154 Chapter 6 TABLE 2 Coefficients of the direct paths in the structural equation model (SEM) analyses Health impairment process T1 PVM to T2 exhaustion -.39** -.27* T1 exhaustion – T2 exhaustion .58** T2 exhaustion to T3 functional limitations .59** .38** T2 functional limitations – T3 functional limitations .48** T2 exhaustion to T3 absenteeism .36** .32** T2 absenteeism – T3 absenteeism .02 Motivational process T1 PVM – T2 work engagement .47** .04† T1 work engagement – T2 work engagement .66** T2 work engagement – T3 creative work performance .34* .29* T2 creative work performance – T3 creative work performance .24* The Motivational Process We proceeded with testing hypothesis 2, which states that T1 PVM is positively related to T3 creativity through T2 work engagement. We started with analyzing the simple model without including the paths for earlier levels of the mediators (i.e., T1) and outcome variables (i.e., T2). Again, the fit of the structural equation model involving the motivational process was reasonable (CFI = .92, IFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .10). The findings further showed significant, positive paths between T1 PVM and T2 work engagement (estimate = .47, p < .01), and between T2 work engagement and T3 creativity (estimate = .34, p < .05). See Table 2 for all the direct path coefficients. Moreover, in line with our hypothesis, T1 PVM was indirectly related to T3 creativity, mediated by T2 work engagement (AMOS bootstrapping estimate = .17 [CI: .06 to .37], p < .05). After controlling for earlier levels of work engagement (i.e., T1 work engagement) and creativity (i.e., T2 creativity), the path between T1 PVM and T2 work engagement became nonsignificant. Therefore, the indirect relationship between T1 PVM and T3 creativity via T2 work engagement was no longer significant (AMOS bootstrapping estimate = .01 [CI: -.06 to .12], p = .893). Overall, the results thus provide only partial support for hypothesis 2.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw