Results

Logistic Regression

Model Summary - burnout
Model	Deviance	AIC	BIC	df	ΔΧ²	p	McFadden R²	Nagelkerke R²	Tjur R²	Cox & Snell R²
M₀	530.107	532.107	536.254	466			0.000		0.000
M₁	364.179	370.179	382.618	464	165.928	< .001	0.313	0.441	0.350	0.299
M₂	321.199	333.199	358.077	461	42.981	< .001	0.394	0.531	0.429	0.361

Note. M₁ includes control, coping
Note. M₂ includes control, coping, pastoral, research, teaching

The overall fit of Model 1 is significant compared to the baseline Model 0, $ $ (2) = 165.93, p < .001. Model 1 accounts for 29.9% or 44.1% of the variance in burnout (depending on which measure of you use). The overall fit of Model 2 is significant after adding the new variables (teaching, research, and pastoral), $ $ (3) = 42.98, p < .001. The final model accounts for 36.1% or 53.1% of the variance in burnout (depending on which measure of you use).

Based on the Coefficients table below, we can make conclusions about individual predictors based on their Wald statistics, p-values, and odds ratio’s (including their confidence intervals). For Model 1, both predictors seem to significantly predict burnout. For Model 2, all predictors except for research seem to significantly predict burnout. Since ‘Burnt Out’ is coded as 1, an odds ratio greater than 1 (or regression estimate that is positive) indicates that an increase in a variable is likely to occur with an increase in burnout.

Coefficients
						Wald Test			95% Confidence interval (odds ratio scale)
Model		Estimate	Standard Error	Odds Ratio	z	Wald Statistic	df	p	Lower bound	Upper bound
M₀	(Intercept)	-1.073	0.106	0.342	-10.105	102.111	1	< .001	0.278	0.421
M₁	(Intercept)	-4.484	0.379	0.011	-11.818	139.669	1	< .001	0.005	0.024
	control	0.061	0.011	1.063	5.596	31.316	1	< .001	1.040	1.086
	coping	0.083	0.009	1.086	8.829	77.951	1	< .001	1.066	1.106
M₂	(Intercept)	-4.440	1.086	0.012	-4.090	16.725	1	< .001	0.001	0.099
	control	0.111	0.015	1.117	7.414	54.961	1	< .001	1.085	1.150
	coping	0.142	0.016	1.153	8.684	75.406	1	< .001	1.117	1.191
	pastoral	0.045	0.013	1.046	3.449	11.895	1	< .001	1.020	1.073
	research	0.019	0.010	1.019	1.863	3.472	1	0.062	0.999	1.040
	teaching	-0.112	0.020	0.894	-5.673	32.185	1	< .001	0.860	0.929

Note. burnout level 'Burnt Out' coded as class 1.

Write it up!

In terms of the individual predictors we could report the following: Burnout is significantly predicted by perceived control, coping style (as predicted by Cooper), stress from teaching and stress from giving pastoral care. The value and direction of the beta weights tell us that, for perceived control, coping ability and pastoral care, the relationships are positive. That is (and look back to the question to see the direction of these scales, i.e., what a high score represents), poor perceived control, poor ability to cope with stress and stress from giving pastoral care all predict burnout. However, for teaching, the relationship if the opposite way around: stress from teaching appears to be a positive thing as it predicts not becoming burnt out.