Results indicated that 185 people completed the survey; 127 (68%) identified as female (see Table 1). Most respondents indicated a “full-time” role: student (53.5%), staff (16.8%), and faculty (15.1%); much fewer indicated a “part-time” role: student (8.6%), staff (7.6%), and faculty (5.9%). Completed education levels were quite varied, with the majority (81%) indicating at least some higher education: 0.5% eighth grade, 1.1% no degree, 3.2% certification, 3.2% professional degree, 5.9% associate degree, 14.1% high school, 14.1% doctoral degree, 20.0% master degree, and 37.8% bachelor degree. Non-significant differences in PA levels were apparent for the different education completion levels (see Table 2).
Table 1
Frequencies and Percent for Gender and Role at Higher Education Institution
Group
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Gender
|
|
|
Female
Male
Other
|
127
57
1
|
68.6
30.8
0.5
|
Role
|
|
|
Full-time Student
Full-time Staff
Full-time Faculty
Part-time Student
Part-time Staff
Part-time Faculty
|
99
31
28
16
14
11
|
53.5
16.8
15.1
8.6
7.6
5.9
|
Table 2
PA Level by Completed Education Level (Percentages Shown for Each Category)
|
Low
|
Moderate
|
High
|
No degree completed
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
2 (100%)
|
Certification
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
5 (100%)
|
8th grade
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
High school graduate or equivalent
|
0 (0%)
|
8 (32%)
|
17 (68%)
|
Associate’s degree
|
0 (0%)
|
4 (40%)
|
6 (60%)
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
5 (7.5%)
|
19 (28.8%)
|
42 (63.6%)
|
Master’s degree
|
4 (12%)
|
10 (30.3%)
|
19 (57.6%)
|
Professional degree
|
0 (0%)
|
1 (16.7%)
|
5 (83.3%)
|
Doctoral degree
|
0 (0%)
|
7 (29.2%)
|
17 (70.8%)
|
Note. *No data available on PA for 8th grade because there were fewer than two cases. |
Student Type - FT
FT students (n = 99) made up the majority of respondents. Roughly 69% of FT students achieved a high amount of PA (at least 3,000 METS per week), over 26% obtained a moderate amount (at least 600 METS per week), and about 4% had a low amount (less than 600 METS per week). Compared to non-FT students, FT students had significantly higher scores for HLOC’s GLHC scale (t(183) = 3.318, p = 0.001, d = 0.459), which was a small-to-moderate effect. No statistically significant differences appeared between FT students and non-FT students for the other HLOC categories (internal, external-chance, external-powerful others), HRQoL - physical functioning, and HRQoL - general health, or PA.
Student Type - PT
PT students were a very small portion (n = 16) of the sample, therefore, the results were not likely to show significant differences in any outcomes or scale scores. Over 56% of PT students obtained a high amount of PA, over 37% achieved a moderate amount, and about 6% had a low amount.
Employee Type - FT Staff
FT staff were a small portion (n = 31) of the sample, therefore, the results were not likely to show any significant differences in either of the two HRQoL outcomes. Over 65% of FT staff obtained a high amount of PA, nearly 27% achieved a moderate amount, and about 7% had a low amount. When compared to non-FT staff, HLOC scores of FT staff were significantly lower for external-chance (t(183) = -2.286, p = 0.023, d = -0.450) and GLHC (t(183) = -2.032, p = 0.044, d = -0.400), which were moderate effect sizes. No significant differences were shown for the other HLOC categories (internal, external-powerful others).
Employee Type - PT Staff
PT staff were a very small portion (n = 14) of the sample, therefore, the outcomes were unlikely to show any significant differences; however, some showed significance. About 77% of PT staff achieved a high amount of PA, roughly 23% obtained a moderate amount, and 0% had a low amount. Compared to non-PT staff, PT staff showed lower scores for HRQoL - general health (t(183) = -1.502, p = 0.155, d = -0.573), which was a moderate effect. No significant differences were found for HRQoL - physical functioning, the HLOC scale scores, or PA.
Employee Type - FT Faculty
FT faculty were a small portion (n = 28) of the sample, therefore, the results were not likely to show any significant differences in outcomes or scale scores. More than 57% of FT faculty obtained a high amount of PA, over 34% achieved a moderate amount, and about 7% had a low amount. No significant differences were found for other variables.
