674.78
18088.79
650.34
27520.94
28171.28

137

df

Mean Square
4
118.88
278
119.33
282
4
103.50
278
63.58
282
4
162.59
278
99.00
282

F
1.00

Sig.
.41

1.64

.17

1.64

.16

Table M11
OC and Organization Tenure
Organizational Tenure
0-5 yrs
M
N
SD
6-10 yrs
M
N
SD
11-15 yrs
M
N
SD
16-20 yrs
M
N
SD
21-25 yrs
M
N
SD
26 + yrs
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

OCaff
33.18
96
11.67
39.47
72
9.58
36.93
42
8.35
34.58
33
11.77
40.55
22
9.24
40.67
18
12.42
36.55
283
10.92

OCnorm
31.84
96
8.10
31.0
72
8.16
31.31
42
8.08
32.58
33
7.53
33.68
22
7.52
33.94
18
8.467
31.91
283
8.00

138

OCcontine
36.97
96
10.61
40.33
72
9.32
43.02
42
9.59
42.36
33
9.68
42.73
22
7.45
43.44
18
9.55
40.21
283
9.99

Table M12
OC and Organization Tenure ANOVA
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
OCaff
Between Groups
2497.87
5
499.57
Within Groups
31150.24
277
112.46
Total
33648.11
282
OCnorm
Between Groups
233.38
5
46.68
Within Groups
17855.41
277
64.46
Total
18088.79
282
OCcontine Between Groups
1822.95
5
364.59
Within Groups
26348.33
277
95.12
Total
28171.28
282

139

F
4.44

Sig.
.00

.72

.61

3.83

.00

Table M13
OC and Professional Tenure
Professional Tenure
0-5 yrs
M
N
SD
6-10 yrs
M
N
SD
11-15 yrs
M
N
SD
16-20 yrs
M
N
SD
21-25 yrs
M
N
SD
26 + yrs
M
N
SD
Total
M
N
SD

OCaff
33.91
65
11.77
36.92
60
9.28
36.60
40
8.66
38.30
33
10.68
33.32
38
11.23
41.06
47
11.92
36.55
283
10.92

140

OCnorm
32.80
65
8.34
31.18
60
7.69
33.40
40
7.30
31.18
33
8.01
30.2105
38
8.81
32.23
47
7.86
31.91
283
8.01

OCcontine
36.95
65
10.48
41.18
60
9.56
41.40
40
11.30
42.33
33
8.15
41.18
38
9.35
40.19
47
9.79
40.21
283
9.99

Table M14
OC and Professional Tenure ANOVA

OCaff

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCnorm
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
OCcontine Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
1918.49
5
383.70
31729.62
277
114.55
33648.11
282
304.16
5
60.83
17784.63
277
64.20
18088.79
282
987.51
5
197.50
27183.77
277
98.14
28171.28
282

141

F
3.35

Sig.
.01

.95

.45

2.01

.08

APPENDIX N
TOI AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES
Table N1
TOI and Age
Age Groups
Below 30
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 +
Total

M
13.11
12.91
12.30
10.65
10.56
11.70

N

SD
28
57
61
80
54
280

6.55
6.41
6.22
5.11
5.42
5.90

Table N2
TOI and Age ANOVA
ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of
Squares
319.74
9401.46
9721.20

df

Mean Square
4
79.93
275
34.19
279

F
2.34

Sig.
.06

Table N3
TOI and Ethnicity
Ethnic Identification
Other
African American/Black
Asian/Asian American/Asian Indian
Caucasian/White/NonHispanic
Hispanic/Latino/Spanish
Total

M

N
13.83
13.33
16.0
11.33
13.27
11.69

142

SD
12
15
4
241
11
283

4.89
5.65
6.16
5.91
6.57
5.91

Table N4
TOI and Ethnicity ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
df
Mean Square
4
57.20
278
34.64
282

Sum of Squares
228.39
9628.63
9857.01

F

Sig.
1.65

.16

Table N5
TOI and Gender
Gender
Female
Male
Total

M
11.84
11.26
11.69

N

SD
209
74
283

6.10
5.36
5.91

Table N6
TOI and Gender ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
18.42
9838.59
9857.01

ANOVA
df

Mean Square
1
18.42
281
35.01
282

Table N7
TOI and Geographic Setting
Geographic Setting
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Total

M
11.71
11.70
11.62
11.69

N
119
98
66
283

SD
6.41
5.50
5.65
5.91

143

F

Sig.
.53

.47

Table N8
TOI and Geographic Setting ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
.36
9856.66
9857.01

ANOVA
df

Mean Square
2
.18
280
35.20
282

F

Sig.
.01

1.00

Table N9
TOI and Work Setting
Work Setting
Other
Public VR State
Public VR Federal/Veteran
Private for profit
(insurance, individual counseling…)
Private nonprofit
(community rehab organization…)
Total

M

N

SD

11.47
11.32
13.54
11.18

62
114
13
55

6.03
5.55
6.77
5.97

13.18

39

6.33

11.69

283

5.91

Table N10
TOI and Work Setting ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
163.423
9693.58
9857.01

ANOVA
df
Mean Square
4
40.86
278
34.87
282

144

F

Sig.
1.17

.32

Table N11
TOI and Organization Tenure
Organization Tenure
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26 + years
Total

M
13.80
11.14
10.57
10.85
9.45
9.44
11.69

N

SD
96
72
42
33
22
18
283

6.87
5.27
4.13
5.65
5.32
4.60
5.91

Table N12
TOI and Organization Tenure ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
726.73
9130.28
9857.01

ANOVA
df
Mean Square
5
145.35
277
32.97
282

Table N13
TOI and Professional Tenure
Professional Tenure
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-25 years
26 + years
Total

M
14.49
11.28
11.55
10.00
11.68
9.62
11.69

N

SD
65
60
40
33
38
47
283

145

6.65
5.33
5.82
5.15
5.63
5.08
5.91

F

Sig.
4.41

.00

Table N14
TOI and Professional Tenure ANOVA

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
817.36
9039.65
9857.011

ANOVA
df

Mean Square
5
163.47
277
32.63
282

146

F
5.01

Sig.
.00

APPENDIX O
JOB SATISFACTION, ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, TOI,
AND SPECIFIC CONTROL VARIABLES
Table O1
JS, OC, TOI and Specific Control Variables

Model
1
(Constant)

Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
33.657
2.659

t
12.656

Sig.
.000

OCaff

-.225

.041

-.416

-5.512

.000

OCnorm

-.030

.040

-.041

-.766

.444

OCcontine

-.122

.029

-.206

-4.146

.000

.036

.111

.020

.319

.750

-.020

.119

-.011

-.170

.865

.037

.074

.033

.493

.622

JSfrinbene

-.097

.064

-.080

-1.526

.128

JSconbene

-.108

.102

-.089

-1.053

.293

JSoper_cond

-.049

.081

-.034

-.602

.548

JScowkrs

.052

.090

.036

.573

.567

JSnat_wrk

-.256

.104

-.154

-2.473

.014

-.052
34.452
-.199
-.035
-.106
-.119
-.037
.049
-.039
-.199
-.047
.054
-.281
-.040
.130

.089
2.848
.043
.041
.031
.120
.127
.077
.067
.105
.084
.092
.107
.092
.687

-.042

-.580
12.098
-4.648
-.846
-3.445
-.989
-.293
.633
-.586
-1.886
-.564
.585
-2.639
-.433
.189

.562
.000
.000
.399
.001
.323
.770
.527
.558
.061
.573
.559
.009
.666
.851

JSpay
JSprom
JSsup

2

JScomm
(Constant)
OCaff
OCnorm
OCcontine
JSpay
JSprom
JSsup
JSfrinbene
JSconbene
JSoper_cond
JScowkrs
JSnat_wrk
JScomm
female

147

-.367
-.047
-.180
-.067
-.020
.044
-.032
-.164
-.033
.037
-.169
-.032
.010

Table O1 (cont’d)

Model
Age 3039
age4049
age5059
age60
Ethnicother
EthnicAfAm
EthnicAsian
EthnicHisp
GeoSub
GeoRural
Wksetother
WksetVet
WksetPP
WksetPNP
OrgTenure6_10
OrgTenure11_15
OrgTenure26
ProfTenure6_10
ProfTenure11_15
ProfTenure21_25
ProfTenure26
OrgTenure1620
OrgTenure12125
a. Dependent Variable: TOI

Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
.639
1.058
.043
.783
1.105
.055
-1.348
1.114
-.103
.190
1.306
.013
-.308
1.402
-.011
.000
1.269
.000
3.374
2.413
.067
1.008
1.453
.033
.109
.650
.009
.234
.730
.017
1.174
.816
.082
2.834
1.414
.101
2.412
.956
.162
2.331
.907
.136
.041
.822
.003
-1.241
1.001
-.075
-.576
1.482
-.024
-1.265
.817
-.088
-.578
.949
-.034
-1.252
1.037
-.072
-1.286
1.049
-.081
-1.372
1.063
-.075
-.676
1.320
-.031

148

t
.604
.708
-1.211
.146
-.219
.000
1.398
.694
.168
.320
1.438
2.004
2.524
2.571
.050
-1.239
-.389
-1.548
-.609
-1.207
-1.225
-1.290
-.512

Sig.
.547
.479
.227
.884
.827
1.000
.163
.489
.867
.749
.152
.046
.012
.011
.960
.216
.698
.123
.543
.229
.222
.198
.609

Table O2
Coefficients ANOVA
Model
1
Regression

Sum of Squares
4184.031

Residual
Total
Regression

5672.980
9857.011
4911.377

2

df

Mean Square
12
348.669
270
282
36

F
16.595

Sig.
a

.000

21.011
136.427

6.786

b

.000

Residual
4945.634
246
20.104
Total
9857.011
282
a. Predictors: (Constant), JScomm, OCnorm, OCcontine, JSfrinbene, JSnat_wrk, JSpay,
JSoper_cond, JScowkrs, JSprom, JSsup, OCaff, JSconbene
b. Predictors: (Constant), JScomm, OCnorm, OCcontine, JSfrinbene, JSnat_wrk, JSpay,
JSoper_cond, JScowkrs, JSprom, JSsup, OCaff, JSconbene, WksetPNP, GeoSub,
ProfTenure21_25, OrgTenure11_15, EthnicHisp, EthnicAfAm, Ethnicother, age4049,
EthnicAsian, WksetVet, OrgTenure26, OrgTenure1620, female, ProfTenure6_10, Wksetother,
GeoRural, age3039, ProfTenure11_15, OrgTenure12125, age60, OrgTenure6_10, WksetPP,
ProfTenure26, age5059
c. Dependent Variable: TOI
Table O3
Model Change Statistics

Model
1
2

R Square Change
a
.424

Change Statistics
F Change
df1
16.595
12

b

df2
270

Sig. F Change
.000

1.507
24
246
.065
.074
a. Predictors: (Constant), JScomm, OCnorm, OCcontine, JSfrinbene, JSnat_wrk, JSpay,
JSoper_cond, JScowkrs, JSprom, JSsup, OCaff, JSconbene
b. Predictors: (Constant), JScomm, OCnorm, OCcontine, JSfrinbene, JSnat_wrk, JSpay,
JSoper_cond, JScowkrs, JSprom, JSsup, OCaff, JSconbene, WksetPNP, GeoSub,
ProfTenure21_25, OrgTenure11_15, EthnicHisp, EthnicAfAm, Ethnicother, age4049,
EthnicAsian, WksetVet, OrgTenure26, OrgTenure1620, female, ProfTenure6_10, Wksetother,
GeoRural, age3039, ProfTenure11_15, OrgTenure12125, age60, OrgTenure6_10, WksetPP,
ProfTenure26, age5059
c. Dependent Variable: TOI

149

APPENDIX P
REWARDING RESPONSES BY THEME
Service to Others
1.

Working with clients.

2.

The services I provide to the clients.

3.

Helping my consumers.

4.

Assisting people with disabilities

5.

Trying to help other people

6.

Providing professional services

7.

Able to help consumers.

8.

Helping people find solutions.

9.

Working with the clients and seeing their success.

10.

Helping persons with disability and being recognized for the effort it takes.

11.

Making an impact on the lives of my clients.

12.

Helping people.

13.

I enjoy working with clients with developmental disabilities. I feel that I make a
contribution to their lives.

14.

To know that the mission of the organization matches my own and that I can use my talents
to benefit the lives of others.

15.

The ability to make effective change that benefits others.

16.

Enjoy the people and the effort to help individuals grow.

17.

Helping others.

18.

Assisting persons with disabilities usually related to navigating the medical or legal system.

19.

The students I work with.

20.

Making a difference in a person's life.

21.

My students and colleagues.

22.

Providing support and beneficial services for people with disabilities who are really trying
to better their lives.

23.

Helping people with disabilities.

24.

Working with others. I enjoy the interaction, solving problems, and seeing others have
success.

150

25.

I provide academic support to disabled students in a private high school. I love working
one on one with the students and knowing that my intervention has a direct positive impact
on their lives.

27.

Love the work, love the clients, love my immediate staff & lots of the campus.

28.

The sense that I am making clients feel appreciated and served.

29.

Helping consumers and their families.

30.

Working with students with disabilities.

31.

The opportunity to use my knowledge and experience to assist persons with catastrophic
conditions and to assist their families/caregivers.

32.

Assisting those in need.

33.

Working with the staff as well as the client interaction.

34.

The clients.

35.

Helping others.

36.

My day to day contact with consumers that I work with.

37.

Working with people.

38.

Working with families of deaf and blind children.

39.

I feel as if I help most of my clients in some meaningful way.

40.

Helping people.

41.

Working with individuals with severe mental illness.

42.

The customers/clients.

43.

Helping resolve conflict.

44.

Giving hope to the client.

45.

The opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of the people we serve and to do what
I was trained to do.

46.

I work for the VA and I love the face to face contact I have with the veterans on my
caseload.

47.

Helping consumers who truly want to work.

48.

Working with consumers and our community rehab partner staff.

49.

Helping figure out solutions to problems.

50.

The people I serve.

51.

Helping others.

52.

Helping people and seeing the end result.

53.

Providing exceptional service to consumers.

54.

The clients I work with.

151

55.

The end game - helping people.

56.

Contact with clients.

57.

Knowing that I furnish an important service.

58.

Helping people.

59.

Working with the customers and our front line staff.

60.

Interaction with clients and providing solutions for them.

61.

Being able to help others.

62.

My work with clients.

63.

Meeting all sorts of people, problem solving, quick paced.

64.

Helping my clients.

65.

Working with the mental health population.

66.

I enjoy the clientele.

67.

Helping people, good benefits.

68.

Service to customers and teamwork.

89.

The clients I work with.

70.

The students that I work with. I enjoy seeing the student grown and mature during their 4
years at high school.

71.

Helping clients/students.

72.

Helping the patients and doing vocational assessments.

73.

Working with our clients and staff.

74.

I love working with the clientele and being able to help them; especially because they tend
to never feel anybody cares about them (inmates).

75.

Clients.

76.

I love working with people and helping them.

77.

Helping people.

78.

My biggest reason for staying is helping the clients.

79.

Ability to assist other people.

80.

Direct service work with clients.

81.

Interacting with people/consumers.

82.

Client contact.

83.

Helping people.

84.

Making a difference for consumers.

85.

Reaching clients who fall between the cracks.

152

86.

Customers

87.

Working with our consumers.

88.

Clients and work schedule.

89.

The interactions I have with the clients I work with on a daily basis.

90.

The clients I work with.

91.

Knowing that I am helping people. I do feel a sense of pride in that.

92.

Working with members.

93.

The clients that I work with.

94.

Helping consumers and coworkers and feeling like I truly make a difference in their lives.

95.

I very much enjoy the client contact and working with them.

96.

The clients I work with and my coworkers.

97.

Helping others and seeing the positive impact my work has on others.

98.

Relationships built with consumers, coworkers and community providers.

99.

Working with people.

100. Helping the clients.
101. Person to person contact with people that I can help.
102. Helping others learn.
103. Working with our clients and making a positive impact upon their lives.
104. I have been here 27 years and love the work plus the flexibility to participate in my
children's activities.
105. Providing accommodations for people with disabilities.
106. Interacting with clients and staff and learning new skills.
107. My clients and my leadership role.
Assisting Others Achieve Their Goals
1.

Watching students successfully accomplish short and long term goals.

2.

Seeing successes of others.

3.

Helping people move forward with their lives.

4.

Helping injured workers return to the workforce and feeling appreciated.

5.

Being able to help individuals with disabilities overcome their barriers to employment and
to achieve employment.

6.

Working with people who are actively trying to find employment.

7.

Client success.

153

8.

Working with the clients and seeing their success.

9.

Opportunity to support others in making positive strides in their lives.

10.

Personal interaction with the clients and coworkers in order to help all experience success.

11.

Seeing growth and positive change in clients who would otherwise not have the
opportunity to do so.

12.

Seeing disadvantaged individuals get the same rewards I do from being successfully
employed

13.

Conceptualizing data and problem solving to help people with disabilities become
employed.

14.

When truly motivated people follow through and become successfully, gainfully
employed.

15.

When I can help a client who truly wants help.

16.

Assisting people with disabilities return back to work or maintain their jobs.

17.

Being able to be a part of a really great team and to work with a diverse client population.
It is rewarding to watch clients move along their path of recovery and achieve their goals.

18.

Making sure that my clients receive the necessary benefits and services to lead productive
lives.

19.

Enjoy seeing the customers make changes in their lives that lead to a better way of life for
them.

20.

Helping people get employed and therefore bettering their life. Also helping people to a
better life even when it does not mean employment.

21.

Helping clients meet their vocational goals and networking with the local college.

22.

When a client is successfully employed and able to support themselves and their families.

23.

The ability to help others help themselves.

24.

Seeing the changes people make with their lives when given the chance.

25.

When you see a client that you're working with grow and can point to concrete changes
that they and you recognize.

26.

Getting to know people from all walks of life and finding out how they have handled
barriers to their success and sometimes being able to help scale some of those barriers.

27.

Seeing students benefit from the transition and vocational training curriculum that we
have in place.

28.

When an individual that I've been working with overcomes barriers and is able to
successfully maintain employment and they show appreciation in even the smallest way

29.

Helping clients to experience success and see their dreams become reality.

30.

Assisting individuals with disabilities to become independent and accomplish goal of
securing meaningful work.

31.

Assisting persons with disabilities in obtaining enjoyable and permanent employment in
154

the community.
32.

Helping individuals reach their full potential.

33.

Seeing individual’s complete training and actually going to work. The individual actually
expressing gratitude for the assistance the agency provided and the fact that they are happy
with their new job and new opportunities.

34.

Getting a work site modified or van modified and seeing it being used for employment.

35.

Watching my clientele grow through the process.

36.

Helping people, who want to work regardless of their disability, realize their unlimited
potential.

37.

When the clients I serve benefit and are working/happy/productive.

38.

I love helping individuals. It is rewarding when they begin to believe in themselves, find
employment and are happy.

39.

Helping Veterans and seeing the successes of my clients.

40.

Working with and assisting clients to stay in their current job or helping them to find new
work possibilities.

41.

The progress in a client.

42.

Enjoy the people and the effort to help individuals grow.

43.

Client successes.

44.

Independence, accountability for service, and assisting others in life planning issues

45.

Seeing progress with clients.

46.

I enjoy working with my clients and assisting them in reaching their goals in employment
and overcome barriers.

47.

Helping people get jobs.

48.

Work with students to plan for their future placements.

49.

When a Client is rehabilitated for independent living.

50.

Helping people become empowered and improving their lives.

51.

When my consumers acquire a job.

52.

Providing counseling aspect and to guide individuals with disabilities to have a successful
employment placement.

53.

Being trusted to work one-on-one with customers in planning vocational services
appropriate to their goals.

54.

Seeing the growth of the clients.

55.

When the clients make some progress in their lives and get off benefits independence.

56.

Helping people grow and work. It can change their lives for the better.

155

57.

Working with people...helping others, being able to listen and try to help them fix things, get
resources.

58.

Helping consumers return to work.

59.

The satisfaction of helping individuals with disabilities obtain and maintain employment.

60.

Helping highly motivated and hardworking students move forward with their lives.

61.

Consumer growth and satisfaction.

62.

When people tell me how much the agency has helped them reach their goals.

63.

Helping young adults with disabilities transition into their future.

64.

Assisting clients to better their lives.

65.

To be able to help people help themselves to get a job and by so doing, increase their selfesteem and hopefully their financial situation.

66.

Helping people with disabilities maximize their vocational potential and obtain
employment.

67.

Helping people change their lives.

68.

Helping individuals obtain their goals and be happy.

69.

The opportunity to help change lives and the result of my efforts in the lives of others
rehabilitated closures.

70.

Working with our clients and making a positive impact upon their lives.

71.

Opportunity to positively affect other people.

72.

Being able to see young adults grow and progress.

73.

Seeing first hand transformation of people's lives.

74.

Positive outcomes with clients.

75.

I enjoy helping people with disabilities to become successful and I enjoy working with the
professional staff.

76.

seeing customers achieve employment goals

77.

Seeing people get better and attain their goals

78.

Helping to make changes so that the quality of life for our consumers is improved.

79.

Seeing disabled consumers start out with almost nothing & helping them become successful
in the workforce and community.

80.

Working with people who have physical disabilities and helping them maintain
employment.

81.

Helping the client achieve their dream.

82.

Seeing my clients reaching their goals and becoming independent.

83.

Seeing my clients reach their short and long term goals.

84.

Assisting clients to work.
156

85.

Being engaged in the process of positive change in people's lives.

86.

When consumers are working and satisfied.

87.

The ability to assist consumers to meet their personal vocational goals.

88.

Witnessing the progress of clients.

89.

Being able to use my expertise and assessment skills to assist a consumer in meeting their
employment goals.

90.

Client success.

91.

When a Customer I assisted with getting employment tells me how wonderful the job is and
when they get a job that they actually earning more than I do.

92.

Seeing people improve their lives.

93.

Seeing the progress in my students.

94.

Helping people transition back to work after a period of disability.

95.

Helping clients meet their highest potential.

96.

Seeing the changes in the clients.

97.

Seeing client improvement; helping them gain and maintain employment and improve their
quality of life.

98.

Helping children with mild to serious disabilities adjust to learning and playing and getting
along with peers both disabled and nondisabled and their families.

99.

Helping individuals with disabilities reach their goals.

100. Helping clients to become self-sufficient in finding or keeping a job.
101. Learning about resources for reducing homelessness, connecting individuals to them,
walking alongside people and motivating them to make the changes they want.
102. When I feel that I am truly able to help someone better their life.
103. Seeing the pride and commitment clients bring to their progress in furthering their
community and employment options and acknowledging my part as their guide and
counselor.
104. Seeing consumers make progress in their recovery.
105. Helping others and seeing the positive impact my work has on others.
106. Helping Individuals find employment.
107. Placing people with disabilities on jobs.
108. Being able to give back to our nation's veterans is the single most rewarding part of my job,
aside from helping individuals with disabilities finds employment.
109. Seeing the successful employment of people with disabilities. Training others
110. I am allowed the flexibility to spend the time needed with each associate that may need my
help.

157

111. The most rewarding is working with the consumers to help them learn work skills. It is
rewarding when they improve and are able to obtain employment in the community.

Well-Being
1.

Stability.

2.

Meeting goals, doing a good job towards the goals.

3.

Flexibility.

4.

Using my social and verbal skills.

5.

The low level of stress.

6.

Geography - it is close to my home. No commute.

7.

Knowing that I am helping people. I do feel a sense of pride in that.

8.

Being self-employed. I am in total control of every aspect of my job.

9.

Being able to do the kind of work I like best and am best at.

10.

Clients and work schedule.

11.

Being able to use my expertise and assessment skills to assist a consumer in meeting their
employment goals.

12.

I have been here 27 years and love the work plus the flexibility to participate in my
children's activities.

13.

Autonomy.

14.

Utilization of long term higher level skills.

15.

Able to work independently.

16.

My sense of personal satisfaction.

17.

Tenure [5 years] and being comfortable.

18.

Autonomy.

19.

Each day is another day closer to retirement and I still get a paycheck. Once in a while I get
to actually help a client.

20.

Completing professional work at a high level.

21.

Independence to make case decisions, structure my day, good pay, low supervision.

22.

Autonomy.

23.

Freedom to work from home.

24.

I am CEO.

25.

The variety of tasks, the autonomy in how I get the work done, the benefit of seeing results.

26.

Salary and flexibility of hours.

158

27.

I feel very comfortable in doing what I am doing and with whom.

28.

Independence, accountability for service, and assisting others in life planning issues.

29.

Ability to set my own schedule and work on projects that I am interested in.

30.

My clients and my leadership role.

31.

I'm good at it.

32.

Great people within my company, flexible schedule.

33.

Small family company.

34.

That I have some control and say in what I do.

35.

I am using my degree and work with some highly talented people.
Coworkers and Professional Contacts

1.

Professional interactions with people in medical, counseling, and vocational services.

2.

The clients I work with and my coworkers.

3.

Relationships built with consumers, coworkers and community providers.

4.

Great boss.

5.

My coworkers.

6.

My team (coworkers).

7.

Working with the customers and our front line staff.

8.

Working with consumers and our community rehab partner staff.

9.

Sharing an office with good, friendly coworkers.

10.

Working with our clients and staff.

11.

Supervising staff.

12.

I work in a small company with excellent coworkers and a great work environment.

13.

It is a small agency so we have a family feel.

14.

Team work with my coworkers.

15.

Trust and respect among staff and supervisor.

16.

Helping consumers and coworkers and feeling like I truly make a difference in their lives.

17.

My coworkers.

18.

Interacting with clients and staff and learning new skills.

19.

Supervision.

20.

Working with the staff as well as the client interaction.

21.

My students and colleagues.

159

22.

Great people within my company, flexible schedule.

23.

I am using my degree and work with some highly talented people.

Pay/Benefits
1.

Good health insurance.

2.

Having a job that pays the bills.

3.

$$$$.

4.

Pay.

5.

Money

6.

Pay, benefits, especially retirement system. Many of my clients and our interactions remind
me of why I entered the field.

7.

Each day is another day closer to retirement and I still get a paycheck. Once in a while I get
to actually help a client

8.

Helping people, good benefits.

9.

Independence to make case decisions, structure my day, good pay, low supervision.

10.

Pay.

11.

Financial.

12.

The pay check.

13.

Salary and flexibility of hours.
Recognition for Work

1.

Customers expressing appreciation of my quality, compassionate services.

2.

Feedback from people I work with, being appreciated, coworkers, supervisor.

3.

Be valued as an employee and an individual.

4.

Seeing individual’s complete training and actually going to work. The individual actually
expressing gratitude for the assistance the agency provided and the fact that they are happy
with their new job and new opportunities.

5.

Helping injured workers return to the workforce and feeling appreciated.

6.

Knowing that employees benefit from my efforts to help them return to work.

7.

Helping persons with disability and being recognized for the effort it takes.

