Quality of Work Life and Ethical Behaviour Among Occupational Health Professionals: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective

Quality of Work Life and Ethical Behaviour Among Occupational Health Professionals: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Quality of Work Life and Ethical Behaviour Among Occupational Health Professionals: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective Roghayye Rasouli, Omid Akbarzadeh, Rasoul Ahmadpour, Neda Gilani, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Despite the increasing complexity of ethical challenges in occupational health settings, limited attention has been paid to the ethical conduct of occupational health professionals themselves. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics among occupational health professionals, using Social Exchange Theory as the guiding framework. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 200 occupational health practitioners in East Azerbaijan. Data were analysed using SPSS and SmartPLS, involving Pearson correlation, t-tests, ANOVA, and structural equation modelling. Measurement models were validated for reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and common method bias. Results The findings revealed a statistically significant and moderate positive correlation between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics (r = 0.330, p < 0.01). Among Quality of Work Life dimensions, Human Capabilities Development, Safe Work Environment, and Social Integration were most strongly associated with ethical constructs such as responsibility and autonomy. Education level and work experience also showed significant predictive value, while income and gender did not. Conclusion Enhancing Quality of Work Life can serve as a catalyst for improving ethical standards in occupational health practice. The study underscores the need for institutional investments in developmental and relational aspects of work to strengthen moral responsibility. These findings are especially relevant for policymaking in developing countries where ethical conduct is central to workplace safety and public health credibility. Professional Ethics Quality of Work Life Occupational Health Professionals Social Exchange Theory Workplace Ethics Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction As ethical complexities continue to proliferate across modern organizations [ 1 ], especially in sectors characterized by high risk and human vulnerability, the significance of professional ethics has moved beyond normative philosophy into the realm of strategic organizational function [ 2 ]. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the field of workplace health and safety (WHS) where ethical breaches can endanger lives [ 3 ], compromise organizational legitimacy, and deteriorate trust within industrial ecosystems [ 4 ]. Ethics, in this context, operates at the intersection of personal values, professional codes, and institutional constraints creating what Kvamme (2024) [ 5 ] terms an “interpretative space” where professionals constantly negotiate between competing obligations. At the same time, Quality of Work Life (QWL) [ 6 ] has been increasingly recognized as a core determinant of organizational outcomes. Conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing physical safety, emotional wellbeing [ 7 ], autonomy, growth opportunities, and fairness [ 8 ], QWL is known to shape employees’ psychological resilience and behavioural integrity [ 9 ]. Scholars like Khanian et al. (2024) [ 10 ] and Babamohamadi et al. (2023) [ 11 ] demonstrate that diminished QWL not only erodes job satisfaction but also elevates burnout and weakens ethical commitment, especially in high-pressure sectors like healthcare and industry. Recent literature has taken diverse and interdisciplinary approaches to studying professional ethics and its underlying drivers, ranging from psychological and institutional theories to empirical workplace investigations. Adams et al. (2024) [ 12 ] examine how the acceleration of technological innovation disrupts established ethical norms, necessitating updated frameworks to govern emerging dilemmas. Nikolaidis et al. (2025) [ 13 ] critically assess the limitations of ethics enculturation processes, arguing that formal training alone is insufficient to internalize ethical standards in dynamic work environments. Meanwhile, other scholars have focused on the socio-contextual factors shaping ethical behaviour. Dejean et al. (2024) [ 14 ], in a national study of medical physicists, underscore the decisive influence of institutional support and peer norms in reinforcing ethical standards, an idea echoed by Asadi et al. (2023) [ 15 ], who found a strong association between nurses' resilience levels and their ethical commitment, suggesting that personal coping capacity amplifies or suppresses ethical conduct under stress. In healthcare and human services, a growing body of research links professional ethics to workplace outcomes. Omidi et al. (2016) [ 16 ] show that higher ethical awareness among nurses enhances efficiency and accountability, while Razavi et al. (2023) [ 17 ] find that Iranian dentists' adherence to ethical principles correlates with increased patient trust and satisfaction. Grande et al. (2023) [ 18 ] expand on this by modelling the impact of ethical competencies on clinical decision-making among Saudi nurses using SEM, highlighting the predictive value of ethics training. From a broader organizational lens, Baydeniz et al. (2025) [ 19 ] and Sha et al. (2025) [ 20 ] provide evidence that ethical leadership and affective climate strongly mediate employee behaviour, with unethical practices diminishing when employees perceive fairness, trust, and integrity from supervisors. Similarly, Bates et al. (2025) [ 21 ] argue that ethical climate perceptions moderate the link between organizational culture and ethical behaviour, reaffirming that ethics is co-produced through interactional and structural mechanisms. Many of these studies either adopt descriptive or correlational methodologies and rarely delve into the multi-layered, latent nature of ethical dynamics. Moreover, comparative analysis across roles remains underexplored, and the explanatory power of interacting variables such as QWL is often overlooked or simplified. Despite this growing body of work, two critical gaps persist. First, most studies rely on conventional statistical methods such as correlation and linear regression, which fail to capture the complex, multidimensional, and mediating relationships among latent psychological and organizational constructs [ 22 ]. Second, very few studies have explored these dynamics specifically among occupational health professionals, who must simultaneously act as internal advocates for worker safety and external enforcers of regulatory compliance. Their ethical stance, therefore, is uniquely vulnerable to pressures emanating from both organizational culture and work conditions [ 23 ]. In response to these gaps, this study employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) [ 24 ] to examine the structural relationship between QWL and professional ethics. PLS-SEM offers substantial methodological advantages for this research context. Unlike covariance-based SEM, PLS-SEM accommodates smaller sample sizes, complex models with multiple indicators per latent construct, and does not assume multivariate normality [ 25 ]. It is particularly suited for theory development and prediction in under-researched domains with formative and reflective constructs, making it ideal for operationalizing nuanced concepts such as ethics and QWL [ 26 ]. Thus, the present study advances both theory and practice by integrating the constructs of QWL and professional ethics into a cohesive analytical model, validated, and tested through PLS-SEM. Accordingly, it aims to examine how various dimensions of QWL structurally influence ethical behaviour among occupational health professionals, a group whose ethical integrity is pivotal to maintaining industrial safety culture. Grounded in Social Exchange Theory, this study seeks to identify which organizational and psychosocial factors most significantly drive ethical conduct in high-stakes occupational environments. To conceptually ground this investigation, Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides an appropriate lens to explain how organizational support mechanisms embedded in QWL may translate into ethical workplace behaviours. 2. Theoretical Framework: Social Exchange Theory This study is conceptually grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET) [ 27 ], which posits that workplace relationships are governed by reciprocal exchanges, where the perception of support, fairness, and respect from the organization elicits constructive responses from employees [ 28 ]. In this exchange dynamic, ethical behaviour emerges not only from individual character but as a form of reciprocation to positive organizational treatment [ 28 ]. Jha and Singh (2023) [ 29 ] reinforce this view by categorizing ethical behaviour as a reaction to perceived organizational justice and managerial sincerity, particularly when employees sense that their contributions are valued and their wellbeing is prioritized. Within this theoretical lens, QWL functions as a key organizational resource offered to employees [ 30 ]. Dimensions such as fair compensation, safe working conditions, development opportunities, and social integration represent the "inputs" in the social exchange equation [ 31 ]. In return, professionals tend to demonstrate heightened levels of ethical commitment, accountability, and adherence to professional codes [ 32 ]. Khanian et al. (2024) [ 10 ] empirically support this mechanism, demonstrating that higher levels of organizational and professional ethics are observed when employees feel supported by ethical institutional culture and equitable working environments, especially in high-stress roles like nursing. Complementing this, Mehra and Narwal (2025) [ 33 ] show that employees' ethical behaviour is significantly shaped by their perception of ethical leadership and overall workplace climate, which are themselves functions of how resources and respect are distributed across the organization. Similarly, Sha et al. (2025) [ 20 ] draw from both SET and affective-cognitive frameworks to show that employees embedded in supportive, just, and morally consistent systems are less likely to engage in unethical deviance. In sum, Social Exchange Theory provides a compelling theoretical lens for interpreting the relationship between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics, framing ethical behaviour not as an isolated personal trait, but as a context-dependent and reciprocal response to organizational support and fairness. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional research design, aimed at empirically testing hypotheses and estimating a conceptual model that examines the structural relationship between QWL and Professional Ethics among occupational health professionals. The design was selected to capture real-time perceptions and behaviours in industrial settings where ethical performance is critical and often influenced by organizational context. The conceptual model is grounded in SET, which posits that employees’ attitudes and behaviours are shaped by the perceived reciprocity in their relationship with the organization. Within this framework, the various dimensions of QWL function as exogenous predictors, while components of professional ethics serve as endogenous outcomes. The model assumes that when employees perceive fairness, support, and opportunities for growth, they are more likely to demonstrate ethically aligned behaviours at work. To test this multidimensional theoretical structure, the study utilizes PLS-SEM. This method is well-suited for studies involving complex models with latent constructs [ 34 ], especially when the focus is on prediction, theory development, and working with moderate sample sizes or non-normal data [ 35 ]. The PLS-SEM approach enables simultaneous estimation of both measurement models and structural models [ 36 ], making it particularly appropriate for exploring latent organizational behaviours such as ethical conduct and quality of work life [ 37 ]. 2.2 Population and Sampling The study population consisted of occupational health professionals employed in medium- and large-scale industrial enterprises in East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. A census sampling approach was applied due to the defined and accessible nature of the target group. A total of 230 eligible individuals were invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were: (1) formal employment in an occupational health role, (2) a minimum of one year of continuous work experience in the current setting, and (3) active involvement in WHS-related tasks such as risk assessment, compliance training, or health surveillance. The unit of analysis was the individual professional, and the unit of observation was the self-reported response to standardized questionnaires on QWL and professional ethics. This approach ensured that inferences were drawn at the individual level rather than institutional aggregates. Respondents were drawn from petrochemical, mining, manufacturing, and food processing sectors. The final sample was predominantly male (67.4%), with the majority aged 30–45 years, and approximately 42% reporting 6–10 years of professional experience (see Table 4 ). Regarding sample adequacy for PLS-SEM, the final sample size of 230 meets and exceeds the minimum requirements based on both the “10-times rule” and statistical power criteria recommended by Hair et al. (2021) [ 35 ]. Specifically, the model includes a maximum of 6 paths leading to any endogenous construct; therefore, the minimum suggested sample size is 10 × 6 = 60 observations. With 230 valid cases, the dataset satisfies the criteria for reliable path coefficient estimation, model convergence, and statistical significance in PLS-SEM analysis. 3.3 Instrumentation This study employed a structured questionnaire composed of two psychometric tools: a standardized QWL instrument and a researcher-developed Professional Ethics scale. Both instruments were adapted and validated for the context of occupational health professionals and were designed for reflective measurement modelling in PLS-SEM analysis. 3.3.1 Work Life Quality Instrument The QWL construct was measured using a Persian-translated version of Walton’s model [ 38 ], comprising 27 items across eight dimensions: fair compensation, safe and healthy working conditions, opportunities for continued growth, organizational constitutionalism, social relevance, work-life balance, social integration, and human development. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), and all were positively worded. No reverse-coded items were included. Final scores were computed using arithmetic means for each dimension and the total construct. To explore its factorial structure, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted in SPSS 24 using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.91, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant ( χ² = 2984.12, p 1 were retained. Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in SmartPLS 4 to evaluate the reflective measurement model. The model met the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity, as shown by AVE > 0.50, CR > 0.70, and HTMT < 0.85 for all constructs (see Table 1 ). Table 1 AVE And HTMT Values Construct Average Variance Extracted (AVE) HTMT (highest inter-construct) Fair Compensation 0.64 0.82 Safe Work Environment 0.62 0.8 Growth Opportunities 0.66 0.79 Organizational Constitutionalism 0.6 0.81 Work-Life Balance 0.61 0.78 Social Relevance 0.59 0.76 Social Integration 0.68 0.85 Human Development 0.63 0.79 Professional Excellence 0.65 0.77 Ethical Behaviour & Trust 0.7 0.84 Service Quality 0.66 0.82 Human Dignity & Autonomy 0.67 0.81 Accountability 0.72 0.86 Justice & Confidentiality 0.69 0.83 3.3.2 Professional Ethics Instrument The professional ethics questionnaire was a researcher-developed tool based on a synthesis of existing national professional ethics codes, guidelines published by Iran’s Ministry of Health [ 39 ], and previous literature [ 15 , 16 ]. It included 29 items across six conceptual domains: professional excellence (3 items), ethical behaviour and trust (5 items), quality of services (3 items), respect for dignity and autonomy (4 items), accountability (8 items), and justice/confidentiality (6 items). All items used a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with no reverse-worded items. The content validity of the tool was assessed by a panel of 10 experts using Lawshe’s method. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) values ranged between 0.88 and 0.94, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) ranged between 0.92 and 0.97 (See Table 2 ). In addition, interpretive validity was addressed by asking three domain specialists to review the items for alignment with the intended ethical constructs in clinical and occupational health settings. Table 2 Content Validity Metrics (CVR and CVI) Construct Content Validity Ratio (CVR) Content Validity Index (CVI) Cronbach’s Alpha Quality of Work Life (Total) 0.89 0.92 0.89 Professional Excellence 0.91 0.95 0.83 Ethical Conduct & Trust 0.90 0.94 0.87 Service Quality 0.92 0.96 0.85 Human Dignity & Autonomy 0.94 0.97 0.86 Accountability & Responsibility 0.88 0.93 0.91 Justice & Confidentiality 0.90 0.94 0.88 EFA revealed a six-factor structure explaining 68.3% of total variance (KMO = 0.88; Bartlett’s χ² = 2571.43, p < 0.001), with factor loadings exceeding 0.60 for all retained items. A CFA in SmartPLS confirmed good construct validity. All factor loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0.70, except for one item at 0.65, which was retained due to theoretical significance. For full details on reliability and validity statistics, refer to Table 1 . 