Conclusiones

Table 1 summarizes the results of logistic regression analyses between emotional distress and neck disorder. Direct logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of emotional distress level on the likelihood that respondents would report that they had neck pain. The model contained only one independent variable (level of emotional distress). The full model was statistically significant, χ2 (1, N = 368) = 9.074, p < .01, indicating that the model is able to distinguish between respondents who reported and did not report neck disorder.

The model as a whole explained 2.4% (Cox and Snell R Square) and 3.4% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in neck disorders, and correctly classified 67.1% of cases. To support the model, the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test should show the significance value of greater than .05 (Pallant, 2010). The result of the present study shows that the significance value is .91, indicating the current result supports the model.

As shown in Table 1, independent variable that was represented by emotional distress made a unique and statistically significant contribution to the model. The result revealed that emotional distress, recorded an odds ratio of 1.7, indicating that respondents who experienced emotional distress such as “being upset because of something that happened unexpectedly”, “could not cope with all the things that had to do” and “unable to control the important things in life” were 1.7 times more likely to report having a neck disorder than those who did not experience emotional distress in the workplace.

Table 1: Summary of the Influence of Emotional Distress on Neck Disorder

Independent

Variable B S.E. Wald p

Odds Ratio

95% C.I. for Odds Ratio Lower Upper

Stress .558 .191 8.503 .004 1.748 1.201 2.543

Constant -.782 .518 2.281 .131 .458

Table 2 illustrates the results of logistic regression analyses between emotional distress and shoulders‟ disorder. The full model was statistically significant, χ2

(1, N = 368) = 18.869, p < .01, indicating that the model is able to distinguish between respondents who reported and did not report shoulder disorders. The model as a whole explained 5% (Cox and Snell R Square) and 7.3% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in shoulder disorders, and correctly classified 74.5% of cases. To support the model, the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test should show the significance value of greater than .05 (Pallant, 2010). The result of the present model revealed that the significance value is .85, indicating that the model is supported.

As can be seen from Table 2, emotional distress made a unique and statistically significant contribution to the model by recording an odds ratio of 2.5. This indicated that respondents who experienced emotional distress such as “being upset because of something that happened unexpectedly”, “could not cope with all the things that had to do” and “unable to control the important things in life” were 2.5 times more likely to report having a shoulder disorder than those who did not experience emotional distress in the workplace.

Table 2: Summary of the Influence of Emotional Distress on Shoulders Disorders

Independent

Variable B S.E. Wald p

Odds Ratio

95% C.I. for Odds Ratio Lower Upper

Stress .899 .221 16.540 .000 2.458 1.594 3.792 Constant -1.359 .580 5.495 .019 .257

Table 3 provides the results of logistic regression analyses between emotional distress and upper-back disorder. The full model was statistically significant, χ2

(1, N = 368) = 6.032, p < .05, indicating that the model is able to distinguish between respondents who reported and did not report upper-back disorder. The model as a whole explained between 1.6% (Cox and Snell R Square) and 2.3% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in the upper-back disorder, and correctly classified 70.1% of cases. To support the model, the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test should show the significance value of greater than .05 (Pallant, 2010). The result of the present model shows that the significance value is .4, supporting the model.

As shown in Table 3, emotional distress serving as an independent variable made a unique and statistically significant contribution to the model by recording an odd ratio of 1.6. This demonstrated that respondents who experienced emotional distress such as “being upset because of something that happened unexpectedly”, “could not cope with all the things that had to do” and “unable to control the important things in life” were 1.6 times more likely to report having upper-back disorder than those who did not experience emotional distress in the workplace.

Table 3: Summary of the Influence of Emotional Distress on Upper-Back Disorder

Independent

Variable B S.E. Wald p

Odds Ratio

95% C.I. for Odds Ratio Lower Upper

Stress .464 .194 5.731 .017 1.590 1.088 2.324

Constant -.390 .525 .553 .457 .677

Table 4 presents the results of logistic regression analyses between emotional distress and elbow disorder. The full model was not statistically significant, χ2

(1, N = 368) = 3.449, p > .05, indicating that the model is unable to distinguish between respondents who reported and did not report elbows‟ tingling. The model as a whole explained 0.9% (Cox and Snell R Square) and 1.4% (Nagelkerke R square) of the variance in elbow disorder, and correctly classified 78% of cases. To support the model, the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test should show the significance value of greater than .05 (Pallant, 2010). The result of the present study shows that the significance value is .97, supporting the model.

As shown in Table 4, emotional distress was not statistically significant to make contribution to the model (p >.05). This indicates that respondents who experienced emotional distress were not exposed to the prevalence of elbow disorder.

Table 4: Summary of the Influence of Emotional Distress on Elbows Disorder

Independent

Variable B S.E. Wald p

Odds Ratio

95% C.I. for Odds Ratio Lower Upper

Stress .366 .196 3.482 .062 1.442 .982 2.117

5.5. The Mediating Role of WRMDs on the Relationship between Emotional Distress and