8.

The most rewarding part of my job is working with the clients who are appreciative of
services they receive and work hard for their goals to become reality.

160

Training New Professionals
1.

The ability to train new counselors.

2.

Teaching.

3.

Mentoring.

4.

Working with graduate level students as they prepare to work within the community.

5.

The sense that I am empowering and enabling my employees and doctoral students to excel
in their professional lives.
Professional and Career Development

1.

Ownership of the agency and ability to innovate with new technics, policy and procedures.

2.

Interacting with clients and staff and learning new skills.

3.

Being very objective; appreciative of knowledge acquired.
Assisting with Organizational Change

1.

Mission and agency improvement.

2.

The ability to impact and change the organization.
Nothing

1.

None.

161

APPENDIX Q
FRUSTRATING RESPONSES BY THEME

Tasks/Paperwork
1.

Too much to do.

2.

Dealing with administration's decisions without considering the effects of field offices; most
administrators have not worked in the field and managed a caseload of 200+ clients.

3.

The logistics, paperwork, "hoops to jump through" and overall lack of supervision are the
most frustrating parts of my job.

4.

Individuals that do not follow through with finding employment after completing their
training. The amount of paperwork we have to complete and working with equipment that
is sometimes really slow in functioning.

5.

Paper work, red tape, rules rules rules.

6.

Deadlines for work production.

7.

I had recently changed fields and it takes time to get established in a new area.

8.

Too much paperwork, office politics, not enough pay.

9.

Not being able to do as much as one would like for those in need.

10.

The bureaucracy and the workload.

11.

Outcomes for services and fee for service goals.

12.

Report writing - most time consuming but necessary in this particular job - expert witness
work.

13.

Paperwork, poor communication.

14.

The amount of paper work and bureaucracy (management sometimes do not know which
path to follow).

15.

Data collection and FBA learning and obtaining a license in Behavioral Consultant in PA
and starting on LPC for PA.

16.

Nightmarish, overwhelming, process-oriented required paperwork.

17.

Research.

18.

Large caseload--can't spend enough quality time with each client, and extensive paperwork.

19.

“Paperwork" in our computer system and constant technical difficulties.

20.

Billable time and red tape affiliated with state /federal agencies.

21.

Billing hours has become more important than helping people. Rehabilitation is getting lost.

22.

Pressure to publish.

23.

Work load and demands.

162

24.

Too large of a caseload and not enough pay.

25.

Losing benefits, low salary, high workload.

26.

Paperwork.

27.

Lack of face-to-face customer counseling.

28.

The amount of paperwork and technology... needing to be my own secretary for every
aspect of my job.

29.

An ever increasing amount of paperwork, not enough pay/recognition.

30.

The expectations are set at a high level and ongoing learning is continuous.

31.

I am working too much and not paid for all of my responsibilities.

32.

The lack of parental support and all the paperwork.

33.

Too much paperwork, coworkers w/ personal agendas, no acknowledgment for all we do.

34.

The paperwork.

35.

Clients have to wait ages to get services because of the policy and paperwork to get the
service started. This not only kills the spirit of the client but of that of the counselor.

36.

The amount of case management and fiscal interruptions such as adding new vendors for
purchasing which takes a very long time.

37.

Not enough hours in the day to get everything done.

38.

Too much to do so I am working long hours and doing more quantity so that quality
sometimes suffers.

39.

Spending so much time on the computer when I could be counseling customers or meeting
with employers both of which I enjoy very much.

40.

I do not have time to counsel people due to the large amount of paperwork I must complete.

41.

Paperwork and all the changes that take place each time a new administration comes in.

42.

Perpetual management and leadership issues, paperwork and a volume caseload.

43.

That I all the time receive more and more obligations.

44.

The poor salary for master level education is horrible especially for rehab counselor a
working for state agencies. The paperwork also increases on a daily bases to include little
conformity in policy and procedures.

45.

Tasks which are "make work" for the highest levels of leadership - no value added in those
tasks.

46.

Unequal distribution of work/new cases.

47.

Salary of VRC and unmanageable caseloads (at times).

48.

Unclear directives from the leadership then come back and say something else that takes me
to a different direction that is still unclear and the amount of redundant paperwork.

49.

That I have 150 clients and am unable to work effectively with all of them.

163

50.

Documentation.

51.

Constant work, have to make time to think big picture.

52.

Too much clerical work.

53.

The escalating document requirements, not enough rehab aides to help counselors and the
new department in which MRS is now housed.

54.

Job requirements are more demanding, caseloads too high, no salary increases or incentives.

55.

All the paper work.

56.

The caseload is high with a lot of documentation; it's up to me to make time for projects or
thinking big picture as easy to let the inbox rule you when you should rule it.

57.

Too much paper work and requirements change often.

58.

Paperwork.

59.

The constantly changing rule making from the top.

60.

The changing paperwork requirements.

61.

Paperwork and regulations

62.

The paperwork. I’m not a counselor anymore. We have become case managers.

63.

Too much paperwork.

64.

Slowness of the process for the client.

65.

Too much to do and lack of institutional support for staffing appropriately not feeling that I
can benefit my students as much as I want due to large caseload and added job demands.

66.

Paperwork, rules.

67.

Volume of workload at times.

68.

Having too many clients to spend as much time as I would like with each one.

69.

Trying to keep up with the great deal of paperwork required.

70.

Administrative tasks, meeting numbers and lack of competent supervisors.

71.

It frustrating when you look at the time put into paperwork, not giving the counselor a
chance to really know the customer. It takes time to work with individuals and to do the job
right.

72.

Paperwork.

73.

Barriers to treatment.

74.

Expectations of the State, cookie cutter approach state wants and the few resources they
provide.

75.

Paperwork.

76.

The paperwork is 90 percent of the job not enough support staff. Not a lot of face to face
time with clients. Policy is made for to protect the agency not to move clients forward in the
most productive way.

164

77.

Sometimes disagreeing with the direction the file is being taken.

78.

The escalating document requirements, not enough rehab aides to help counselors and the
new department in which MRS is now housed.

79.

Paperwork.

80.

Too much to do--not enough support.

81.

A convoluted, fragmented system of public/private agencies with rigid eligibility criteria
that forces people with limited coping skills to adhere to a rigid and confusing bureaucracy.
I've seen too many suicides; some of which may have been saved if they could access the
available help.

82.

Patients that are uncooperative with their treatment plan and excessive paper work.

83.

When I feel that I am spending too much time with paperwork or justification of what I am
trying to do, rather than just doing a good job of helping.

84.

Billing/paperwork.

85.

Paperwork, bureaucracy, too much to do with not enough time to do it in - caused by
funding issues.

86.

Agency's director, some supervisors, coworkers, lack of appreciation by the agency,
stressful nature of the job in general.

87.

Red tape. Unending regulations and paperwork. No support for the clerical work, which
ends up being the bulk of my work!
Bureaucracy/”Red Tape”

1.

Dealing with a lot of administration ""red tape"" and budget issues.

2.

The bureaucratic nonsense.

3.

Too much bureaucracy, process!

4.

The bureaucracy; lack of respect as a professional; Supervisors that only care for
themselves; Politics.

5.

Paper work, red tape, rules rules rules.

6.

Red tape plus not being able to have in the individual's treatment plan that they will attend
AA or be mediational compliant.

7.

The bureaucracy and the workload.

8.

The amount of paper work and bureaucracy (management sometimes do not know which
path to follow).

9.

Billable time and red tape affiliated with state /federal agencies.

10.

Red Tape.

11.

The bureaucracy.

12.

Red tape.
165

13.

Bureaucracy of working for the federal government.

14.

The red tape.

15.

Red tape, regulatory constraints.

16.

Red tape, rules upon rules upon rules. Nothing can be simple!

17.

Red tape. Unending regulations and paperwork. No support for the clerical work, which
ends up being the bulk of my work!

18.

Agency policies/bureaucracy.

19.

Bureaucracy, nepotism, and working with incompetent people.

20.

Bureaucracy of working for the federal government.

21.

Bureaucracy.

22.

Red tape and delays.

23.

All the red tape you have to deal with in order to help others.

24.

The red tape involved; some policies and regulations hinder a counselor’s ability to do the
job.

25.

Wanting to close somebody but cannot because of red tape.

26.

Dealing with incompetent people and bureaucracy.

27.

Red tape and paperwork.

28.

Paperwork, bureaucracy, too much to do with not enough time to do it in - caused by
funding issues.

29.

Bureaucracy.

30.

Red tape. Unending regulations and paperwork. No support for the clerical work, which
ends up being the bulk of my work!
Supervision/Leadership

1.

The "extra" stuff (i.e. boss saying one thing, doing another; the way others treat the clients,
etc.).

2.

Dealing with managers.

3.

Dealing with administration's decisions without considering the effects of field offices; most
administrators have not worked in the field and managed a caseload of 200+ clients.

4.

The logistics, paperwork, ""hoops to jump through"" and overall lack of supervision are the
most frustrating parts of my job.

5.

We have not had a state director for over 3 years. We lack dependable leadership who can
make crucial decisions and keep our organization functioning at its most efficient level.

6.

