Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Descriptive data for the sample (N = 1,124).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Sensitivity for different cut-offs based on the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (N = 1,108).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Percentage and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the respondents who endorsed (scoring 4 or 5) on the items of the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS; Andreassen, Griffiths, et al., 2012) (N = 1,108).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Correlation coefficients (Pearson's moment-product correlation coefficients, point-biserial correlation coefficients and Phi coefficients between all study variables (Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS), gender, age group, marital status, caretaker responsibility for children, percentage of full-time equivalent, education and the five dimensions of the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Intellect/Imagination)) (N = 1,107–1,124).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparisons of mean scores of the Bergen Work Addiction Scale (BWAS) across different levels of nominal variables (gender, marital status, caretaker responsibility for children, percentage of full-time equivalent (EQV) and education) (N = 1,122).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Logistic regression analysis, where workaholism (0 = not workaholic, 1 = workaholic) comprised the dependent variable and where gender, age, marital status, caretaker responsibility for children, percentage of full-time equivalent, education and personality comprised the independent variables (N = 1,044).

More »

Table 6 Expand