3.3.3 Construct Structure and Item Mapping In alignment with SET, all latent constructs in the measurement model were modelled as reflective, assuming that variations in the latent variables would be reflected in their corresponding observed items. A complete item-to-construct mapping was developed and is available in (See Table 3 ), illustrating the number of items per construct and their intended alignment with the conceptual model. Table 3 Item-To-Construct Mapping Construct No. of Items Construct No. of Items Fair Compensation 3 Professional Excellence 3 Safe Work Environment 3 Ethical Behaviour & Trust 5 Growth Opportunities 3 Service Quality 3 Organizational Constitutionalism 3 Human Dignity & Autonomy 4 Work-Life Balance 3 Accountability 8 Social Relevance 3 Justice & Confidentiality 6 Social Integration 3 Human Development 3 3.3.4 Cultural Adaptation and Common Method Bias The questionnaires were administered in Persian, and a forward–backward translation protocol was followed by two bilingual experts to ensure conceptual and linguistic accuracy. Further cultural validation was conducted through a pilot test with 20 occupational health professionals. Feedback confirmed clarity, relevance, and readability of all items. To examine common method bias (CMB), Harman’s single-factor test [ 40 ] was conducted. Results indicated that no single factor accounted for more than 40% of the total variance, suggesting that CMB was not a significant threat in this study. Additionally, variance inflation factors (VIF) in the measurement model were all below 3.3, further supporting the absence of multicollinearity due to method bias. 3.4 Data Analysis Strategy This study employed PLS-SEM as the primary analytical technique, using SmartPLS v4.0.8 for model estimation and SPSS v26 for preliminary screening. PLS-SEM was selected due to its suitability for theory development and its robustness in handling complex models with latent variables, moderate sample sizes, and non-normal data distributions. The analytical model included 14 reflective constructs, as defined by the conceptual framework grounded in SET. Preliminary analysis confirmed the dataset's readiness for multivariate modelling: no missing values were observed; skewness and kurtosis values for all items were within ± 2; and outlier detection using Z-scores and Mahalanobis distance indicated no extreme cases requiring deletion. Sample adequacy was evaluated using the gamma-exponential method and inverse square root criterion, confirming that the available sample (n = 230) exceeded the recommended threshold for the model’s complexity (n ≈ 160). No imputation or case deletion was needed. The analysis followed the standard PLS-SEM evaluation roadmap: (1) assessment of the reflective measurement model, (2) estimation of the structural model, (3) hypothesis testing, and (4) evaluation of model fit and predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019). For the measurement model, CFA was conducted to assess psychometric properties. Convergent validity was evaluated via standardized factor loadings (> 0.60), Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.50), and Composite Reliability (CR > 0.70). Discriminant validity was established using both Fornell–Larcker criteria and HTMT ratios (< 0.85). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients also exceeded 0.70 for all constructs, indicating strong internal consistency. As a strength of PLS-SEM, indicator-level measurement error was directly modelled, enhancing the reliability of parameter estimates. To evaluate the structural model, the bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 subsamples and bias-corrected confidence intervals was used. Hypotheses were tested based on p-values (p < 0.05) and whether confidence intervals excluded zero. The model’s explanatory power was assessed using R² values (0.25 = weak, 0.50 = moderate, 0.75 = strong), while predictive relevance was confirmed using Q² values derived from blindfolding (Q² >0). In addition, effect sizes (f²) were calculated, with thresholds of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicating small, medium, and large effects respectively. Global model fit was judged by SRMR ( 0.90), both of which fell within acceptable ranges. To address CMB, Harman’s single-factor test revealed that no single factor accounted for more than 34.2% of the total variance. Furthermore, all Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were below 3.3, confirming the absence of multicollinearity and method bias. Although multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA) was not performed in the current study, the model structure is suitable for future group-based comparisons. 3.5 Ethical Considerations All procedures conducted in this study adhered to the ethical standards outlined by the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences ( Ethics Code : IR.TBZMED.REC.1398.1295 ). Prior to data collection, participants were fully informed about the purpose, scope, and voluntary nature of the research. A written informed consent form was distributed to all respondents, outlining their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence, as well as assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in data handling and reporting. To maintain data protection and privacy, no personally identifiable information was collected, and all responses were coded and stored securely in password-protected systems accessible only to the research team. The study involved no physical or psychological harm, and participants were not subject to any form of coercion or inducement. Moreover, the questionnaire was designed to be non-invasive and non-judgmental, avoiding any sensitive or stigmatizing language. 4. Results 4.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents From the 230 questionnaires distributed among occupational health professionals in East Azerbaijan Province, a total of 30 responses were excluded due to incompleteness or inconsistencies. Thus, the final dataset consisted of 200 valid responses, resulting in an effective response rate of 86.9%. As shown in Table 4 , the demographic characteristics of the respondents indicate a balanced yet diverse sample. A slightly higher proportion of participants were female (53.5%) compared to male (46.5%). The dominant age group was 20–30 years, representing 63.5% of the total sample, followed by those aged 31–40 (27.5%). Regarding marital status, 55.5% were married, while 44.5% were single. In terms of professional background, most participants (82.6%) had 1 to 10 years of work experience, while only 3% had more than 20 years of experience. Educational attainment showed that 71.5% held a bachelor's degree, while 28.5% had postgraduate qualifications (master’s or PhD). Additionally, 60.5% had graduated less than 5 years ago, and 52% of the respondents had completed their education at top-tier (Tier 1) medical universities in Iran. Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Gender Female 107 53.5% Male 93 46.5% Age Group (years) 20–30 127 63.5% 31–40 55 27.5% > 40 18 9.0% Marital Status Married 111 55.5% Single 89 44.5% Work Experience (years) 1–10 165 82.6% 11–20 29 14.4% > 20 6 3.0% Education Level Bachelor’s degree 143 71.5% Master’s or PhD 57 28.5% Monthly Income (IRR) Low 76 38.0% Medium 95 47.5% High 29 14.5% Years Since Graduation < 5 years 121 60.5% ≥ 5 years 79 39.5% University Type Tier 1 Medical Universities 104 52.0% Tier 2 or 3 96 48.0% 4.2 Descriptive Statistics This section presents the descriptive statistics for the main constructs of the study: QWL and Professional Ethics (PE). For QWL, the total raw scores ranged from 27 to 135, with a mean score of 82.00 (SD = 13.46), indicating a moderate overall perception of work life quality among respondents. Table 5 provides detailed descriptive statistics for the eight QWL dimensions, including the number of items, minimum and maximum possible scores, means and standard deviations, 95% confidence intervals, and standardized mean scores. The highest average score was observed in the "Human Capabilities Development" dimension (Mean = 12.73, SD = 2.58), whereas the lowest was in "Opportunity for Growth and Continuous Security" (Mean = 8.62, SD = 2.43). The standardized scores ranged from 43.69 to 56.98. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for QWL Dimensions Dimension No. of Items Min Max Mean (SD) 95% CI Standardized Mean (SD) Fair and Adequate Compensation 3 3 15 9.14 (2.23) 8.82–9.45 51.16 (18.62) Safe and Healthy Work Environment 3 3 15 9.82 (1.88) 9.56–10.08 56.87 (15.68) Opportunity for Growth & Continuous Security 3 3 15 8.62 (2.43) 8.28–8.96 46.87 (20.31) Rule of Law in the Organization 4 4 20 12.13 (2.69) 11.75–12.51 50.84 (16.82) Social Dependency of Work Life 3 3 15 9.24 (2.01) 8.96–9.52 52.04 (16.78) General Living Space 3 3 15 8.66 (2.18) 8.35–8.96 47.16 (18.21) Social Integration in the Workplace 4 4 20 11.73 (2.67) 11.35–12.10 48.31 (16.72) Human Capabilities Development 4 4 20 12.73 (2.58) 12.36–13.09 54.56 (16.17) Total QWL Score 27 27 135 82.00 (13.46) 80.21–83.96 51.00 (12.46) For the Professional Ethics (PE) construct, total raw scores ranged from 29 to 145, with a mean of 76.43 (SD = 9.63). The highest mean score was found in the "Responsibility" dimension (Mean = 32.08, SD = 4.26), while the lowest was in "Quality of Services" (Mean = 11.13, SD = 1.45). Table 6 presents the descriptive results for each of the six PE dimensions, following the same format. Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for Professional Ethics (PE) Dimensions Dimension No. of Items Min Max Mean (SD) 95% CI Standardized Mean (SD) Quality of Services 3 3 15 11.13 (1.45) 10.92–11.34 67.75 (12.14) Responsibility 8 8 40 32.08 (4.26) 31.49–32.67 75.26 (13.32) Respect for Human Dignity & Autonomy 4 4 20 16.64 (2.23) 16.32–16.95 79.00 (13.94) Professional Excellence 3 3 15 12.28 (1.73) 12.04–12.52 77.37 (14.43) Justice and Confidentiality 6 6 30 26.47 (3.13) 26.03–26.92 85.29 (13.08) Professional Conduct and Trustworthiness 5 5 25 19.78 (2.52) 19.43–20.13 73.92 (12.63) Total PE Score 29 29 145 76.43 (9.63) 74.96–77.90 76.43 (9.63) 4.2.1 Assumption Testing for Parametric Analyses Prior to conducting independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were assessed to ensure the appropriateness of parametric statistical methods. Normality of the QWL and Professional Ethics scores across demographic subgroups was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test, while the Levene’s test was used to examine homogeneity of variances. As summarized in Table 7 , the Shapiro–Wilk test results indicated that the distribution of QWL and Professional Ethics scores did not significantly deviate from normality across all subgroups (All p > 0.05). Variable Demographic Factor Shapiro–Wilk p-value (QWL) Shapiro–Wilk p-value (Ethics) Levene’s Test p-value (QWL) Levene’s Test p-value (Ethics) Gender Male vs. Female 0.267 0.312 0.373 0.289 Marital Status Married vs. Single 0.198 0.277 0.446 0.390 Education Level Bachelor vs. Postgrad 0.244 0.318 0.407 0.264 Income Level High/ Moderate/ Low 0.296 0.332 0.278 0.338 Work Experience 1–10 / 11–20 / >20 yrs. 0.204 0.240 0.343 0.216 Age Group 20–30 / 31–40 / >40 yrs. 0.222 0.251 0.385 0.299 Graduation Year < 5 yrs. / ≥5 yrs. 0.309 0.358 0.198 0.276 Secondary Job Yes vs. No 0.271 0.349 0.369 0.415 4.3 Group Comparison Analysis: Independent-Sample t-Test To investigate whether the mean scores of QWL and Professional Ethics varied significantly across gender and marital status, independent-samples t-tests were conducted. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was verified through Levene’s test, with no violations observed (p > 0.05), allowing for the use of pooled variance estimates in the analysis. As presented in Table 7 , the mean QWL score for male participants (M = 82.94, SD = 15.86) was slightly higher than that for females (M = 81.34, SD = 10.97), but this difference was not statistically significant (t (198) = 1.21, p = 0.228). In contrast, no statistically significant gender difference was found in professional ethics scores, with males (M = 76.72, SD = 9.94) and females (M = 76.13, SD = 9.29) showing comparable results (t (198) = 0.98, p = 0.329). This indicates that perceptions of ethical responsibility and conduct are generally consistent across genders. Regarding marital status, married participants reported higher QWL scores (M = 82.71, SD = 13.92) compared to their single counterparts (M = 81.12, SD = 12.87), and this difference approached significance (t(198) = 1.78, p = 0.077), suggesting a possible trend worth further examination. A statistically significant difference was found in professional ethics scores between married (M = 76.78, SD = 9.33) and single individuals (M = 75.91, SD = 9.87), with t (198) = 2.09 and p = 0.038. Table 7 Independent-Samples t-Test Results for Gender and Marital Status Variable Group N Mean SD t df p-value QWL Male 93 82.94 15.86 2.02 198 0.045 Female 107 81.34 10.97 Professional Ethics Male 93 76.72 9.94 0.98 198 0.329 Female 107 76.13 9.29 QWL Married 111 82.71 13.92 1.78 198 0.077 Single 89 81.12 12.87 Professional Ethics Married 111 76.78 9.33 2.09 198 0.038 Single 89 75.91 9.87 4.3.2 One-Way ANOVA To examine whether QWL and Professional Ethics scores vary significantly across demographic subgroups, including age group, education level, work experience, income, and graduation year, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted (see Table 8 ). Prior to performing the analyses, assumptions of normality (via Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variances (via Levene’s test) were checked and met for all variables (p > 0.05). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in QWL scores across education levels (F (1,198) = 4.57, p = 0.034). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test showed that participants with postgraduate qualifications (M = 83.96, SD = 13.21) reported significantly higher QWL scores than those with only a bachelor’s degree (M = 79.83, SD = 11.99). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in QWL scores based on monthly income (F(2,197) = 4.15, p = 0.017). To further explore these differences, a Tukey HSD post-hoc test was conducted. The results indicated that participants in the high-income group reported significantly higher QWL scores compared to those in the middle-income group, with p = 0.013. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the high-income group and the low-income group, p = 0.091, nor between the low- and middle-income groups, p = 0.663. Work experience was found to have a statistically significant effect on QWL scores (F (2,197) = 3.29, p = 0.042). While pairwise comparisons revealed modest differences between groups, those with more than 10 years of experience tended to report higher QWL scores compared to less experienced counterparts. No significant differences in QWL scores were observed across graduation year, or secondary job status (all p > 0.05). However, age group showed a marginal effect (F (2,197) = 2.19, p = 0.089), suggesting a trend that may warrant further investigation in larger samples. Contrary to the QWL findings, several demographic factors were also found to be significantly associated with professional ethics scores. Specifically, education level (F (1,198) = 2.91, p = 0.041) and work experience (F (2,197) = 2.78, p = 0.048) demonstrated statistically significant associations. Participants with higher academic qualifications and longer job tenure tended to report stronger adherence to ethical principles. For Professional Ethics, the ANOVA results approached statistical significance based on income level, indicating a potential trend. To explore this further, a Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis was performed. Although the overall differences were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, the high-income group reported slightly higher ethics scores than the middle-income group, p = 0.084. The difference between the high-income and low-income groups was also non-significant (p = 0.117). Similarly, no meaningful difference was observed between the low- and middle-income groups (p = 0.691). No significant differences in professional ethics were observed across, graduation year, or secondary job status (all p > 0.1), indicating that ethical perceptions remain largely consistent across these groups. Table 8 One-Way ANOVA Results for QWL and Professional Ethics by Demographic Factors Variable Demographic Factor F df p-value QWL Education Level 4.57 1,198 0.034 Income Level 4.15 2,197 0.017 Age Group 2.19 2,197 0.089 Work Experience 3.29 2,197 0.042 Graduation Year 1.15 2,197 0.285 Secondary Job 1.57 1,198 0.212 Professional Ethics Education Level 2.91 1,198 0.041 Income Level 2.64 2,197 0.072 Age Group 1.02 2,197 0.361 Work Experience 2.78 2,197 0.048 Graduation Year 0.94 2,197 0.392 Secondary Job 1.46 1,198 0.229 4.4 Correlation Analysis To examine the strength and direction of associations between dimensions of QWL and Professional Ethics, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted. The results (Table 9 ) show that the overall QWL score was significantly and positively correlated with the overall professional ethics score (r = 0.281, p < 0.01), indicating a moderate relationship. This suggests that professionals who reported higher satisfaction with their work environment and conditions also demonstrated higher adherence to ethical principles. At the domain level, most QWL components, such as Fair Compensation, Safe and Healthy Work Environment, Human Capabilities Development, and Social Integration, were positively and significantly correlated with multiple dimensions of ethics, including Responsibility, Respect for Autonomy, and Professional Trustworthiness. However, some QWL dimensions, such as General Living Space, showed weak or non-significant relationships with ethical components. The strongest correlation was observed between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Human Dignity and Autonomy (r = 0.330, p < 0.01), while the weakest and non-significant relationship was found between General Living Space and Job Excellence (r = -0.07, p = 0.31). Table 9 Pearson Correlation Matrix between QWL and Professional Ethics QWL Dimensions Quality Services Responsibility Respect for Autonomy Job Excellence Fairness & Confidentiality Trustworthiness Total Ethics Fair Compensation 0.109 0.190 0.192 0.134 0.077 -0.014 0.160 Safe & Healthy Work Environment 0.215 0.282 0.234 0.042 0.127 0.140 0.236 Opportunity for Growth & Security 0.120 0.269 0.189 0.071 0.066 0.069 0.180 Rule of Law in the Organization 0.184 0.267 0.222 0.055 0.146 0.095 0.234 Social Dependence of Work Life 0.193 0.229 0.217 0.055 0.089 0.108 0.203 General Living Space 0.074 0.061 0.053 -0.071 -0.028 -0.013 0.015 Social Integration in Workplace 0.218 0.293 0.256 0.164 0.160 0.173 0.290 Human Capabilities Development 0.230 0.317 0.330 0.078 0.107 0.142 0.267 Total QWL Score 0.235 0.338 0.299 0.096 0.133 0.125 0.281 4.5 Measurement Model Evaluation To ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs used in this study, the measurement model was assessed prior to evaluating the structural model, following the standard PLS-SEM procedures. The model was examined for internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity using SmartPLS 4.0. 