The social worker who supervises the rehab counselors & insists he knows all.

7.

Supervision and management skills of my current supervisor.
166

8.

The bureaucracy; lack of respect as a professional; Supervisors that only care for
themselves; politics.

9.

Political red tape and lack of consistency with following guidelines.

10.

A lack of accountability with colleagues and sometimes lack of feedback from my
supervisor.

11.

Decisions on policy and procedure being made by people who've never (or rarely) done the
work.

12.

This job has a lot of frustrating aspects. The most frustrating to me is the state office always
let the clients have their way, even after a professional judgment came from the counselor. I
thought this is why they hired counselors, so the counselors can make those professional
decisions based on the case and client. The state office staff is too far removed from the
reality of working with client's one on one.

13.

1. Parents of high school students with disabilities.2. My boss. 3. People trying to get free
stuff only.

14.

Contractors, supervisor, dysfunctional work environment.

15.

Totally incompetent management.

16.

The amount of paper work and bureaucracy (management sometimes do not know which
path to follow).

17.

My supervisor and his lack of ethics.

18.

The most frustrating part is higher up who go direct you to do things that go against policy

19.

Current senior management, decisions made by them without knowing all the facts or
understanding the overall impact.

20.

Perpetual management and leadership issues, paperwork and a volume caseload.

21.

Agency's director, some supervisors, coworkers, lack of appreciation by the agency,
stressful nature of the job in general.

22.

Organizational culture; disengaged administrators; insufficient resources.

23.

My boss.

24.

Commute, direct supervisor and lack of communication within the agency.

25.

The lack of professionalism in the organization as a whole.

26.

Administrative tasks, meeting numbers and lack of competent supervisors.

27.

Agency politics - nepotism.

28.

Communication; supervisor not always available; working within the laws and working for
the state, as nothing happens quickly.

29.

Other people not doing their job which delays my performance (support staff). management
incompetency.

30.

Administration

167

31.

Inconsistency of management direction to staff. Constantly changing their minds on how
things should be done instead of helping field staff find smarter ways to work.

32.

My supervisor, really it's her supervisor who is a micromanager.

33.

Working with a supervisor who is a social worker and not a rehab professional.

34.

Attempts by others to micromanage me.

35.

Lack of guidance from management.

36.

Unrealistic expectations of management.

37.

The administration.

38.

There is too much overhead management and rules that do not allow me to get the job done.

39.

Being supported (in ways that help me) by State Office/Management.

40.

Management and contradictory, arbitrary policy.

41.

Management not being open to new ideas.

42.

The lack of organization and leadership.

43.

Lack of leadership.

44.

Management.

45.

Political red tape and lack of consistency with following guidelines.

46.

I feel that my boss is incompetent and lazy.

47.

Coworkers or supervisors who are not committed to the cause.
Pay/Benefits

1.

Salary freeze - no raises.

2.

Frozen wages or chance for promotion. I am retiring the end of July.

3.

Outcomes for services and fee for service goals.

4.

Too large of a caseload and not enough pay.

5.

No way to be promoted, wages

6.

An ever increasing amount of paperwork, not enough pay/recognition.

7.

Salary of VRC and unmanageable caseloads (at times).

8.

Lack of health insurance & regular raises.

9.

Lack of pay increases.

10.

Our overall benefits do not represent a true reflection of current work demands. No merit
increase for 4 years!

11.

Funding and payment management.

12.

Too much paperwork, office politics, not enough pay.

168

13.

The poor salary for master level education is horrible especially for rehab counselor a
working for state agencies. The paperwork also increases on a daily bases to include little
conformity in policy and procedures.

14.

Job requirements are more demanding, caseloads too high, no salary increases or incentives.

15.

I am frustrated with the job market. I am frustrated that the agency has not given pay raises
in 4 years.

16.

The pay and lack of co-worker interaction.

17.

I am working too much and not paid for all of my responsibilities.

18.

Federal contracts pay poorly.

19.

More work is piled onto me because I do a good job. I'm paid the same as incompetent
employees.

20.

Lack of pay.

21.

Trying to get paid.

22.

Pay increases are not what they should be.

23.

The limited pay and benefits available.

24.

We have not had a raise here in 5 years. The counselor supervisor (my position) pay is
terrible. The beginning counselor pay is so low we cannot recruit any qualified people.

25.

The lack of room for growth and low salary level.

26.

Not appreciated and benefits are not good. Will probably have to seek alternative
employment.

27.

Employment benefits, communication.

28.

Accountability of others and pay.

29.

Billable hours.

30.

Billable time and red tape affiliated with state /federal agencies.

31.

Losing benefits, low salary, high workload.

32.

I am overqualified as a PhD candidate working on my dissertation....I am the lowest paid
person in our office because I took time out to return to school.

33.

Some of the benefits we do not have

34.

Lack of respect for my profession and low pay. Lower even than teachers!!

Work Environment
1.

Too much to do and lack of institutional support for staffing appropriately not feeling that I
can benefit my students as much as I want due to large caseload and added job demands.

2.

Paperwork, rules.

169

3.

The constant changes in processes; much of our focus seems to be avoiding litigation versus
serving people.

4.

Communication; supervisor not always available; working within the laws and working for
the state, as nothing happens quickly.

5.

The bureaucracy; lack of respect as a professional; Supervisors that only care for
themselves; politics.

6.

Inter-agency politics. We hire licensed, credentialed professionals and then still treat them
as children.

7.

Too much to do-not enough support.

8.

Individuals that do not follow through with finding employment after completing their
training. The amount of paperwork we have to complete and working with equipment that
is sometimes really slow in functioning.

9.

Internal politics.

10.

Administrations idea to embed counselors which isolates them and their ability to
effectively staff cases

11.

Never knowing where the next referral will come from.

12.

How long it takes for new ideas/products to be developed.

13.

Cliques are rewarded, outcomes are fudged by those who want and get rewards, and
opportunities do not come if you are outside the cliques.

14.

Politics.

15.

Road-blocks to positive change.

16.

The agency.

17.

Political aspects of the organization, both in terms of decisions and in terms of hiring and
promoting friends rather than quality performing persons.

18.

Disorganization of the agency.

19.

Contractors, supervisor, dysfunctional work environment.

20.

Organizational culture; disengaged administrators; insufficient resources.

21.

People in rehabilitation who are stuck on procedure and not creatively thinking about
possibilities and choices for their clients.

22.

Pace somewhat too fast so as to not get lunch or breaks.

23.

Agency politics - nepotism.

24.

Political aspects of the organization, both in terms of decisions and in terms of hiring and
promoting friends rather than quality performing persons.

25.

The escalating document requirements, not enough rehab aides to help counselors and the
new department in which MRS is now housed.

26.

Lack of communication and staffing.

170

27.

Lack of additional staff.

28.

Political influences--the "who you know not what you know" mentality.

29.

The paperwork is 90 percent of the job not enough support staff. Not a lot of face to face
time with clients. Policy is made for to protect the agency not to move clients forward in the
most productive way.

30.

Bureaucracy, nepotism, and working with incompetent people.

31.

The electronic data client records system.

32.

Computer systems not working thus causing paperwork to take longer than it should and not
being compensated for time.

33.

Internal politics.
Policies/Regulations

1.

Management and contradictory, arbitrary policy.

2.

Meaningless regulations.

3.

Limitations due to financial and insurance restrictions.

4.

Politics across campus that prevent/inhibit the growth of Universal Design in Education;
lack of ""power"" to influence the folks that COULD help us make this adjustment!

5.

Policy and best practices change almost monthly, very difficult to assimilate 1 change with
several more popping up. Not given the tools to make things work like management
proposed.

6.

Massive regulation.

7.

Too many regulations and financial limitations.

8.

Ridiculous rules that limit our ability to achieve positive outcomes.

10.

Changing policies.

11.

Working with some of the insurance adjusters and at times administration issues.

12.

Working with the State Office to get approval for individuals to attend my program.

13.

MN Workers' Compensation is an illogical system and therefore ""crazy making."

14.

Poor communication and insurance/state requirements.

15.

Finances and ever changing rules and regulations.

16.

Federal government administration.

17.

Agency bad policies and lack of funds.

18.

Agency policies/bureaucracy.

19.

Worrying about how the federal staff perceives our work. Changes initiated by the feds.

20.

Paperwork and regulations.

171

21.

That there are clients we are not able to help because they do not have the same benefits our
clients have under the auto no fault law.

22.

Insurance company's caps on what I can bill for my work.

23.

The paperwork is 90 percent of the job not enough support staff. Not a lot of face to face
time with clients. Policy is made for to protect the agency not to move clients forward in the
most productive way.

24.

Government regulations.

25.

Having the policies get in the way of helping someone when I know it's the right thing to do.

26.

Dealing with other agencies such as SS and Medicaid.

27.

Cumbersome legal mandates that slow down and stifle my efforts to serve students.

28.

Changing reimbursement structure, changes state-wide with no clear direction which pushes
staff to the limit in trying to prepare for every scenario.
Coworkers

1.

Dealing with incompetent people and bureaucracy.

2.

Drama among coworkers.

3.

Ability to find qualified candidates for new positions.

4.

