10 minute powerpoint presentation, with script to go along with slides for me to record voiceover
HMS794 Statistical Marketing Tools Structural Equation Modeling Assignment 2 Aim: The aim of this assignment is to consolidate and demonstrate your understanding of the material covered in weeks 1-5 of this course in the form of a 10 minute (around 10 slides) presentation. The presentation will consist of describing a structural equation model reported in a peer reviewed publication from any topic area you choose. It will also require you to reanalyse the data in an attempt to improve the model. The model can be any type of structural equation model that has been covered in weeks 1-5 of the course (e.g. CFA, path analysis, full structural equation model). Presenting statistical results within the context of a research aim is an important skill for any statistician or researcher. It is particularly important for those of you who intend to work in an applied area, where you will be often required to convey briefly and succinctly statistical evidence to a lay audience or other researchers whose understanding of statistics is limited. Summarizing statistical information in a brief written report is also a highly desirable skill. Many written reports include an executive summary, where the aim(s), method, results and conclusions are summarized as succinctly as possible. This assignment is therefore designed to give you practice and feedback in analysing, presenting and summarising statistical evidence relating to a research question tested by a structural equation model. It is also designed to provide you with the skills needed in order to analyse secondary data, or data that has already been published/reported. A good approach to take with this assignment is to imagine you have been commissioned to conduct an analysis and interpret the results to a lay (in terms of statistics) audience (e.g., public servants, bank manager, marketing executives, academic non statistician). You have been asked to check the results of an important paper and judge whether any further work or modifications to the model may be necessary before any decisions or conclusions can be made. Part of the job includes presenting your conclusions and recommendations to the research team. Method You will need to find a published article that includes a structural equation model as part of the results. The article must also report a correlation (or covariance) matrix of the measured variables used in the model. It should also contain the means and standard deviations of the measured variables and the sample size. Reporting this information is standard practice for a results section containing a SEM model, so finding an article that reports the matrix should not be too difficult. Try and choose something that is of interest to you, and keep it simple! That is, find a short article that is easy to understand and has tested a model that is fairly straight forward and does not contain many variables and parameters. Your other main task is to reanalyse the model presented in the chosen article. Using the correlation (covariation) matrix you will attempt to reproduce the model in AMOS. Don’t worry if the results are not exactly the same as what is reported in the published article, as the authors may have used a different program and different estimation methods etc. The aim is to get your results to be as similar as possible. You should then attempt to see whether the statistics (i.e., modification indices and/or standardised residual matrix) suggest that the model could be improved. Most models can be improved in some way, but if there are no statistical suggestions that is OK. If the results suggest no improvement, then this should be presented, along with the results that suggested no improvements are necessary. Structure of the presentation There are no rules about how to structure your presentation, but it should achieve the aim of clearly conveying what the model was designed to test by the original authors, their results, your results, suggestions (if appropriate) on how the model could be improved and any overall conclusions you make. Suggested sections for both could be: 1. Introduction · Background (e.g., what is the aim of the research, what hypotheses is/are being tested by the model?) 2. Method · Very brief description of the sample(s) used and how each variable was measured 3. Results · The authors’ results (i.e., their model) and conclusions · The results of your reproduced model · Suggested modifications for the model based on your analysis 4. Conclusions and recommendations · What do your results conclude about the original research question(s)/hypotheses? · What would you recommend in terms of future research or model testing? Your presentation should be constructed in power point slides and should take no longer than 10 minutes to present. A good guide to the number of slides is about 1 minute per slide (so 10 slides is a good goal to aim for). Model results can also be presented in tables if they are simple, but this depends on its complexity. Check what was done in your chosen article for guidance and examine other articles if necessary to decide what would look best for your presentation. Marks: A total of 20 marks will be awarded for the presentation, making this assignment worth a total of 20% of your final grade for this unit. We will assign 8 marks to the description of the work done by the authors in the article and 8 marks for your analysis of the reproduced model. To get the full marks for the description of the authors’ model, you will need to demonstrate that you understand the aims, methods and analyses