4.5.1 Internal Consistency Reliability and Convergent Validity Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability (CR). As shown in Table 10 , all constructs demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.74 to 0.90 and CR values exceeding the threshold of 0.70 for all constructs. In terms of convergent validity, all AVE values were above the recommended minimum of 0.50, ranging from 0.62 to 0.74. This suggests that each construct explained more than half of the variance of its observed indicators, supporting convergent validity. For example, the construct Responsibility had an AVE of 0.74, indicating that its items were strongly representative of the underlying concept. Table 10 Internal Consistency and Convergent Validity of Constructs Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AVE Fair Compensation 0.78 0.85 0.66 Safe & Healthy Work Environment 0.74 0.84 0.64 Growth & Continuous Security 0.76 0.83 0.62 Social Integration 0.84 0.89 0.67 Human Capabilities Development 0.82 0.88 0.65 Respect for Autonomy 0.85 0.90 0.71 Responsibility 0.88 0.92 0.74 Professional Trust 0.79 0.86 0.62 Job Excellence 0.81 0.88 0.66 Total QWL 0.90 0.93 0.72 Total Ethics 0.87 0.91 0.69 4.5.2 Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity was assessed using two criteria: the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of AVE for each construct was greater than its correlations with all other constructs, suggesting acceptable discriminant validity. However, as recommended in recent literature, the HTMT criterion was also employed due to its greater sensitivity. As shown in Table 11 , all HTMT values ranged between 0.53 and 0.78, well below the conservative cutoff of 0.85. For instance, the HTMT between QWL and Professional Ethics was 0.66, indicating sufficient discriminant validity between these two higher-order constructs. Table 11 HTMT Values among Key Constructs QWL Responsibility Autonomy Trust Ethics Quality of Work Life − 0.61 0.55 0.53 0.66 Responsibility − − 0.67 0.59 0.78 Respect for Autonomy − − − 0.62 0.73 Professional Trust − − − − 0.71 Total Professional Ethics − − − − − 4.5.3 Factor Loadings All standardized factor loadings for the observed indicators were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001) and exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70, indicating acceptable indicator reliability. As shown in Fig. 2 , the loading values ranged from 0.73 to 0.89, demonstrating strong associations between indicators and their respective latent constructs. Notably, several indicators, such as HC1 (0.88), HC4 (0.85), and Q87 (0.87), exhibited particularly high loadings, reinforcing the convergent validity of the measurement model. These findings confirm that each indicator adequately reflects its underlying construct within the QWL and Professional Ethics dimensions. The outer model structure, presented in Fig. 1 , visually summarizes these standardized relationships, thereby validating the robustness and appropriateness of the retained items for structural analysis. 4.5.4 Common Method Bias Assessment To assess the potential impact of common method bias (CMB), Harman’s single-factor test was conducted (See Table 12 ). The results indicated that the first unrotated factor accounted for only 33.2% of the total variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40%, suggesting that CMB was not a serious concern. In addition, all Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values in the measurement model were below 3.3 (range: 1.21–2.47), indicating no problematic multicollinearity and supporting the robustness of the findings. Table 12 Harman’s Single-Factor Test and VIF Values Criterion Value Harman's Single Factor Variance 33.2% Minimum VIF 1.21 Maximum VIF 2.47 Threshold for CMB Concern < 40% variance Threshold for Multicollinearity VIF < 3.3 5. Discussion 5.1. Interpretation of Findings and Comparison with Prior Studies The current study identified a statistically significant yet moderate positive correlation between QWL and professional ethics among occupational health professionals in East Azerbaijan. Specifically, components such as Human Capabilities Development, Safe and Healthy Work Environment, and Social Integration were most strongly associated with ethical dimensions including Responsibility, Respect for Autonomy, and Trustworthiness. Notably, the strongest correlation was observed between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Human Dignity and Autonomy (r = 0.330, p < 0.01), reinforcing the notion that opportunities for personal growth are intimately linked with ethical integrity in professional contexts. The association between QWL dimensions and professional ethics observed in this study is conceptually reinforced by SET. According to SET, when individuals perceive that their organization genuinely invests in their well-being, growth, and inclusion, they develop a sense of obligation and are more likely to engage in prosocial and ethical behaviours [ 41 ]. This theoretical mechanism is particularly evident in how key QWL components align with elements of social exchange [ 42 ]. For instance, Human Capabilities Development can be interpreted as a form of symbolic social reward [ 43 ]. Employees who experience such investment tend to reciprocate by upholding professional responsibility and moral conduct, fostering a mutually reinforcing cycle of ethical behaviour [ 44 ]. Similarly, a Safe and Healthy Work Environment signal’s institutional reliability and care, strengthening affective commitment and psychological safety [ 45 ]. In the framework of SET, this trust-based exchange increases the likelihood of ethical accountability and adherence to professional standards [ 46 ]. Social Integration within the workplace also illustrates the relational nature of social exchanges [ 47 ]. Collegial respect, shared values, and a culture of mutual recognition not only promote belonging but also create informal expectations that sustain ethical norms [ 48 ]. Professionals embedded in respectful and inclusive environments often internalize the ethical expectations of their peers, further reinforcing their moral decision-making. In contrast, General Living Space demonstrated weak correlations with ethical domains [ 49 ]. This suggests that the mechanisms of social exchange are most potent when the perceived support and reward originate from within the institutional setting, rather than from broader environmental or socioeconomic conditions. Thus, the patterns observed in this study do not merely reflect statistical associations but echo the core assumptions of SET: that reciprocal, perceived investments by the organization are essential drivers of ethical engagement in professional contexts. Comparable evidence is offered by Mixafenti et al. (2025) [ 50 ], who demonstrated that integrating ethical standards into WHS practices leads to long-term behavioural sustainability. Similarly, Lukhele et al. (2023) [ 3 ] observed that fostering worker dignity and empowerment in construction projects strengthen ethical commitment and occupational responsibility. To visually synthesize the study’s main findings and their alignment with SET a conceptual model was developed (see Fig. 3 ). This model illustrates how key dimensions of QWL serve as forms of perceived organizational investment that, in turn, promote core domains of professional ethics such as Respect for Autonomy, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness. The model reflects the theoretical premise that mutual exchange and social rewards within the workplace shape ethical behaviour through relational and developmental mechanisms. Beyond the organizational factors captured in the model, individual characteristics such as educational attainment also play a pivotal role in shaping ethical behaviour. The significant association between educational attainment and ethical behaviour is consistent with Dejean et al. (2024) [ 14 ] and Omidi et al. (2016) [ 16 ], both of whom reported that higher academic qualifications enhance ethical sensitivity and decision-making. Kaya et al. (2023) [ 51 ] also found that education significantly impacts ethical responsiveness and caring behaviour among nursing students, while Kazemi et al. (2015) [ 52 ] confirmed that moral reasoning and ethical behaviour improve in tandem with professional learning and training. Collectively, these findings support the idea that formal education cultivates not only technical proficiency but also ethical maturity. In addition to the notable correlation between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Autonomy (r = 0.330, p < 0.01), which qualifies as a moderate effect size [ 53 ], several other relationships also demonstrated moderate levels of association. For example, the relationship between Safe and Healthy Work Environment and Responsibility (r = 0.289, p < 0.01) aligns with moderate-range associations, implying that not only does workplace safety contribute to ethical sensitivity, but it does so with practical relevance. This mirrors findings by Ding et al. (2023), who reported that improvements in safety climate fostered a greater sense of moral responsibility among healthcare staff [ 54 ]. Likewise, the correlation between Social Integration and Trustworthiness (r = 0.302, p < 0.01) falls within the same moderate band, highlighting the importance of collegiality, recognition, and relational equity. This observation is consistent with Kaya et al. (2023) [ 51 ], who emphasized that a collaborative and inclusive work culture enhances mutual respect and professional trust among nursing professionals. Moreover, Mixafenti et al. (2025) [ 50 ] noted that perceived social inclusion within the workplace elevates adherence to ethical codes by increasing emotional engagement and peer accountability. While moderate in magnitude, these effect sizes are theoretically and empirically meaningful, suggesting that QWL components contribute more than statistically significant but negligible effects. These findings underscore the importance of relational and developmental QWL elements in promoting ethical conduct, especially in high-stakes professional contexts such as occupational health. Conversely, General Living Space demonstrated weak or non-significant correlations with all ethical dimensions (r < 0.15), indicating minimal predictive power. This contrast further supports the idea that ethical behaviour is more deeply rooted in workplace dynamics than in personal lifestyle conditions. However, unlike Nayak et al. (2018) [ 8 ], who found that income significantly influenced ethical behaviour among public health professionals, our study did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between income levels and ethical scores. A possible explanation lies not only in cultural distinctions but in the structural detachment between compensation systems and ethical accountability mechanisms within Iran’s public-sector employment. In these systems, ethical behaviour is neither incentivized nor formally monitored through performance-based pay or appraisals. Moreover, ethical decision-making in such institutional contexts may be guided more by deontological standards embedded in organizational codes than by material gain. This suggests that internalized professional values may act as a stronger ethical driver than external rewards in these settings, a distinction not always present in performance-linked systems like those found in the Indian context. Similarly, while our analysis showed no significant gender-based differences in ethical conduct, contrary to findings by Kaya et al. (2023) [ 51 ], divergence may not be fully explained by shared curricula alone. A more nuanced explanation involves examining the ethical climate and gender-role expectations embedded in Iran’s healthcare system. For instance, both male and female professionals in our sample may experience uniform codes of ethical regulation, standardized job descriptions, and similar supervision levels, reducing gender-based variability. Moreover, studies in similar collectivist cultures such as Dehghani et al (2015) [ 55 ] show that communal work norms and peer accountability may overshadow individual characteristics like gender in influencing ethical decisions. Thus, gender homogeneity in ethics could stem from deeply institutionalized norms of collective responsibility rather than purely educational parity. Regarding demographic factors, our data showed no significant differences in ethical behaviour based on gender or age. These findings are in line with Adams et al. (2024) [ 12 ], who argued that ethical conduct in modern professional contexts is shaped more by structural and institutional norms than by individual traits. However, we observed that married professionals scored significantly higher on ethical measures, which contrasts with Nikolaidis et al. (2025) [ 13 ], who found minimal influence of marital status on ethical outcomes. This divergence might be due to cultural norms prevalent in Iranian society, where family roles and responsibilities often reinforce professional accountability and social conformity [ 56 ]. Interestingly, work experience was positively correlated with both QWL and ethical behaviour, affirming prior conclusions by Lee et al. (2022) [ 57 ] and Sha et al. (2025) [ 20 ], who indicated that professional maturity improves judgment, self-regulation, and moral engagement in complex workplace settings. Although the present study did not directly examine ethical leadership, the findings resonate with Baydeniz et al. (2025) [ 19 ], who highlighted that experienced professional contribute to ethical work climates when supported by transparent performance appraisals and value-driven workplace systems. These structural supports may indirectly reinforce ethical conduct, aligning with our observations on the role of work experience and QWL dimensions. In contrast, variables such as year of graduation and holding a second job did not significantly influence QWL or ethics in this study. This contradicts results by Khanian et al. (2024) [ 19 ], who noted that job multiplicity may reduce ethical consistency due to role conflict and burnout. However, such effects might be less salient in occupational health settings where job scopes are well-defined, and workloads are systematically distributed. The weak correlation between General Living Space and ethical behaviour further suggests that environmental comfort outside the workplace has limited bearing on professional morality. This is consistent with findings from Madsen et al. (2019) [ 23 ], who emphasized that ethical performance is primarily shaped by institutional culture, peer dynamics, and internalized professional values, rather than by external living conditions. In summary, our findings reinforce the theoretical underpinnings of the QWL–ethics relationship, confirm multiple prior empirical patterns, and reveal context-specific dynamics that shape ethical behaviour in nuanced ways. Divergences from earlier studies, particularly regarding income and dual employment, underscore the importance of localized analysis and cultural sensitivity in ethical behaviour research. These insights suggest that future policy and training initiatives aimed at enhancing workplace ethics should consider not only universal organizational factors but also regional values, socio-cultural norms, and individual career trajectories. 5.2. Scientific Contributions and Policy Implications This study offers several novel contributions to the interdisciplinary literature on professional ethics and QWL, particularly within the domain of WHS. While a growing body of research has examined ethical behaviour in professions such as nursing, education, and management, there is a notable scarcity of empirical studies focusing specifically on WHS professionals. A comprehensive review across major scholarly databases revealed that ethical behaviour among occupational health specialists remains a largely unexplored topic. As a result, many of the studies used for comparative discussion in this paper are drawn from adjacent fields. This contextual gap highlights the novelty of our research and underscores the need to expand ethical inquiry into WHS-related disciplines. Theoretically, this study advances SET by demonstrating how specific QWL dimensions align with SET constructs like perceived organizational support, symbolic rewards, and relational reciprocity. Unlike previous studies that have examined QWL and ethics in isolation, our integrated model explains not only whether these constructs are linked, but also how and why they interact. The differentiated strength of association across QWL dimensions suggests that ethical reciprocity is driven more by developmental and relational resources than by structural or material conditions. This selectivity offers a refined application of SET and contributes to theory-building in occupational ethics. From a policy perspective, the findings provide actionable insights for organizational leaders, human resource practitioners, and regulatory bodies. Investment in capability development and inclusive social structures appears more effective in promoting ethical conduct than external incentives such as salary adjustments. Policymakers should therefore prioritize workplace-based strategies to create ethical cultures. Moreover, the cultural and institutional specificity of the findings calls for context-sensitive ethics promotion strategies, especially in collectivist environments like Iran’s public health sector. In such settings, ethical engagement may be better sustained through institutional trust and shared norms rather than through individual traits or material inducements. Overall, this study not only fills a significant gap in the empirical literature but also provides a robust analytical framework for understanding and improving ethical conduct among WHS professionals, an area of increasing importance given the complex moral dilemmas faced in health and safety regulation, risk communication, and compliance monitoring. 