Too much paperwork, office politics, not enough pay.

5.

Supervising and training immature new MA graduates and recent CRCs

6.

Basic human shortfalls.

7.

Dealing with incompetent insurer claims agents.

8.

Too much paperwork, coworkers w/personal agendas, no acknowledgment for all we do.

9.

Sometimes it can be frustrating working with colleagues in other units to achieve a goal due
to communication breakdown.

10.

I am frustrated when classroom teachers don't implement accommodations required by my
students (this is rare).

11.

More work is piled onto me because I do a good job. I'm paid the same as incompetent
employees.

12.

People who do not want to help themselves; coworkers who do not carry their weight.

13.

The pay and lack of co-worker interaction.

14.

Contractors, supervisor, dysfunctional work environment.

15.

Union employees.

16.

A lack of accountability with colleagues and sometimes lack of feedback from my
supervisor.

17.

Other people not following through on what they should be doing.

172

18.

I do not allow my job to frustrate me; at times, it frustrates me when others do not put in the
effort or do their work.

19.

Agency's director, some supervisors, coworkers, lack of appreciation by the agency,
stressful nature of the job in general.

20.

Coworkers or supervisors who are not committed to the cause.

21.

Cliques are rewarded, outcomes are fudged by those who want and get rewards, and
opportunities do not come if you are outside the cliques.

22.

Politics.

23.

Other people not doing their job which delays my performance (support staff; management
incompetency.

24.

Accountability of others and pay.

25.

Inconsistencies in the workplace; High turnover, Lack of personal investment in me as a
staff based on my unique status.

26.

Bureaucracy, nepotism, and working with incompetent people.

27.

Organization is just bringing in more CRCs and trying to increase skills, but upper
management is still a bit old school in terms of related skills. They need more legitimate
training. The training they provide and value is poor.
Communication

1.

Not appreciated and benefits are not good. Will probably have to seek alternative
employment.

2.

Employment benefits, communication.

3.

Inconsistency of management direction to staff. Constantly changing their minds on how
things should be done instead of helping field staff find smarter ways to work.

4.

Unclear directives from the leadership then come back and say something else that takes me
to a different direction that is still unclear and the amount of redundant paperwork.

5.

Communication.

6.

Communication; supervisor not always available; working within the laws and working for
the state, as nothing happens quickly.

7.

Paperwork, poor communication.

8.

“Paperwork" in our computer system and constant technical difficulties.

9.

Communication from administration and the unknown status with government.

10.

The bureaucracy; lack of respect as a professional; Supervisors that only care for
themselves; politics.

11.

Commute, direct supervisor and lack of communication within the agency.

12.

Inconsistency and unclear communication.

173

13.

Management not being open to new ideas.

14.

Lack of communication and staffing

15.

Communication is not good

16.

Lack of vision in my company

17.

Sometimes it can be frustrating working with colleagues in other units to achieve a goal due
to communication breakdown.

18.

Agency's director, some supervisors, coworkers, lack of appreciation by the agency,
stressful nature of the job in general.

19.

The lack of professionalism in the organization as a whole.

20.

Poor communication and insurance/state requirements.

21.

Some lack of communication within.

22.

Feeling that my agency doesn't care if I stay or go. To the agency I'm easily replaced. Not
valued.

23.

Lack of respect for my profession and low pay. Lower even than teachers!!

24.

Overall disrespect from management. Our CEO has referred to rehab counselors as
"dinosaurs".

25.

Too much paperwork, coworkers w/ personal agendas, no acknowledgment for all we do.

26.

An ever increasing amount of paperwork, not enough pay/recognition.

27.

Inconsistencies in the workplace; High turnover, lack of personal investment in me as a staff
based on my unique status.

Customers/Clients
1.

Working with students who do not have the ability to benefit from a college education
(cognitive disabilities) - does not matter how much help is provided, they are unlikely to be
successful.

2.

Having to sometimes deal with unpleasant/unreasonable people.

3.

Individuals that are unmotivated and angry.

4.

Parents of high school students with disabilities, my boss, people trying to get free stuff
only.

5.

Workers comp clients.

6.

Working with people who take advantage of the system because it is a government agency
instead of taking the opportunity handed to them to make changes in their life situations.

7.

Individuals that do not follow through with finding employment after completing their
training. The amount of paperwork we have to complete and working with equipment that
is sometimes really slow in functioning.

174

8.

The person who I interact with from the customer/employer is incompetent.

9.

The lack of parental support and all the paperwork

10.

Many clients that do not have motivation, desire, employment goal or capacity yet expect
the government to do.

11.

That people are never happy and things are constantly changing when someone does not like
they vocational program.

12.

Lack of motivation by clients or a sense of entitlement.

13.

Taking too long to deal with individuals who are not producing.

14.

The customers/clients.

15.

Seeing clients not trying, giving up or simply trying to use the system for short term gains.

16.

Noncompliance of injured workers.

17.

Parent who do not believe in raising their children to become independent. Stuck on
codependency issues/concerns.

18.

People who do not want to help themselves; coworkers who do not carry their weight.

19.

Consumers treating Vocational Rehabilitation like its Make a Wish Foundation.

20.

Clients who are just looking for services and not motivated in seeking employment.

21.

Working with people or guardians who have unrealistic goals and will not consider skills
level to realistic job options.

22.

Patients who are uncooperative with their treatment plan and excessive paper work.

23.

Working with people who don't put in much effort.

24.

People who want services handed to them but do not want to work to get to where they want
to be.
Resources

1.

No money or resources to pay for the services my clients need.

2.

Agency bad policies and lack of funds.

3.

Dealing with a lot of administration ""red tape"" and budget issues.

4.

Uncertainty of work availability.

5.

The mental health service delivery system being so fragmented, especially within the VA,
needed resources not available.

6.

Lack of employment opportunities for clients with disabilities.

7.

When employers are not open to working with people who have physical disabilities or one
in which they can obviously see. or when employers are not educated about the benefits of
hiring those with disabilities.

8.

Not enough support (IT, HR, Finance, etc.).

9.

Lack of funding/finding funding for programming.
175

10.

Lack of time, Lack of resources, LACK OF FUNDING FOR AUTISTIC ADULTS!!!!

11.

My inability to deliver the most valuable service of all -- a job!

12.

Expectations of the State, cookie cutter approach state wants and the few resources they
provide.

13.

Depleting resources for people with severe disabilities.

14.

The lack of jobs available for low skilled individuals.

15.

I am frustrated with the job market. I am frustrated that the agency has not given pay raises
in 4 years.

16.

Organizational culture; disengaged administrators; insufficient resources.

17.

Paperwork, bureaucracy, too much to do with not enough time to do it in - caused by
funding issues.

18.

Not having the funding to do more for/with the clients.

19.

Challenges with finding good job opportunities for people with low skill levels.

20.

Funding.

21.

Transportation for getting people to work.

22.

Finances and ever changing rules and regulations.

23.

Having to spend too many hours on work issues and not having enough time for my
personal life, especially at my age of 60 when managing my own health and aging mother
issues consumes more of my life. Also, it is frustrating how much time I spend on
technological challenges of doing my job as opposed to people related issues.

24.

Marketing.
Professional and Career Development

1.

The lack of room for growth and low salary level.

2.

Perceived lack of value.

3.

Organization is just bringing in more CRCs and trying to increase skills, but upper
management is still a bit old school in terms of related skills. They need more legitimate
training. The training they provide and value is poor.

4.

Little opportunity to use my skills/experiences.

5.

That promotions are not given based on qualifications and performance but for OTHER
REASONS.

6.

Little opportunity to be "intellectually creative" and practice what I was taught at school.
We have to follow a template exactly!

7.

Data collection and FBA learning and obtaining a license in Behavioral Consultant in PA
and starting on LPC for PA.

8.

The expectations are set at a high level and ongoing learning is continuous.
176

Nothing
1.

Nothing really.

2.

Nothing.

3.

NA.