conducted. Importantly, you will need to show a good understanding of the model results and the conclusions drawn from them. To obtain the full marks for your analysis, you will need to have done them correctly, identify any modifications or improvements, and importantly justify both statistically and theoretically these modifications. The remaining 4 marks will be for the presentation itself. That is your ability to extract the most relevant pieces of information, tell a clear story, engage the audience, and present succinctly . To obtain full 4 marks your presentation needs to be clear and logically presented (e.g. structure of how the presentation flows and tells a ‘story’ or ‘narrative’, overheads are clear and succinct, conclusions make sense and are directly linked to the analysis). Demonstrating your understanding of the model results and suggested modifications via the use of structural equation modelling is therefore of paramount importance. Presentations on existing structural equation models using AMOS PRESENTATION FEEDBACK SHEET STUDENT NAME________________________________________________________ STAFF NAME___________________________________________________________ TOTAL MARK_____________/20 1. Presentation of authors’ model (8 marks) Criteria: Demonstrated: Achieved Mark Understanding of the authors’ aims and research questions/hypotheses according to the model (1 mark) YES ( NO ( Understanding of the sample (including requirements for the model) and measures used (1 mark) YES ( NO ( Understanding of the crucial model results (e.g., fit indices, regression weights, any indirect effects, modification indices if reported) (4 marks) YES ( NO ( Understanding of the conclusions drawn from the model results by the authors (2 mark) YES ( NO ( TOTAL MARK COMMENTS___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Presentation of the reproduced model (8 marks) Criteria: Achieved Mark A decent attempt was made to reproduce the authors’ model using AMOS (3 marks) YES ( NO ( Suggested modifications were correctly presented and interpreted (2 mark) YES ( NO ( Justification is provided for the modification(s) or to not modify. (1 marks) YES ( NO ( Overall conclusions and recommendations of the analysis for the topic area (2 marks) YES ( NO ( TOTAL MARK COMMENTS 3. Presentation style and structure (4 marks) Clear oral presentation of the material NO IN PARTS YES (ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT) ( ( ( Structure is logical and conveys a meaningful narrative NO IN PARTS YES (ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT) ( ( ( COMMENTS � See the feedback sheet that will be used for the presentation at the end of this document. The written reports will be marked via Turnitin on Blackboard PAGE 6 doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 43 (2006) 495–513 Burnout and work engagement among teachers Jari J. Hakanen a,*, Arnold B. Bakker b, Wilmar B. Schaufeli c a Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Department of Psychology, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland b Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Utrecht and Research Institute of Psychology & Health, Utrecht, The Netherlands c Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Utrecht, and Research Institute of Psychology & Health, Utrecht, The Netherlands Received 5 July 2005; received in revised form 31 October 2005; accepted 3 November 2005 Abstract The Job Demands–Resources Model was used as the basis of the proposal that there are two parallel processes involved in work-related well-being among teachers, namely an energetical process (i.e., job demandsYburnoutY ill health) and a motivational process (i.e., job resour- cesYengagementYorganizational commitment). In addition, some cross-links between both processes were hypothesized. Structural equation modeling was used to simultaneously test the hypotheses in a sample of Finnish teachers (N =2038). The results confirmed the existence of both processes, although the energetical process seems to be more prominent. More specifically, (1) burnout mediated the effect of high job demands on ill health, (2) work engagement mediated the effects of job resources on organizational commitment, and (3) burnout mediated the effects of lacking resources on poor engagement. The robustness of these findings is underscored by the fact that they were obtained in one half of the sample (using random selection) and cross-validated in the other half. D 2005 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Burnout; Job Demands–Resources Model; Work engagement; Teachers Teaching is stressful (Borg & Riding, 1991; Travers & Cooper, 1996); for example, it has been estimated that between 5% and 20% of all U.S. teachers are burned out at any given time (Farber, 1991). In comparison with other professions, teachers show high levels 0022-4405/$ - All rights rese doi:10.1016/j. * Correspon E-mail add Journal of School Psychology see front matter D 2005 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. rved. jsp.2005.11.001 ding author. Tel.: +358 40 562 5433; fax: +358 9 2413 496. ress:
[email protected] (J.J. Hakanen). J.J. Hakanen et al. / Journal of School Psychology 43 (2006) 495–513496 of exhaustion and cynicism, the core dimensions of burnout (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). In Finland, the country where the current study was conducted, educators have the highest burnout levels compared to workers in all other human services and white collar jobs (Kalimo & Hakanen, 2000). However, it is important to note that the majority of teachers are not anxious, stressed, unmotivated, or burned-out (Farber,