Employee Type - PT Faculty
PT faculty made up a very small portion (n = 11) of the sample, therefore, the outcomes were unlikely to show any significant differences; however, some showed significance. Nearly 78% of PT faculty achieved a high amount of PA, more than 22% obtained a moderate amount, and 0% had a low amount. PT faculty scored higher for PA compared to non-PT faculty (t(169) = 1.585, p = 0.150, d = 0.730), which was a moderate-to-large effect. HRQoL - general health scores for PT faculty were higher than for non-PT faculty (t(183) = 1.446, p = 0.150, d = 0.450), which was a small-to-moderate effect; no difference was found for HRQoL - physical health. PT faculty’s HLOC scale scores, when compared to non-PT faculty, were significantly lower for external-chance (t(183) = -2.535, p = 0.012, d = -1.402) and external-powerful others (t(183) = -2.025, p = 0.044, d = -1.241), which were large effects. No significant differences showed for the other HLOC categories (internal, GLHC).
Education Level
Since the age limitation for this study was 22 years of age and older, most students had completed at least an undergraduate degree (see Table 3). Most employees (staff and faculty) completed at least a bachelor degree, with many indicating completion of a master or doctorate degree. Figure 1 shows PA by role and degree. An interaction between role and degree level could not be demonstrated, F(7,145) = 0.577, p = 0.858.
Table 3
Crosstabulation of Role and Degree Completed
|
FT student
|
PT student
|
FT staff
|
PT staff
|
FT faculty
|
PT faculty
|
No degree
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Certification
|
2
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
8th grade
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
High school
|
24
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Associate’s degree
|
10
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
46
|
8
|
14
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
Master’s degree
|
7
|
2
|
11
|
1
|
11
|
5
|
Professional degree
|
5
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Doctoral degree
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
17
|
2
|
HLOC
Interestingly, the one PT-staff respondent with only 8th grade completed had the highest score for all HLOC categories: internal, external-chance, GLHC, and external-powerful others (powerful others was significant: F(8) = 2.793, p = 0.006); all the other groups showed non-significantly low scores for each HLOC category. However, because there was only one respondent within the category of PT-staff with 8th grade completed, it could be considered an outlier, is a limitation, and the result cannot be generalized.
When looking at how role and degree level interplay, Fig. 2 shows internal HLOC by role and degree. An interaction between role and degree level could not be demonstrated on internal HLOC, F(13,156) = 0.772, p = 0.689. Figure 3 shows external-chance HLOC by role and degree. Partial eta squared for role was 0.110 (p = 0.003) and for degree was 0.083 (p = 0.086). An interaction between role and degree level was demonstrated on external-chance HLOC, F(14,156) = 1.950, p = 0.025. Figure 4 shows external-powerful others HLOC by role and degree. An interaction between role and degree level could not be demonstrated on external-powerful others HLOC, F(14,156) = 1.135, p = 0.332. Figure 5 shows GLHC by role and degree. An interaction between role and degree level could not be demonstrated on GLHC, F(14,156) = 0.728, p = 0.744.
HRQoL
Those with doctoral degrees showed significantly highest HRQoL - physical functioning (F(8) = 3.615, p = 0.001) and non-significantly the highest score for HRQoL - general health. The one PT-staff with 8th grade level of education completed had the lowest HRQoL - physical functioning score; those with no degree completed had lowest scores for HRQoL - general health.
When looking at how role and degree level interplay, Fig. 6 shows HRQoL - physical functioning by role and degree. Partial eta squared for role was 0.024 (p = 0.639) and for degree was 0.171 (p = < 0.001), demonstrating degree has significantly greater impact on HRQoL - physical functioning. An interaction between role and degree level was demonstrated on HRQoL - physical functioning, F(13,140) = 1.891, p = 0.036. Figure 7 shows HRQoL - general health by role and degree. Partial eta squared for role was .067 (p = 0.055) and for degree was .074 (p = 0.140). An interaction between role and degree level was demonstrated on HRQoL - general health, F(14,156) = 1.945, p = 0.026.
To summarize the results, 66% obtained a high amount of PA, more than 28% obtained a moderate amount, and just over 5% obtained a low amount. In comparing FT to non-FT and PT to non-PT roles as student, staff, or faculty, there was a range of results. FT students had significantly higher HRQoL and higher GLHC scores than non-FT students. Compared to non-PT students, PT students had no statistically significant differences. FT staff had lower scores than non-FT staff for HLOC’s external-chance and GLHC, and PT staff had lower scores for HRQoL than non-PT staff. FT faculty had no statistically significant differences in any area, as compared to non-FT faculty. PT faculty, compared to non-PT faculty, had significantly higher total PA and HRQoL - general health scores, and significantly lower HLOC scores for external-chance and external-powerful others.