177

REFERENCES

178

REFERENCES

Abbasi, S. M., & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel
Management, 29, 333-342.
Alarcon, G. M., & Edwards, J. M. (2011). The relationship of engagement, job satisfaction and
turnover intentions. Stress and Health, 27, 294-298.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 64-98.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
252-276.
Andrew, J. D., Faubion, C. W., & Palmer (2002). The relationship between counselor satisfaction
and job factors in state rehabilitation agencies. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 223232.
Angermeier, I., Dunford, B. B., & Boss, W. (2009). The impact of participative management
perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions. Journal
of Healthcare Management, 54, 127-140.
Argyriades, D. (2003). Values for public service: Lessons learned from recent trends and the
millennium summit. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(4), 521-533.
Armstrong, A. J., Hawley, C. E., Blankenship, C., Lewis, A. N., & Hurley, J. H. (2008). Certified
rehabilitation counseling personnel: Job satisfaction and intent to quit. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 32(10), 15-32.
Armstrong, A. J., Hawley, C. E., Lewis, A. N., Blankenship, C., & Pugsley, R. A. (2008).
Relationship between employment setting and job satisfaction among CRC personnel.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 41-51.
Baggerly, J., & Osborne, D. (2006). School counselors’ career satisfaction and commitment:
Correlates and predictors. Professional School Counseling, 9(3), 197-205.
Baird, J. (2006). The intent to leave: An investigation of empowerment mechanisms, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment among college employees (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3381320)
Barrett, K., Riggar, T. F., Flowers, C. R., Crimando, W., & Bailey, T. (1997). The turnover
dilemma: A disease with solutions. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(2), 3-17.
179

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,
32-40.
Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure and job satisfaction: A tale of
two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 33-48.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of moderating effects of commitment on job
satisfaction, intent to quit and health following organizational change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(4), 552-556.
Biemer, P. P., & Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Biggs, H., Flett, R., Voges, K., & Alpass, F. (1995). Job satisfaction and distress in rehabilitation
professionals: The role of organizational commitment and conflict. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 26(1), 41-46.
Bishop, M. (2001). Motivation to become a rehabilitation counselor with state-federal vocational
rehabilitation program: Implications for rehabilitation administrators. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administrators, 25(3), 145-150.
Bishop, M., Crystal, R. M., & Sheppard-Jones, K. (2003). Rehabilitation counselor recruitment
and retention: Implications from a study of current counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administrators, 27(12), 3-4.
Brewer, E. W., & Clippard, L. F. (2002). Burnout and job satisfaction among student support
services personnel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 169-186.
Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction
and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration,
38(2), 149-166.
Brown, M. B., Hohenshil, T. H., & Brown, D. T. (1998). Job satisfaction of school psychologists
in the United States. School Psychologist International, 19, 79-89.
Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on organizational
commitment questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86 (1), 161-173.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Government managers, business executives and organizational commitment.
Public Administration Review, 34(4), 339-347.
Buckley , M. R., Carraher, S. M., & Cote, J. A. (1997). Measurement issues concerning the use of
inventories of job satisfaction. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 52, 529-543.
Campion, M. K. (1991). Meaning and measurement of turnover: Comparison of alternative
measures and recommendations for research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 199-212.

180

Capella, M. E., & Andrew, J. D. (2004). The relationship between counselor job satisfaction and
consumer satisfaction in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47,
205-214.
Carbery, R., Garavan, T. N., O’Brien, F., & McDonnell, J. (2003). Predicting hotel managers’
turnover cognitions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7/8), 649-679.
Carroll, B. (1969). Job satisfaction: A review of literature. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.
Carsten J. M., & Spector P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A
meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374-381.
Chaaban, H. A. (2006). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intent among
nurse anesthetists in Michigan. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3206380)
Chan, F., Leahy, M. J., Saunders, J. L., Tarvydas, V. M., Ferrin, J. M., & Lee, G. (2003). Training
needs of certified rehabilitation counselors for contemporary practice. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 46, 82-91.
Chan, T. (2003). Recruiting and retaining professional staff in state VR agencies: Some
preliminary findings from RSA Evaluation Study [Draft report]. Washington DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Chan, T., & Ruedel, K. (2005, July). A national report: The demand for and the supply of qualified
state rehabilitation counselors [Preliminary report]. Washington DC: American Institutes
for Research.
Chiu, R. K., & Francesco, A. M. (2003). Dispositional traits and turnover intentions: Examining
the mediating role of job satisfaction and affective commitment. International Journal of
Manpower, 24(1), 284-298.
Chung-Yan, G. A. (2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job
satisfaction, turnover, and psychology well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15(3), 237-251.
Clugston, M. (2000). The meditating effects of multidimensional commitment on job satisfaction
and intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 477-486.
Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. The Academy of
Management Journal, 36(5), 1140-1157.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,
112(1), 155-159.
Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. (2012). Commission on rehabilitation
counselor certification. Retrieved November 11, 2012 from http://crccertification.com/
181

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J: A., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A
compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Limited.
Coomber, B., & Barriball, K. L. (2007). Impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave
and turnover for hospital-based nurses: a review of the research literature. International
Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 297-314.
Coté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion
regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
947-962.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J.M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with
implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.
Cramer, D. (1996). Job satisfaction and organizational continuance commitment: A two-wave
panel study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(4), 389-400.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crimando, W., Riggar, T. F., & Hansen, G. (1986). Personnel turnover: The plague of
rehabilitation facilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 17, 17-20.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global
measure of job embeddings and integration into traditional model of voluntary turnover.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1031-1042.
Cunningham, G. B. (2006). The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change,
and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1),
29-45.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2003). Occupational turnover intent among assistant coaches of
women's teams: The role of organizational work experiences. Sex Roles, 49, 185-190.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2004). Group diversity, occupational commitment, and
occupational turnover intentions among NCAA division 1A football coaching staffs.
Journal of Sport Management, 18, 236-254.
Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2001). Occupational commitment and intent to
leave the coaching profession. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 36, 131-48.
Dahling, J. J., & Thompson, M. N. (2012). Detrimental relations of maximization with academic
and career attitudes. Journal of Career Assessment, 1-17.

182

DeMato, D. S., & Curcio, C. C. (2004). Job satisfaction of elementary school counselors: A new
look. Professional School Counseling, 7, 236-245.
DeSantis, V. S., & Durst, S. L. (1996). Comparing job satisfaction among public and private sector
employees. The American Public Administration, 26, 327-342.
Dew, D. W., Alan, G. M., & Tomlinson, P. (Eds.). (2008). Recruitment and retention of vocational
rehabilitation counselors (Institute on Rehabilitation Issues Monograph no.33).
Washington DC: The George Washington University, Center for Rehabilitation Counseling
Research and Education.
Emener, W G., & Stephens, J. E. (1982). Improving the quality of working life in a changing
(rehabilitation) environment. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 6, 114-124.
Emener, W.G. (1979). Professional burnout: Rehabilitation’s hidden handicap. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 45, 53-58.
Evans, W., & Hohenshil, T. H. (1997). Job satisfaction of substance abuse counselors. Alcohol
Treatment Quarterly, 15, 1-14.
Fang, Y. (2001).Turnover propensity and its causes among Singapore nurses: An empirical study.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 859-871.
Farkas, A. J., & Tetrick, L. E. (1989). A three-way longitudinal analysis of the casual ordering of
satisfaction and commitment on turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
855-868.
Farruggia, G. (1986). Job satisfaction among private and public sector rehabilitation practitioners.
Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 10(1), 4-11.
Faubion, C. W., Palmer, C. E., & Andrew, J. D. (2001). Rural and urban differences in counselor
satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4), 4-12.
Feldheim, M. A. (2004). Mary Parker Follett lost and found –again. International Journal of
Organization Theory and Behavior, 7(3), 341-362.
Ferri-Reed, J. (2012). Three ways leaders can help millennials succeed. Journal of Quality and
Perception, 35(1), 18-19.
Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Garske, G. G. (1999). Rehabilitation counselor job satisfaction: Self-reported ratings and
recommendations. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 23, 21-29.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive
effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 318-325.

183

Gregson, T. (1991). The separate constructs of communication satisfaction and job satisfaction.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 39-48.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relations of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42, 333-356.
Hackett, R. D. Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessment of Meyer and Allen’s
(1991) three component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 15-23.
Hellman, C. M. (1997). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Social Psychology, 137,
677-687.
Hill, G.C. (2009). The effect of frequent managerial turnover on organizational performance: A
study of professional baseball managers. The Social Science Journal, 46, 557-570.
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of turnover theory:
Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350-366.
Hom, P. W., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Comparative examination of three approaches
to prediction of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 280-190.
Huang, S. (2012). Explore the relationship between job stress, organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions in medical centre nursing staffs in middle Taiwan.
Journal of Nursing Practice, 18(1), 109-116.
Hulin, C. L. (1965). Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clerical population. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 50(4), 280-285.
Hwang, I. S., & Kuo, J. H. (2006). Effects of job satisfaction and perceived alternative
employment opportunities on turnover intention: An examination of public sector
organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 8(2), 254-259.
Institute for Social Research. (1975). Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan. Retrieved September 13, 2012 from
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/MichiganOrganizationalAssessmentP
ackage_OCR.pdf
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction
of a job in general scale: A comparison of global composite, and specific measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. I. (1999). Predicting and reducing mid-level administrative staff
turnover. CUPA Journal, 1-8.
Jones, C., Hohenshil, T. H., & Burge, P. (2009). Factors affecting African American counselors’
job satisfaction: A national study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 152-158.

