Step 1 Transformational leadership .61 .02 .66** Step 1 = .434. Note. R2 < .05. < .01. * p ** p In order to test the mediating effect of trust on the relation between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation further regression analysis was conducted. Transformational leadership was entered at Step 1, explaining 10.3% of variance in intrinsic motivation. After entry of trust at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 11.2% (F [2, 787] = 49.60, < .001). Trust p explained an additional 1% of the variance of implicit motivation after controlling for transformational leadership (ΔR2 = .009, [1, 787] = 8.16, < .01). In the p ΔF final model, transformational leadership (β = .24, < .01) and trust (β = .13, < p p .01) were statistically significant. The change in the regression coefficient for transformational leadership indicates the mediation of trust. Transformational leadership had a regression coefficient of .43 (SE = .05, < .01) at Step 1 and a p regression coefficient of .32 (SE = .06, < .01) at Step 2. p The statistical significance of the difference between the two transformational leadership regression coefficients (.43, .32) was tested by converting the values to a score using the formula: = / + (Paternoster, Brame, z z b1 b2 SEb1 SEb2 – √ Mazerolle, and Piquero, 1998). The score is the standard normal distribution with z a mean of 0 and quantifies the score in terms of the number of standard deviations from the mean. The result was = .43 - .32 / .0462 + .0602 = 1.47. Using a 95% z √ confidence level (p = .05), scores between -1.96 and +1.96 indicate the likelihood z of the null hypothesis (Pallant, 2011). The score of = 1.47 falls within this range z t
Step 1 Transformational leadership .61 .02 .66** Note. Step 1 R2 = .434. * p < .05. ** p < .01. In order to test the mediating effect of trust on the relation between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation further regression analysis was conducted. Transformational leadership was entered at Step 1, explaining 10.3% of variance in intrinsic motivation. After entry of trust at Step 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 11.2% (F [2, 787] = 49.60, p < .001). Trust explained an additional 1% of the variance of implicit motivation after controlling for transformational leadership (ΔR2 = .009, ΔF [1, 787] = 8.16, p < .01). In the final model, transformational leadership (β = .24, p < .01) and trust (β = .13, p < .01) were statistically significant. The change in the regression coefficient for transformational leadership indicates the mediation of trust. Transformational leadership had a regression coefficient of .43 (SE = .05, p < .01) at Step 1 and a regression coefficient of .32 (SE = .06, p < .01) at Step 2. The statistical significance of the difference between the two transformational leadership regression coefficients (.43, .32) was tested by converting the values to a z score using the formula: z = b1 – b2 / √ SEb1 + SEb2 (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero, 1998). The z score is the standard normal distribution with a mean of 0 and quantifies the score in terms of the number of standard deviations from the mean. The result was z = .43 - .32 / √ .0462 + .0602 = 1.47. Using a 95% confidence level (p = .05), z scores between -1.96 and +1.96 indicate the likelihood of the null hypothesis (Pallant, 2011). The z score of t = 1.47 falls within this range
The-Impact-of-Senior-Pastor-Leadership-Behavior-on-Volunteer-Motivation-Fogarty.docx