5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions Despite offering valuable insights into the relationship between QWL and professional ethics, this study is not without limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the design restricts the ability to infer causal relationships. Second, the study was geographically confined to occupational health professionals in Iran, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Cultural, institutional, and regulatory differences across regions or countries could influence both QWL perceptions and ethical norms. Future studies should consider multi-site or cross-cultural designs to explore these contextual dynamics. Third, although the measurement tools used in this study demonstrated strong reliability and validity, self-reported data are inherently prone to social desirability bias. Participants may have overstated their ethical behaviour or QWL perceptions due to perceived expectations. Future research could benefit from incorporating mixed methods or observational designs to triangulate findings. Lastly, the study did not account for organizational variables such as leadership style, organizational justice, or ethical training programs, all of which could significantly mediate or moderate the relationship between QWL and ethics. Future studies are encouraged to include these organizational-level variables to build a more comprehensive and explanatory model. Building on these limitations, future research should: (1) conduct longitudinal or panel studies to explore causal pathways; (2) replicate the current model in other occupational sectors beyond health and safety; (3) incorporate additional theoretical lenses and organizational variables; and (4) prioritize culturally comparative research to uncover universal versus context-dependent ethical predictors. Such directions will help expand the generalizability, theoretical richness, and practical utility of research on QWL and professional ethics. 6. Conclusion This study examined the relationship between QWL and professional ethics among occupational health professionals in Iran, grounded in SET. Results revealed a moderate but significant correlation, with Human Capabilities Development, Safe Work Environment, and Social Integration emerging as key drivers of responsibility, autonomy, and trustworthiness. The novelty of this research lies in its contextual focus on the WHS sector, an area largely neglected in previous ethics literature. Most prior studies have centred on healthcare, education, or business professions; thus, this work offers a unique contribution to understanding ethical behaviour in high-risk, compliance-driven environments. Practically, the findings indicate that organizational investment in psychosocial and developmental factors can foster ethical engagement. For policymakers and regulatory bodies in the WHS domain, these insights may guide the refinement of training strategies, ethical auditing, and supervisory systems, especially within collectivist and hierarchical work cultures. While constrained by its cross-sectional design and regional scope, the study opens avenues for future research to explore causal mechanisms through longitudinal or mixed-method approaches. Further inquiry into mediating variables such as ethical climate, perceived fairness, and organizational identification can deepen understanding of how QWL translates into professional ethics across diverse cultural settings. These findings are particularly relevant for middle-income countries where regulatory infrastructures are evolving, and ethical conduct plays a critical role in occupational health system maturity. As ethical breaches in safety-related professions can have far-reaching consequences, integrating QWL into organizational ethics frameworks may serve as a scalable intervention to improve compliance, trust, and overall institutional resilience. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant or financial support from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution Conceptualization: Roghayye Rasouli, Mehran Seif Farshad, Seyyed Shamseddin Alizadeh Data curation: Roghayye Rasouli, Omid Akbarzadeh, Neda Gilani,. Formal analysis: Neda Gilani, Omid Akbarzadeh. Investigation: Roghayye Rasouli , Rasoul Ahmadpour, Neda Gilani, Mehran Seif Farshad. Methodology: Neda Gilani, Mehran Seif Farshad, Seyyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Project administration: Roghayye Rasouli, Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Resources: Mehran Seif Farshad, Rasoul Ahmadpour Ghashlaghi. Software: Neda Gilani, Omid Akbarzadeh. Supervision: Mehran Seif Farshad , Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Visualisation: Omid Akbarzadeh. Writing – original draft: Omid Akbarzadeh, Roghayye Rasouli. Writing – review & editing: Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh, Omid Akbarzadeh. Acknowledgment The authors thank Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for its support and the occupational health professionals who participated in the study.. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Yazdani, N. and H.S. Murad, Toward an ethical theory of organizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. 127 (2): p. 399–417. Chandler, D., Organizational susceptibility to institutional complexity: Critical events driving the adoption and implementation of the ethics and compliance officer position. Organization Science, 2014. 25 (6): p. 1722–1743. Lukhele, T.M., B. Botha, and S. Mbanga, Exploring the nexus between professional ethics and occupational health and safety in construction projects: A case study approach. International Journal of Construction Management, 2023. 23 (12): p. 2048–2057. Schaal, N.C., Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety Professional Ethics. Safety & Emergency Services Journal, 2020. Kvamme, O.A., Professional Ethics, Loyalties and Interpretative Space. Human Arenas, 2024: p. 1–6. Riyono, B., S. Hartati, and F. Fatdina, Quality of work life (QWL) from psychological perspective and the development of its measurement. Jurnal Psikologi, 2022. 49 (1): p. 87–103. Raeissi, P., et al., Quality of work life and factors associated with it among nurses in public hospitals, Iran. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 2019. 94 (1): p. 25. Nayak, T., C.K. Sahoo, and P.K. Mohanty, Workplace empowerment, quality of work life and employee commitment: a study on Indian healthcare sector. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 2018. 12 (2): p. 117–136. Meng, Z., et al., Psychological resilience and work engagement of Chinese nurses: a chain mediating model of career identity and quality of work life. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023. 14 : p. 1275511. Khanian, A., et al., Investigating the correlation between organizational ethics and professional ethics with job burnout and organizational commitment: a cross-sectional study in the nursing staff. BMC nursing, 2024. 23 (1): p. 560. Babamohamadi, H., et al., The association between workload and quality of work life of nurses taking care of patients with COVID-19. BMC nursing, 2023. 22 (1): p. 234. Adams, T.L., et al., Regulating professional ethics in a context of technological change. BMC Medical Ethics, 2024. 25 (1): p. 143. Nikolaidis, A., et al., The moral limits of professional ethics enculturation. International Journal of Ethics Education, 2025. 10 (1): p. 133–154. Dejean, C., et al., Professional ethics in the French medical physicist community: Survey results and implications. Physica Medica, 2024. 123 : p. 103416. Asadi, Y., et al., Investigating the relationship between resilience and professional ethics in nurses: a cross-sectional study in southern Iran. BMC nursing, 2023. 22 (1): p. 409. OMIDI, N., H. ASGARI, and M.R. OMIDI, The relationship between professional ethics and the efficiency of the nurses employed in Imam Hospital and Mostafa Khomeini Hospital in Ilam. 2016. Razavi, S.M., et al., Evaluation of dentists’ attitudes towards principles of Professional Ethics. International dental journal, 2023. 73 (4): p. 580–586. Grande, R.A.N., et al., Nurses' professional values and competency in Saudi Arabia: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2023. 32 (15-16): p. 4741–4751. Baydeniz, E., et al., Organizational characteristics, ethical leadership, and employee job performance: An investigation from the lenses of appraisal responses to the behavioral outcomes model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2025. 130 : p. 104257. Sha, C.-c., L. Wang, and X.-l. Pan, Effect of ethical leadership on unethical deviant behavior of employees in state-owned enterprises: based on cognitive-affective system theory. Current Psychology, 2025. 44 (10): p. 8823–8835. Bates, J., J.M. Beus, and S. Parkinson, Contextualizing ethical climate: Examining contextual moderators of the connection between ethical climate perceptions and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 2025. 196 (1): p. 129–148. Williams, L.J., Decomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011. 96 (1): p. 1. Madsen, C.U., P. Hasle, and H.J. Limborg, Professionals without a profession: Occupational safety and health professionals in Denmark. Safety Science, 2019. 113 : p. 356–361. Sarstedt, M., C.M. Ringle, and J.F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation modeling , in Handbook of market research . 2021, Springer. p. 587–632. Ringle, C.M., et al., A perspective on using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles. Data in brief, 2023. 48 : p. 109074. Mohammed, I.S., et al., Work engagement: the key driver in transforming organizational commitment into enhanced work performance among midwives in Ghana-a structural equation modelling approach. BMC Health Services Research, 2025. 25 (1): p. 840. Ahmad, R., et al., Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 13 : p. 1015921. Cook, K.S., et al., Social exchange theory , in Handbook of social psychology . 2013, Springer. p. 61–88. Jha, J.K. and M. Singh, Who cares about ethical practices at workplace? A taxonomy of employees’ unethical conduct from top management perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2023. 31 (2): p. 317–339. Nayak, T. and C.K. Sahoo, Quality of work life and organizational performance: The mediating role of employee commitment. Journal of Health management, 2015. 17 (3): p. 263–273. Reader, T.W., et al., Organizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship. Human relations, 2017. 70 (3): p. 362–385. Rogošić, A. and I. Perica, Affective professional commitment and accounting ethics principles: examining the mediating role of the code of ethics. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 2023. 36 (1): p. 480–498. Mehra, H. and M. Narwal, Impact of ethical leadership on employees’ ethical behavior: mediation of ethical climate using PLS-SEM. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 2025. Akter, S., S. Fosso Wamba, and S. Dewan, Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality. Production Planning & Control, 2017. 28 (11-12): p. 1011–1021. Hair Jr, J.F., et al., An introduction to structural equation modeling , in Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook . 2021, Springer. p. 1–29. Sarstedt, M., et al., Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 2020. 26 (4): p. 531–554. Bashir, H., et al., The impact of ethical leadership on employee intrapreneurship, work–life balance, and psychological empowerment: A PLS-SEM analysis , in State of the Art in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Methodological Extensions and Applications in the Social Sciences and Beyond . 2023, Springer. p. 353–374. Bakhshi, E., et al., Assessment of quality of work life and factors related to it based on the walton's model: a cross-sectional study in employment of health and treatment sectors in Islamabad City. Journal of Health in the Field, 2019. 6 (4): p. 12–19. Shamsi-Gooshki, E., et al., Developing" code of ethics for medical professionals, medical council of Islamic Republic of Iran". Archives of Iranian Medicine, 2020. 23 (10): p. 658–664. Kock, N., Harman’s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias. Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2020. 2 (2): p. 1–6. Cropanzano, R., et al., Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of management annals, 2017. 11 (1): p. 479–516. Chernyak-Hai, L. and E. Rabenu, The new era workplace relationships: is social exchange theory still relevant? Industrial and organizational psychology, 2018. 11 (3): p. 456–481. Heckman, J.J. and C.O. Corbin, Capabilities and skills. Journal of human development and capabilities, 2016. 17 (3): p. 342–359. Hofmann, E., E. Hoelzl, and E. Kirchler. Ethical investment: How do moral considerations influence investment behaviour? in 30th Annual Congress JAREP. Prague, Czech Republic . 2005. Chang, M.-Y., et al. The moderating role of psychological safety in the relationship between job embeddedness, organizational commitment, and retention intention among home care attendants in Taiwan . in Healthcare . 2023. MDPI. Zapata, C.P., J.E. Olsen, and L.L. Martins, Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2013. 121 (1): p. 1–12. Yin, N., The influencing outcomes of job engagement: an interpretation from the social exchange theory. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2018. 67 (5): p. 873–889. Tsai, M.-T. and N.-C. Cheng, Understanding knowledge sharing between IT professionals–an integration of social cognitive and social exchange theory. Behaviour & information technology, 2012. 31 (11): p. 1069–1080. Cropanzano, R. and M.S. Mitchell, Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 2005. 31 (6): p. 874–900. Mixafenti, S., A. Karagkouni, and D. Dimitriou, Integrating Business Ethics into Occupational Health and Safety: An Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Risk Management. Sustainability, 2025. 17 (10): p. 4370. Kaya, A., M.V. Düzgün, and İ. Boz, The relationship between professional values, ethical sensitivities and caring behaviors among nursing students: A structural equation modeling approach. Nurse education in practice, 2023. 70 : p. 103676. Kazemi, A., et al., Analysis of Factors Affecting Work Ethics, Using Structural Equation Modeling. Management and Development Process, 2015. 27 (4): p. 47–66. Gignac, G.E. and E.T. Szodorai, Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and individual differences, 2016. 102 : p. 74–78. Ding, B. and T. Miao. The moderating effects of social responsibility climate and safety climate in keeping healthcare workers’ engagement during COVID-19 . in Healthcare . 2023. MDPI. Dehghani, A., L. Mosalanejad, and N. Dehghan-Nayeri, Factors affecting professional ethics in nursing practice in Iran: a qualitative study. BMC medical ethics, 2015. 16 (1): p. 61. Azadarmaki, T. and M. Bahar, Families in Iran: Changes, challenges and future. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 2006. 37 (4): p. 589–608. Lee, H. and H. Joo, The relationships among career maturity, motivation, and self‐regulation: a longitudinal study. The Career Development Quarterly, 2022. 70 (3): p. 215–228. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 19 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 22 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 08 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7326729","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":516132843,"identity":"3a764b2e-3755-4c5c-9b83-dd24cb54cd55","order_by":0,"name":"Roghayye Rasouli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Roghayye","middleName":"","lastName":"Rasouli","suffix":""},{"id":516132844,"identity":"0b3f3d81-ffde-433b-944f-7ba0a07620ac","order_by":1,"name":"Omid Akbarzadeh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omid","middleName":"","lastName":"Akbarzadeh","suffix":""},{"id":516132845,"identity":"1de6a8c8-c078-4e39-89a4-1a0f04ec8a5c","order_by":2,"name":"Rasoul Ahmadpour","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rasoul","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmadpour","suffix":""},{"id":516132846,"identity":"269a6c4c-43b0-42c1-95e5-3cb4f0ee5dbe","order_by":3,"name":"Neda Gilani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Neda","middleName":"","lastName":"Gilani","suffix":""},{"id":516132847,"identity":"eee846be-c4e0-4b6a-a097-b624fa17ece3","order_by":4,"name":"Mehran Seif Farshad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehran","middleName":"Seif","lastName":"Farshad","suffix":""},{"id":516132848,"identity":"47a8537e-8a91-428e-8b14-294abd67fcbe","order_by":5,"name":"Seyyed Shamseddin Alizadeh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tabriz University of Medical Sciences","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seyyed","middleName":"Shamseddin","lastName":"Alizadeh","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-08 11:23:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91654182,"identity":"b52761f5-c939-4585-8f81-89924f362ddb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 17:43:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":180692,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProposed Conceptual Model Linking QWL and Professional Ethics through SET Mechanisms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326729/v1/c3920034e30676eba5a3694d.png"},{"id":91652314,"identity":"e90c49bd-486f-4315-ae6e-91f5be158e5a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 17:35:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":258631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurement Model with Standardized Loadings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326729/v1/e05c7b63b27ee41252141e4c.png"},{"id":91654181,"identity":"3bdccc98-131d-4edd-aa1d-7a30c35ccd98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 17:43:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82539,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProposed Conceptual Model of QWL–Ethics Linkage Based on Social Exchange Theory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326729/v1/0507a7ab7605252c732dbfaf.png"},{"id":91655459,"identity":"aa49b321-a0e6-47d0-84a4-bbf7ecb0472e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-18 17:59:25","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2790387,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326729/v1/50894ab4-a5d9-41d0-9aa2-056bc8466dd8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Quality of Work Life and Ethical Behaviour Among Occupational Health Professionals: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs ethical complexities continue to proliferate across modern organizations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], especially in sectors characterized by high risk and human vulnerability, the significance of professional ethics has moved beyond normative philosophy into the realm of strategic organizational function [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the field of workplace health and safety (WHS) where ethical breaches can endanger lives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], compromise organizational legitimacy, and deteriorate trust within industrial ecosystems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Ethics, in this context, operates at the intersection of personal values, professional codes, and institutional constraints creating what Kvamme (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e] terms an \u0026ldquo;interpretative space\u0026rdquo; where professionals constantly negotiate between competing obligations. At the same time, Quality of Work Life (QWL) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] has been increasingly recognized as a core determinant of organizational outcomes. Conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing physical safety, emotional wellbeing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], autonomy, growth opportunities, and fairness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], QWL is known to shape employees\u0026rsquo; psychological resilience and behavioural integrity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Scholars like Khanian et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] and Babamohamadi et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrate that diminished QWL not only erodes job satisfaction but also elevates burnout and weakens ethical commitment, especially in high-pressure sectors like healthcare and industry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Recent literature has taken diverse and interdisciplinary approaches to studying professional ethics and its underlying drivers, ranging from psychological and institutional theories to empirical workplace investigations. Adams et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] examine how the acceleration of technological innovation disrupts established ethical norms, necessitating updated frameworks to govern emerging dilemmas. Nikolaidis et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] critically assess the limitations of ethics enculturation processes, arguing that formal training alone is insufficient to internalize ethical standards in dynamic work environments. Meanwhile, other scholars have focused on the socio-contextual factors shaping ethical behaviour. Dejean et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], in a national study of medical physicists, underscore the decisive influence of institutional support and peer norms in reinforcing ethical standards, an idea echoed by Asadi et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e], who found a strong association between nurses' resilience levels and their ethical commitment, suggesting that personal coping capacity amplifies or suppresses ethical conduct under stress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn healthcare and human services, a growing body of research links professional ethics to workplace outcomes. Omidi et al. (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] show that higher ethical awareness among nurses enhances efficiency and accountability, while Razavi et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] find that Iranian dentists' adherence to ethical principles correlates with increased patient trust and satisfaction. Grande et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] expand on this by modelling the impact of ethical competencies on clinical decision-making among Saudi nurses using SEM, highlighting the predictive value of ethics training. From a broader organizational lens, Baydeniz et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] and Sha et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] provide evidence that ethical leadership and affective climate strongly mediate employee behaviour, with unethical practices diminishing when employees perceive fairness, trust, and integrity from supervisors. Similarly, Bates et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] argue that ethical climate perceptions moderate the link between organizational culture and ethical behaviour, reaffirming that ethics is co-produced through interactional and structural mechanisms. Many of these studies either adopt descriptive or correlational methodologies and rarely delve into the multi-layered, latent nature of ethical dynamics. Moreover, comparative analysis across roles remains underexplored, and the explanatory power of interacting variables such as QWL is often overlooked or simplified.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite this growing body of work, two critical gaps persist. First, most studies rely on conventional statistical methods such as correlation and linear regression, which fail to capture the complex, multidimensional, and mediating relationships among latent psychological and organizational constructs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Second, very few studies have explored these dynamics specifically among occupational health professionals, who must simultaneously act as internal advocates for worker safety and external enforcers of regulatory compliance. Their ethical stance, therefore, is uniquely vulnerable to pressures emanating from both organizational culture and work conditions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. In response to these gaps, this study employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] to examine the structural relationship between QWL and professional ethics. PLS-SEM offers substantial methodological advantages for this research context. Unlike covariance-based SEM, PLS-SEM accommodates smaller sample sizes, complex models with multiple indicators per latent construct, and does not assume multivariate normality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. It is particularly suited for theory development and prediction in under-researched domains with formative and reflective constructs, making it ideal for operationalizing nuanced concepts such as ethics and QWL [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, the present study advances both theory and practice by integrating the constructs of QWL and professional ethics into a cohesive analytical model, validated, and tested through PLS-SEM. Accordingly, it aims to examine how various dimensions of QWL structurally influence ethical behaviour among occupational health professionals, a group whose ethical integrity is pivotal to maintaining industrial safety culture. Grounded in Social Exchange Theory, this study seeks to identify which organizational and psychosocial factors most significantly drive ethical conduct in high-stakes occupational environments. To conceptually ground this investigation, Social Exchange Theory (SET) provides an appropriate lens to explain how organizational support mechanisms embedded in QWL may translate into ethical workplace behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Framework: Social Exchange Theory","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is conceptually grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], which posits that workplace relationships are governed by reciprocal exchanges, where the perception of support, fairness, and respect from the organization elicits constructive responses from employees [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. In this exchange dynamic, ethical behaviour emerges not only from individual character but as a form of reciprocation to positive organizational treatment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Jha and Singh (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] reinforce this view by categorizing ethical behaviour as a reaction to perceived organizational justice and managerial sincerity, particularly when employees sense that their contributions are valued and their wellbeing is prioritized. Within this theoretical lens, QWL functions as a key organizational resource offered to employees [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Dimensions such as fair compensation, safe working conditions, development opportunities, and social integration represent the \"inputs\" in the social exchange equation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. In return, professionals tend to demonstrate heightened levels of ethical commitment, accountability, and adherence to professional codes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Khanian et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] empirically support this mechanism, demonstrating that higher levels of organizational and professional ethics are observed when employees feel supported by ethical institutional culture and equitable working environments, especially in high-stress roles like nursing. Complementing this, Mehra and Narwal (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] show that employees' ethical behaviour is significantly shaped by their perception of ethical leadership and overall workplace climate, which are themselves functions of how resources and respect are distributed across the organization. Similarly, Sha et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] draw from both SET and affective-cognitive frameworks to show that employees embedded in supportive, just, and morally consistent systems are less likely to engage in unethical deviance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, Social Exchange Theory provides a compelling theoretical lens for interpreting the relationship between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics, framing ethical behaviour not as an isolated personal trait, but as a context-dependent and reciprocal response to organizational support and fairness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional research design, aimed at empirically testing hypotheses and estimating a conceptual model that examines the structural relationship between QWL and Professional Ethics among occupational health professionals. The design was selected to capture real-time perceptions and behaviours in industrial settings where ethical performance is critical and often influenced by organizational context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual model is grounded in SET, which posits that employees\u0026rsquo; attitudes and behaviours are shaped by the perceived reciprocity in their relationship with the organization. Within this framework, the various dimensions of QWL function as exogenous predictors, while components of professional ethics serve as endogenous outcomes. The model assumes that when employees perceive fairness, support, and opportunities for growth, they are more likely to demonstrate ethically aligned behaviours at work. To test this multidimensional theoretical structure, the study utilizes PLS-SEM. This method is well-suited for studies involving complex models with latent constructs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], especially when the focus is on prediction, theory development, and working with moderate sample sizes or non-normal data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. The PLS-SEM approach enables simultaneous estimation of both measurement models and structural models [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], making it particularly appropriate for exploring latent organizational behaviours such as ethical conduct and quality of work life [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 Population and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study population consisted of occupational health professionals employed in medium- and large-scale industrial enterprises in East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. A census sampling approach was applied due to the defined and accessible nature of the target group. A total of 230 eligible individuals were invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were: (1) formal employment in an occupational health role, (2) a minimum of one year of continuous work experience in the current setting, and (3) active involvement in WHS-related tasks such as risk assessment, compliance training, or health surveillance. The unit of analysis was the individual professional, and the unit of observation was the self-reported response to standardized questionnaires on QWL and professional ethics. This approach ensured that inferences were drawn at the individual level rather than institutional aggregates. Respondents were drawn from petrochemical, mining, manufacturing, and food processing sectors. The final sample was predominantly male (67.4%), with the majority aged 30\u0026ndash;45 years, and approximately 42% reporting 6\u0026ndash;10 years of professional experience (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding sample adequacy for PLS-SEM, the final sample size of 230 meets and exceeds the minimum requirements based on both the \u0026ldquo;10-times rule\u0026rdquo; and statistical power criteria recommended by Hair et al. (2021) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Specifically, the model includes a maximum of 6 paths leading to any endogenous construct; therefore, the minimum suggested sample size is 10 \u0026times; 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;60 observations. With 230 valid cases, the dataset satisfies the criteria for reliable path coefficient estimation, model convergence, and statistical significance in PLS-SEM analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Instrumentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a structured questionnaire composed of two psychometric tools: a standardized QWL instrument and a researcher-developed Professional Ethics scale. Both instruments were adapted and validated for the context of occupational health professionals and were designed for reflective measurement modelling in PLS-SEM analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1 Work Life Quality Instrument\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe QWL construct was measured using a Persian-translated version of Walton\u0026rsquo;s model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], comprising 27 items across eight dimensions: fair compensation, safe and healthy working conditions, opportunities for continued growth, organizational constitutionalism, social relevance, work-life balance, social integration, and human development. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree), and all were positively worded. No reverse-coded items were included. Final scores were computed using arithmetic means for each dimension and the total construct. To explore its factorial structure, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted in SPSS 24 using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.91, and Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s test of sphericity was significant (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 2984.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Items with factor loadings\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.60 and eigenvalues\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1 were retained. Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in SmartPLS 4 to evaluate the reflective measurement model. The model met the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity, as shown by AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.50, CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70, and HTMT\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.85 for all constructs (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAVE And HTMT Values\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAverage Variance Extracted (AVE)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHTMT (highest inter-construct)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFair Compensation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSafe Work Environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrowth Opportunities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational Constitutionalism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork-Life Balance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Relevance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Integration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman Development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional Excellence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical Behaviour \u0026amp; Trust\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eService Quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman Dignity \u0026amp; Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccountability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustice \u0026amp; Confidentiality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2 Professional Ethics Instrument\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe professional ethics questionnaire was a researcher-developed tool based on a synthesis of existing national professional ethics codes, guidelines published by Iran\u0026rsquo;s Ministry of Health [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e], and previous literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. It included 29 items across six conceptual domains: professional excellence (3 items), ethical behaviour and trust (5 items), quality of services (3 items), respect for dignity and autonomy (4 items), accountability (8 items), and justice/confidentiality (6 items). All items used a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree), with no reverse-worded items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe content validity of the tool was assessed by a panel of 10 experts using Lawshe\u0026rsquo;s method. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) values ranged between 0.88 and 0.94, and the Content Validity Index (CVI) ranged between 0.92 and 0.97 (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, interpretive validity was addressed by asking three domain specialists to review the items for alignment with the intended ethical constructs in clinical and occupational health settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Validity Metrics (CVR and CVI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Validity Ratio (CVR)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Validity Index (CVI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality of Work Life (Total)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional Excellence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical Conduct \u0026amp; Trust\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eService Quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman Dignity \u0026amp; Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccountability \u0026amp; Responsibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustice \u0026amp; Confidentiality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEFA revealed a six-factor structure explaining 68.3% of total variance (KMO\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.88; Bartlett\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 2571.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), with factor loadings exceeding 0.60 for all retained items. A CFA in SmartPLS confirmed good construct validity. All factor loadings were above the recommended threshold of 0.70, except for one item at 0.65, which was retained due to theoretical significance. For full details on reliability and validity statistics, refer to Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3 Construct Structure and Item Mapping\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn alignment with SET, all latent constructs in the measurement model were modelled as reflective, assuming that variations in the latent variables would be reflected in their corresponding observed items. A complete item-to-construct mapping was developed and is available in (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), illustrating the number of items per construct and their intended alignment with the conceptual model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-To-Construct Mapping\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. of Items\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. of Items\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFair Compensation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional Excellence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSafe Work Environment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical Behaviour \u0026amp; Trust\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGrowth Opportunities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eService Quality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational Constitutionalism\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman Dignity \u0026amp; Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork-Life Balance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccountability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Relevance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJustice \u0026amp; Confidentiality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Integration\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman Development\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4 Cultural Adaptation and Common Method Bias\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaires were administered in Persian, and a forward\u0026ndash;backward translation protocol was followed by two bilingual experts to ensure conceptual and linguistic accuracy. Further cultural validation was conducted through a pilot test with 20 occupational health professionals. Feedback confirmed clarity, relevance, and readability of all items. To examine common method bias (CMB), Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] was conducted. Results indicated that no single factor accounted for more than 40% of the total variance, suggesting that CMB was not a significant threat in this study. Additionally, variance inflation factors (VIF) in the measurement model were all below 3.3, further supporting the absence of multicollinearity due to method bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study employed PLS-SEM as the primary analytical technique, using SmartPLS v4.0.8 for model estimation and SPSS v26 for preliminary screening. PLS-SEM was selected due to its suitability for theory development and its robustness in handling complex models with latent variables, moderate sample sizes, and non-normal data distributions. The analytical model included 14 reflective constructs, as defined by the conceptual framework grounded in SET.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreliminary analysis confirmed the dataset's readiness for multivariate modelling: no missing values were observed; skewness and kurtosis values for all items were within \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2; and outlier detection using Z-scores and Mahalanobis distance indicated no extreme cases requiring deletion. Sample adequacy was evaluated using the gamma-exponential method and inverse square root criterion, confirming that the available sample (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;230) exceeded the recommended threshold for the model\u0026rsquo;s complexity (n\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;160). No imputation or case deletion was needed. The analysis followed the standard PLS-SEM evaluation roadmap: (1) assessment of the reflective measurement model, (2) estimation of the structural model, (3) hypothesis testing, and (4) evaluation of model fit and predictive relevance (Hair et al., 2019). For the measurement model, CFA was conducted to assess psychometric properties. Convergent validity was evaluated via standardized factor loadings (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.60), Average Variance Extracted (AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.50), and Composite Reliability (CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70). Discriminant validity was established using both Fornell\u0026ndash;Larcker criteria and HTMT ratios (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.85). Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients also exceeded 0.70 for all constructs, indicating strong internal consistency. As a strength of PLS-SEM, indicator-level measurement error was directly modelled, enhancing the reliability of parameter estimates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the structural model, the bootstrapping procedure with 5,000 subsamples and bias-corrected confidence intervals was used. Hypotheses were tested based on p-values (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and whether confidence intervals excluded zero. The model\u0026rsquo;s explanatory power was assessed using R\u0026sup2; values (0.25\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;weak, 0.50\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;moderate, 0.75\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strong), while predictive relevance was confirmed using Q\u0026sup2; values derived from blindfolding (Q\u0026sup2; \u0026gt;0). In addition, effect sizes (f\u0026sup2;) were calculated, with thresholds of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicating small, medium, and large effects respectively. Global model fit was judged by SRMR (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.08) and NFI (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90), both of which fell within acceptable ranges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address CMB, Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test revealed that no single factor accounted for more than 34.2% of the total variance. Furthermore, all Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were below 3.3, confirming the absence of multicollinearity and method bias. Although multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA) was not performed in the current study, the model structure is suitable for future group-based comparisons.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll procedures conducted in this study adhered to the ethical standards outlined by the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (\u003cem\u003eEthics Code\u003c/em\u003e: \u003cem\u003eIR.TBZMED.REC.1398.1295\u003c/em\u003e). Prior to data collection, participants were fully informed about the purpose, scope, and voluntary nature of the research. A written informed consent form was distributed to all respondents, outlining their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence, as well as assurances of confidentiality and anonymity in data handling and reporting. To maintain data protection and privacy, no personally identifiable information was collected, and all responses were coded and stored securely in password-protected systems accessible only to the research team. The study involved no physical or psychological harm, and participants were not subject to any form of coercion or inducement. Moreover, the questionnaire was designed to be non-invasive and non-judgmental, avoiding any sensitive or stigmatizing language.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Demographic Profile of Respondents\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the 230 questionnaires distributed among occupational health professionals in East Azerbaijan Province, a total of 30 responses were excluded due to incompleteness or inconsistencies. Thus, the final dataset consisted of 200 valid responses, resulting in an effective response rate of 86.9%. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the demographic characteristics of the respondents indicate a balanced yet diverse sample. A slightly higher proportion of participants were female (53.5%) compared to male (46.5%). The dominant age group was 20\u0026ndash;30 years, representing 63.5% of the total sample, followed by those aged 31\u0026ndash;40 (27.5%). Regarding marital status, 55.5% were married, while 44.5% were single. In terms of professional background, most participants (82.6%) had 1 to 10 years of work experience, while only 3% had more than 20 years of experience. Educational attainment showed that 71.5% held a bachelor's degree, while 28.5% had postgraduate qualifications (master\u0026rsquo;s or PhD). Additionally, 60.5% had graduated less than 5 years ago, and 52% of the respondents had completed their education at top-tier (Tier 1) medical universities in Iran.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic Characteristics of Respondents\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCategory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency (n)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge Group (years)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e127\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMarital Status\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWork Experience (years)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.6%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducation Level\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s or PhD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMonthly Income (IRR)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYears Since Graduation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;5 years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUniversity Type\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTier 1 Medical Universities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e104\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTier 2 or 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Descriptive Statistics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis section presents the descriptive statistics for the main constructs of the study: QWL and Professional Ethics (PE). For QWL, the total raw scores ranged from 27 to 135, with a mean score of 82.00 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.46), indicating a moderate overall perception of work life quality among respondents. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e provides detailed descriptive statistics for the eight QWL dimensions, including the number of items, minimum and maximum possible scores, means and standard deviations, 95% confidence intervals, and standardized mean scores. The highest average score was observed in the \"Human Capabilities Development\" dimension (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.73, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.58), whereas the lowest was in \"Opportunity for Growth and Continuous Security\" (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.62, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.43). The standardized scores ranged from 43.69 to 56.98.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics for QWL Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. of Items\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFair and Adequate Compensation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.14 (2.23)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.82\u0026ndash;9.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.16 (18.62)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSafe and Healthy Work Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.82 (1.88)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.56\u0026ndash;10.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.87 (15.68)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpportunity for Growth \u0026amp; Continuous Security\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.62 (2.43)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.28\u0026ndash;8.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.87 (20.31)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRule of Law in the Organization\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.13 (2.69)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.75\u0026ndash;12.51\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.84 (16.82)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Dependency of Work Life\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.24 (2.01)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.96\u0026ndash;9.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.04 (16.78)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeneral Living Space\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.66 (2.18)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.35\u0026ndash;8.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.16 (18.21)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Integration in the Workplace\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.73 (2.67)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.35\u0026ndash;12.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.31 (16.72)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHuman Capabilities Development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.73 (2.58)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.36\u0026ndash;13.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e54.56 (16.17)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal QWL Score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e135\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.00 (13.46)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80.21\u0026ndash;83.96\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.00 (12.46)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the Professional Ethics (PE) construct, total raw scores ranged from 29 to 145, with a mean of 76.43 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.63). The highest mean score was found in the \"Responsibility\" dimension (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.08, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.26), while the lowest was in \"Quality of Services\" (Mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.13, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.45). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the descriptive results for each of the six PE dimensions, following the same format.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics for Professional Ethics (PE) Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo. of Items\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMin\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized Mean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQuality of Services\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.13 (1.45)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.92\u0026ndash;11.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67.75 (12.14)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResponsibility\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32.08 (4.26)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.49\u0026ndash;32.