A complementary marriage of perspectives: understanding organizational social context using mixed methods

Table 3 Organizational Social Context scores by agency

Site	N	Ratio 1	Ratio 2	Prof.	Rigidity	Resistance	Engagement	Function.	Stress	LPA
A	8	.56	.38	52	53	56	57	56	51	Avg
B	8	.75	.25	58	56	56	59	75	55	Best
C	14	.27	.13	46	59	65	49	55	58	Worst
D	8	.71	.38	59	64	57	48	65	53	Avg
E	5	.33	.33	21	65	88	37	19	81	Worst
F	10	.53	.20	59	53	61	61	68	57	Best
G	5	.33	.60	59	44	53	62	62	42	Best
H	5	.15	.40	56	69	59	58	70	55	Avg
I	9	1	.22	53	62	63	64	62	55	Worst
J	15	.48	.25	69	54	75	53	85	46	Best
K	5	.6	.40	54	58	68	58	52	68	Worst
L	9	.73	.11	31	49	53	43	58	54	Avg
M	7	1	.14	41	63	80	43	49	73	Worst
N	8	.71	.44	54	67	73	53	62	59	Worst
O	4	.33	.50	65	66	72	54	71	62	Worst
P	4	.5	.50	56	50	64	57	58	61	Avg
Q	7	1	.14	59	60	64	64	68	48	Best
R	7	.44	.43	58	58	65	48	75	59	Worst
S	4	.57	.20	52	79	78	57	56	63	Worst
T	4	.28	.50	40	60	70	44	42	73	Worst
U	15	.65	.27	64	51	53	57	72	52	Best
V	7	.71	.29	56	53	57	60	70	39	Best
W	8	.33	.33	37	64	78	54	50	61	Worst
Mean	7.65	.56	.32	52.09	58.97	65.48	53.89	60.92	57.51	-

Ratio 1 = number of participants in our study/total number of therapists in child outpatient program, Ratio 2 = number of administrators who completed the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measure/total number of participants who completed the OSC; prof. proficiency, funct. functionality, LPA latent profile analysis.

ISSN: 1748-5908