184

Kacmer, K. M., Andrews, M. C., & Van Rooy, D. L. (2006). Sure everyone can be replaced… but
at what costs? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 133-144.
Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Kosciulek, J. F. (2006). Practical guidelines for effective writing part III: Writing the first draft.
Rehabilitation Research Policy and Education, 20(1), 3-5.
Kosciulek, J. F., & Wheaton, J. F. (2004). Editorial: On scientific inquiry. Rehabilitation
Education, 18(2), 71-75.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
Lambert, E., & Paoline, E. A. (2010). Take this job and shove it: An exploratory study of turnover
intent among jail staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 139-148.
Larrabee, J. H., Janney, M. A., Ostrow, C. L., Withrow, M. L., Hobbs, G. R., & Burant, C. (2003).
Predicting registered nurse job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 33, 271-283.
Layne, C. M., Hohenshil, T. H., & Singh, K. (2004). The relationship of occupational stress,
psychological strain and coping resources to the turnover intentions of rehabilitation
counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48(1), 19-20.
Leahy, M. J. (2004). Qualified providers of rehabilitation counseling services. In T. F. Riggar, &
D. R. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of Rehabilitation Counseling. New York, NY: Springer.
Leahy, M., Chan, F., & Saunders, J. (2003). Job functions and knowledge requirements of certified
rehabilitation counselors in the 21st century. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 310, 718723.
Leahy, M. J., Groomes, D. A., Thielsen, V., Shader-Paterson, L., & Shamsiddeen, J. (2006). A
synergistic program evaluation model partnership a state agency and a university program.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 72(3), 12-18.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133.
Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R.T. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical
investigation of Steers and Mowday's model of turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 30, 721-743.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.
Lincoln, J. R., & Kallenberg, A. L. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work
organization and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
185

Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participants in strategic change: Resistance, organizational
commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 4(3), 193-215.
Little, K. R. (2012). Child, youth and family services social worker turnover in Newfoundland and
Labrador: Trends and determinants (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Proquest.
(AAIMR80810)
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
4, 309-366.
Lyons, H. Z., & O’Brien, K. M. (2006). The role of person-environment fit in the job satisfaction
and tenure intentions of African-American Employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
53(4), 387-396.
Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (2006). A comparison of the values and
commitment of private sector, public sector and parapublic sector employees. Public
Administration Review, 66(4), 605-618.
Mallik, K., & Lemarie, G. S. (2003). Assessing departing employee’s perceptions may lead to
organizational change to reduce staff turnover. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration,
27(1), 23-32.
Marchiori, D. M., & Henkin, A. B. (2004). Organizational commitment of a health professional
faculty: Dimensions, correlates and conditions. Medical Teacher, 26, 353-358.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-94.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J., (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1, 64-98.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J., (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 538-551.
Miller, L. A., & Muthard, J. E. (1965). Job satisfaction and counselor performance in state
rehabilitation agencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(4), 280-283.
Mitus, J. S. (2006). Organization socialization from content perspective and its effect on affective
commitment of newly hired rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72(2), 1220.
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkage in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

186

Mobley, W. H. (1982a). Employee turnover, causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Mobley, W. H. (1982b). Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research. The
Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 111-116.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of
employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of
hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408-414.
Montapart, A. A. (2007). Quotations book, list of quotes on achievement. Retrieved September
13,2012 from http://www.quotationsbook.com/
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turnover:
Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 607-618.
Mowday, R. T., Koberg, C. S., & McArthur, A.W. (1984). The psychology of the withdrawal
process: A cross–validation test of Mobley’s intermediate linkage model of turnover in two
samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79-94.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2008). Explaining turnover intention in state government:
Examining the role gender, life-cycle and loyalty. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 28(2), 120-143.
Moynihan, L., Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). The influence of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment on executive withdrawal and performance. (Center for
Advanced Human Resource Studies: Working Paper Series #00-16). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
Muthard, J. E., & Miller, L. A. (1964). Criteria for counselor performance in state vocational
rehabilitation agencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11(2), 123-128.
National Rehabilitation Association. (2008). 2008 Issue Statements. Retrieved September 13,
2012, from http://www.nationalrehab.org/
Neely, C. R. (1974). Rehabilitation counselor attitudes: A study to compare the attitudes of general
and special counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 5, 153-158.
Nicholson, W. M. (2009). Leadership practices, organizational commitment, and turnover
intentions: A correlation study in a call center (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Proquest. (AAI3350859)

187

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Packard, S., & Kauppi, D. (1999). Rehabilitation agency leadership style: Impact on subordinates’
job satisfaction. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43, 5-11.
Patterson, J. (2009). Professional identity and the future of rehabilitation counseling.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52, 129-132.
Peccei, R., & Rosenthal, P. (1997). The antecedents of employee commitment to customer service:
Evidence from a UK service context. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8(1), 66-86.
Pepe, M. (2010). The impact of extrinsic motivational dissatisfies on employee level of job
satisfaction and commitment resulting in the intent to turnover. Journal of Business &
Economic Research, 8(9), 99-107.
Pitt, J. S. (2009). Relationship between person-organization fit, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and turnover intent among state vocational rehabilitation counselor (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3381320)
Poon , J. M. L. (2004). Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover
intent. Personnel Review, 33(3), 322-334.
Poon , J. M. L. (2012). Distributive justice, procedural justice, affective commitment and turnover
intention: A mediation-moderation framework. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
42(6), 1505-1532.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
Potter, S. L. (2012). Relationships between educators’ organizational commitment and
administrator gender (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3503389)
Price, J. L. (1989). The impact of turnover on the organization. Work and Occupations, 16, 461473.
Price, J. L. (1997). Handbook of organizational measurement. International Journal of Manpower,
18(4), 305-558.
Reckase, M. (1998). The interaction of values and validity assessment: Does the test level of
validity depend on the researcher’s values? Social Indicators Research, 45(1-3), 45-54.
Reitz, O. (2010). Job embeddedness and nurse retention in rural and urban locales (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (AA13394335).

188

Rentsch, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (1992). Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrew and
Withey job satisfaction questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 52,
357-367.
Richer, S., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. (2002). A motivational model of turnover. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2089-2113.
Riggar, T. F. (1985). Stress, burnout: An annotated bibliography. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Riggar, T. F., Hansen, G., & Crimando, W. (1987). Rehabilitation employee organizational
withdrawal behavior. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32(2), 121-124.
Risher, H., & Stopper, W. (2002). Attracting and retaining intellectual capital (current practices).
Human Resources Planning, 25, 9-11.
Roessler, R. T., & Mullins, J. A. (1995). Factors affecting rehabilitation counselor performance: A
social perspective. Rehabilitation Education, 9, 21-35.
Sager, J., Varadarajan, P., & Futrell, C. (1988). Understanding salespeople turnover: A partial
evaluation of Mobley’s turnover process model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 8, 20-35.
Satcher, J., & McGhee, M. (1996). Organizational commitment among public agency
rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 20(3), 213-229.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Rosenblatt, Z. (2009). Organizational ethics and teachers' intent to
leave: An integrative approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 725-758.
Shaw, J. (1999). Job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The moderating role of positive
affectivity. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2), 242-244.
Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management
Journal, 35(5), 1036-1056.
Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to
work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42, 625-638.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. The Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of job satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Smits, S. J. (1972). Counselor job satisfaction and employment turnover in state rehabilitation
agencies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 512-517.

189

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(24), 363-382.
Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment turnover and absenteeism: An examination of
direct and indirect effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49-58.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P.E. (1997). Measures of job satisfaction. Retrieved November 13, 2012, from
http://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/641/jsscales.htm
Stanton, J., Sinar, E., Balzer, W., Julian, A., Thoresen, P., Aziz, S., Fisher, G., & Smith, P. (2002).
Development of a compact measure of job satisfaction: The Abridged Job Descriptive
Index. Education and Psychological Measurement, 62, 173-191.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sweeney, A. P., Hohenshil, T. H., & Fortune, J. C. (2002). Job satisfaction among employee
assistance professionals: A national study. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39, 50-60.
Szymanski. E. M., & Parker, R. M. (1995). Rehabilitation counselor work motivation, job
performance, and job satisfaction: An exploratory study. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 19, 51-64.
Tansey, T. N., Bishop, M., & Smart, J. F. (2004). Recruitment in rehabilitation counseling:
Maximizing the benefits for graduate programs and the state-federal VR system.
Rehabilitation Education, 18(1), 49-59.
Tetrick, L. E., & Farkas, A. J. (1988). A longitudinal examination of the dimensionality and
stability of the organizational commitment questionnaire (OCQ). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 48, 723-735.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention
and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personal Psychology, 46,
259-293.
Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of empirical evidence of generational differences in work
attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Occupational outlook
handbook. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/
University of Minnesota. (1967). Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Retrieved November
13, 2012, from http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/vpr/msqinf.htm

190

Vandenberg, C., & Tremblay, M. (2008). The role of pay satisfaction and organizational
commitment in turnover intentions: A two sample study. Journal of Business Psychology,
22(3), 275-286.
Van Saane, N., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2003). Reliability and
validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction-a systematic review. Occupational
Medicine, 53, 191-200.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance C. E. (1992). Examining the casual order of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153-167.
Wagner, A. E. (2004). The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intent of human
service employees in a community based organization. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from Proquest. (3132754)
Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). When coworkers and managers quit:
The effects of turnover and shared values on performance. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 21, 103-26.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1997). Manual for Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Industrial Relations
Center.
Wells, J. E., & Peachey, J. W. (2011). Turnover intentions. Team Performance Management,
17(1), 23-40.
Williams C. R. (1990). Deciding when, how, and if to correct turnover correlations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 732-737.
Woolf, H. B. (1980). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam.
Wren, D. A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th edition). Danvers, MA: Wiley.
Wright, G. N., & Terrian L. J. (1987). Rehabilitation job satisfaction inventory. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 31(2), 159-176.
Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A
comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47(8), 977-1010.

191