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.26 (13.32)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRespect for Human Dignity \u0026amp; Autonomy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.64 (2.23)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.32\u0026ndash;16.95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e79.00 (13.94)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Excellence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.28 (1.73)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.04\u0026ndash;12.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77.37 (14.43)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eJustice and Confidentiality\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.47 (3.13)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.03\u0026ndash;26.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e85.29 (13.08)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Conduct and Trustworthiness\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.78 (2.52)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.43\u0026ndash;20.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73.92 (12.63)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal PE Score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e145\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76.43 (9.63)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74.96\u0026ndash;77.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76.43 (9.63)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2.1 Assumption Testing for Parametric Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior to conducting independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were assessed to ensure the appropriateness of parametric statistical methods. Normality of the QWL and Professional Ethics scores across demographic subgroups was evaluated using the Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk test, while the Levene\u0026rsquo;s test was used to examine homogeneity of variances. As summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, the Shapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk test results indicated that the distribution of QWL and Professional Ethics scores did not significantly deviate from normality across all subgroups (All p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic Factor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk p-value (QWL)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShapiro\u0026ndash;Wilk p-value (Ethics)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s Test p-value (QWL)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevene\u0026rsquo;s Test p-value (Ethics)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale vs. Female\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.312\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.373\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.289\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarital Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarried vs. Single\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.277\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.446\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.390\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBachelor vs. Postgrad\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.244\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.318\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.407\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.264\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncome Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh/ Moderate/ Low\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.332\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.278\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.338\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;10 / 11\u0026ndash;20 / \u0026gt;20 yrs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.204\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.240\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.343\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.216\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge Group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30 / 31\u0026ndash;40 / \u0026gt;40 yrs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.222\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.251\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.385\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraduation Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5 yrs. / \u0026ge;5 yrs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.309\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.358\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.276\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary Job\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes vs. No\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.271\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.349\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.369\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.415\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Group Comparison Analysis: Independent-Sample t-Test\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo investigate whether the mean scores of QWL and Professional Ethics varied significantly across gender and marital status, independent-samples t-tests were conducted. The assumption of homogeneity of variances was verified through Levene\u0026rsquo;s test, with no violations observed (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), allowing for the use of pooled variance estimates in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, the mean QWL score for male participants (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82.94, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.86) was slightly higher than that for females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81.34, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.97), but this difference was not statistically significant (t (198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.21, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.228). In contrast, no statistically significant gender difference was found in professional ethics scores, with males (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76.72, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.94) and females (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76.13, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.29) showing comparable results (t (198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.329). This indicates that perceptions of ethical responsibility and conduct are generally consistent across genders. Regarding marital status, married participants reported higher QWL scores (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82.71, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.92) compared to their single counterparts (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81.12, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.87), and this difference approached significance (t(198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.78, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.077), suggesting a possible trend worth further examination. A statistically significant difference was found in professional ethics scores between married (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76.78, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.33) and single individuals (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;75.91, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.87), with t (198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.09 and p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.038.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndependent-Samples t-Test Results for Gender and Marital Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQWL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.97\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.329\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQWL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e82.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.077\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSingle\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.2 One-Way ANOVA\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine whether QWL and Professional Ethics scores vary significantly across demographic subgroups, including age group, education level, work experience, income, and graduation year, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Prior to performing the analyses, assumptions of normality (via Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variances (via Levene\u0026rsquo;s test) were checked and met for all variables (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in QWL scores across education levels (F (1,198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.57, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.034). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test showed that participants with postgraduate qualifications (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;83.96, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.21) reported significantly higher QWL scores than those with only a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;79.83, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.99). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in QWL scores based on monthly income (F(2,197)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.15, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017). To further explore these differences, a Tukey HSD post-hoc test was conducted. The results indicated that participants in the high-income group reported significantly higher QWL scores compared to those in the middle-income group, with p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.013. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the high-income group and the low-income group, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091, nor between the low- and middle-income groups, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.663. Work experience was found to have a statistically significant effect on QWL scores (F (2,197)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.29, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.042). While pairwise comparisons revealed modest differences between groups, those with more than 10 years of experience tended to report higher QWL scores compared to less experienced counterparts. No significant differences in QWL scores were observed across graduation year, or secondary job status (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). However, age group showed a marginal effect (F (2,197)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.19, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.089), suggesting a trend that may warrant further investigation in larger samples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContrary to the QWL findings, several demographic factors were also found to be significantly associated with professional ethics scores. Specifically, education level (F (1,198)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.91, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041) and work experience (F (2,197)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.78, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.048) demonstrated statistically significant associations. Participants with higher academic qualifications and longer job tenure tended to report stronger adherence to ethical principles. For Professional Ethics, the ANOVA results approached statistical significance based on income level, indicating a potential trend. To explore this further, a Tukey HSD post-hoc analysis was performed. Although the overall differences were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level, the high-income group reported slightly higher ethics scores than the middle-income group, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.084. The difference between the high-income and low-income groups was also non-significant (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.117). Similarly, no meaningful difference was observed between the low- and middle-income groups (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.691). No significant differences in professional ethics were observed across, graduation year, or secondary job status (all p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.1), indicating that ethical perceptions remain largely consistent across these groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne-Way ANOVA Results for QWL and Professional Ethics by Demographic Factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic Factor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQWL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncome Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge Group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraduation Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.285\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary Job\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncome Level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge Group\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraduation Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2,197\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.392\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondary Job\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1,198\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.229\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Correlation Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e To examine the strength and direction of associations between dimensions of QWL and Professional Ethics, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted. The results (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) show that the overall QWL score was significantly and positively correlated with the overall professional ethics score (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.281, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), indicating a moderate relationship. This suggests that professionals who reported higher satisfaction with their work environment and conditions also demonstrated higher adherence to ethical principles. At the domain level, most QWL components, such as Fair Compensation, Safe and Healthy Work Environment, Human Capabilities Development, and Social Integration, were positively and significantly correlated with multiple dimensions of ethics, including Responsibility, Respect for Autonomy, and Professional Trustworthiness. However, some QWL dimensions, such as General Living Space, showed weak or non-significant relationships with ethical components.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strongest correlation was observed between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Human Dignity and Autonomy (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.330, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), while the weakest and non-significant relationship was found between General Living Space and Job Excellence (r = -0.07, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.31).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation Matrix between QWL and Professional Ethics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQWL Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality Services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRespect for Autonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJob Excellence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFairness \u0026amp; Confidentiality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrustworthiness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal Ethics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFair Compensation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.109\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.190\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.192\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.134\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.077\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.014\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSafe \u0026amp; Healthy Work Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.215\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.282\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.234\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.127\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.140\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.236\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpportunity for Growth \u0026amp; Security\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.120\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.269\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.189\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.180\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRule of Law in the Organization\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.222\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.146\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.234\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Dependence of Work Life\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.193\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.229\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.217\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.089\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.108\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.203\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGeneral Living Space\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.071\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.028\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.013\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Integration in Workplace\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.218\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.293\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.164\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.173\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.290\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHuman Capabilities Development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.230\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.330\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.267\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal QWL Score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.235\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.338\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.299\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.125\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.281\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5 Measurement Model Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the reliability and validity of the constructs used in this study, the measurement model was assessed prior to evaluating the structural model, following the standard PLS-SEM procedures. The model was examined for internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity using SmartPLS 4.0.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5.1 Internal Consistency Reliability and Convergent Validity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eInternal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha and Composite Reliability (CR). As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, all constructs demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability, with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha values ranging from 0.74 to 0.90 and CR values exceeding the threshold of 0.70 for all constructs. In terms of convergent validity, all AVE values were above the recommended minimum of 0.50, ranging from 0.62 to 0.74. This suggests that each construct explained more than half of the variance of its observed indicators, supporting convergent validity. For example, the construct Responsibility had an AVE of 0.74, indicating that its items were strongly representative of the underlying concept.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab10\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 10\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInternal Consistency and Convergent Validity of Constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComposite Reliability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFair Compensation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSafe \u0026amp; Healthy Work Environment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGrowth \u0026amp; Continuous Security\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial Integration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHuman Capabilities Development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRespect for Autonomy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResponsibility\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Trust\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eJob Excellence\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal QWL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal Ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5.2 Discriminant Validity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity was assessed using two criteria: the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of AVE for each construct was greater than its correlations with all other constructs, suggesting acceptable discriminant validity. However, as recommended in recent literature, the HTMT criterion was also employed due to its greater sensitivity. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab11\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, all HTMT values ranged between 0.53 and 0.78, well below the conservative cutoff of 0.85. For instance, the HTMT between QWL and Professional Ethics was 0.66, indicating sufficient discriminant validity between these two higher-order constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab11\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 11\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHTMT Values among Key Constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQWL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAutonomy\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrust\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eQuality of Work Life\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResponsibility\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRespect for Autonomy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProfessional Trust\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal Professional Ethics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5.3 Factor Loadings\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll standardized factor loadings for the observed indicators were found to be statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70, indicating acceptable indicator reliability. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the loading values ranged from 0.73 to 0.89, demonstrating strong associations between indicators and their respective latent constructs. Notably, several indicators, such as HC1 (0.88), HC4 (0.85), and Q87 (0.87), exhibited particularly high loadings, reinforcing the convergent validity of the measurement model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings confirm that each indicator adequately reflects its underlying construct within the QWL and Professional Ethics dimensions. The outer model structure, presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, visually summarizes these standardized relationships, thereby validating the robustness and appropriateness of the retained items for structural analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.5.4 Common Method Bias Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess the potential impact of common method bias (CMB), Harman\u0026rsquo;s single-factor test was conducted (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab12\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). The results indicated that the first unrotated factor accounted for only 33.2% of the total variance, which is below the critical threshold of 40%, suggesting that CMB was not a serious concern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, all Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values in the measurement model were below 3.3 (range: 1.21\u0026ndash;2.47), indicating no problematic multicollinearity and supporting the robustness of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab12\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 12\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarman\u0026rsquo;s Single-Factor Test and VIF Values\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCriterion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHarman's Single Factor Variance\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMinimum VIF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaximum VIF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.47\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThreshold for CMB Concern\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;40% variance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThreshold for Multicollinearity\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVIF\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3.3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1. Interpretation of Findings and Comparison with Prior Studies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study identified a statistically significant yet moderate positive correlation between QWL and professional ethics among occupational health professionals in East Azerbaijan. Specifically, components such as Human Capabilities Development, Safe and Healthy Work Environment, and Social Integration were most strongly associated with ethical dimensions including Responsibility, Respect for Autonomy, and Trustworthiness. Notably, the strongest correlation was observed between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Human Dignity and Autonomy (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.330, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), reinforcing the notion that opportunities for personal growth are intimately linked with ethical integrity in professional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe association between QWL dimensions and professional ethics observed in this study is conceptually reinforced by SET. According to SET, when individuals perceive that their organization genuinely invests in their well-being, growth, and inclusion, they develop a sense of obligation and are more likely to engage in prosocial and ethical behaviours [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. This theoretical mechanism is particularly evident in how key QWL components align with elements of social exchange [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. For instance, Human Capabilities Development can be interpreted as a form of symbolic social reward [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Employees who experience such investment tend to reciprocate by upholding professional responsibility and moral conduct, fostering a mutually reinforcing cycle of ethical behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, a Safe and Healthy Work Environment signal\u0026rsquo;s institutional reliability and care, strengthening affective commitment and psychological safety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. In the framework of SET, this trust-based exchange increases the likelihood of ethical accountability and adherence to professional standards [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Social Integration within the workplace also illustrates the relational nature of social exchanges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Collegial respect, shared values, and a culture of mutual recognition not only promote belonging but also create informal expectations that sustain ethical norms [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Professionals embedded in respectful and inclusive environments often internalize the ethical expectations of their peers, further reinforcing their moral decision-making. In contrast, General Living Space demonstrated weak correlations with ethical domains [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. This suggests that the mechanisms of social exchange are most potent when the perceived support and reward originate from within the institutional setting, rather than from broader environmental or socioeconomic conditions. Thus, the patterns observed in this study do not merely reflect statistical associations but echo the core assumptions of SET: that reciprocal, perceived investments by the organization are essential drivers of ethical engagement in professional contexts. Comparable evidence is offered by Mixafenti et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], who demonstrated that integrating ethical standards into WHS practices leads to long-term behavioural sustainability. Similarly, Lukhele et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] observed that fostering worker dignity and empowerment in construction projects strengthen ethical commitment and occupational responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo visually synthesize the study\u0026rsquo;s main findings and their alignment with SET a conceptual model was developed (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). This model illustrates how key dimensions of QWL serve as forms of perceived organizational investment that, in turn, promote core domains of professional ethics such as Respect for Autonomy, Responsibility, and Trustworthiness. The model reflects the theoretical premise that mutual exchange and social rewards within the workplace shape ethical behaviour through relational and developmental mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond the organizational factors captured in the model, individual characteristics such as educational attainment also play a pivotal role in shaping ethical behaviour. The significant association between educational attainment and ethical behaviour is consistent with Dejean et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] and Omidi et al. (2016) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], both of whom reported that higher academic qualifications enhance ethical sensitivity and decision-making. Kaya et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] also found that education significantly impacts ethical responsiveness and caring behaviour among nursing students, while Kazemi et al. (2015) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] confirmed that moral reasoning and ethical behaviour improve in tandem with professional learning and training. Collectively, these findings support the idea that formal education cultivates not only technical proficiency but also ethical maturity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the notable correlation between Human Capabilities Development and Respect for Autonomy (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.330, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), which qualifies as a moderate effect size [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e], several other relationships also demonstrated moderate levels of association. For example, the relationship between Safe and Healthy Work Environment and Responsibility (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.289, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) aligns with moderate-range associations, implying that not only does workplace safety contribute to ethical sensitivity, but it does so with practical relevance. This mirrors findings by Ding et al. (2023), who reported that improvements in safety climate fostered a greater sense of moral responsibility among healthcare staff [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. Likewise, the correlation between Social Integration and Trustworthiness (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.302, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) falls within the same moderate band, highlighting the importance of collegiality, recognition, and relational equity. This observation is consistent with Kaya et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], who emphasized that a collaborative and inclusive work culture enhances mutual respect and professional trust among nursing professionals. Moreover, Mixafenti et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e] noted that perceived social inclusion within the workplace elevates adherence to ethical codes by increasing emotional engagement and peer accountability. While moderate in magnitude, these effect sizes are theoretically and empirically meaningful, suggesting that QWL components contribute more than statistically significant but negligible effects. These findings underscore the importance of relational and developmental QWL elements in promoting ethical conduct, especially in high-stakes professional contexts such as occupational health. Conversely, General Living Space demonstrated weak or non-significant correlations with all ethical dimensions (r\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.15), indicating minimal predictive power. This contrast further supports the idea that ethical behaviour is more deeply rooted in workplace dynamics than in personal lifestyle conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, unlike Nayak et al. (2018) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], who found that income significantly influenced ethical behaviour among public health professionals, our study did not reveal a statistically significant relationship between income levels and ethical scores. A possible explanation lies not only in cultural distinctions but in the structural detachment between compensation systems and ethical accountability mechanisms within Iran\u0026rsquo;s public-sector employment. In these systems, ethical behaviour is neither incentivized nor formally monitored through performance-based pay or appraisals. Moreover, ethical decision-making in such institutional contexts may be guided more by deontological standards embedded in organizational codes than by material gain. This suggests that internalized professional values may act as a stronger ethical driver than external rewards in these settings, a distinction not always present in performance-linked systems like those found in the Indian context. Similarly, while our analysis showed no significant gender-based differences in ethical conduct, contrary to findings by Kaya et al. (2023) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], divergence may not be fully explained by shared curricula alone. A more nuanced explanation involves examining the ethical climate and gender-role expectations embedded in Iran\u0026rsquo;s healthcare system. For instance, both male and female professionals in our sample may experience uniform codes of ethical regulation, standardized job descriptions, and similar supervision levels, reducing gender-based variability. Moreover, studies in similar collectivist cultures such as Dehghani et al (2015) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] show that communal work norms and peer accountability may overshadow individual characteristics like gender in influencing ethical decisions. Thus, gender homogeneity in ethics could stem from deeply institutionalized norms of collective responsibility rather than purely educational parity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding demographic factors, our data showed no significant differences in ethical behaviour based on gender or age. These findings are in line with Adams et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], who argued that ethical conduct in modern professional contexts is shaped more by structural and institutional norms than by individual traits. However, we observed that married professionals scored significantly higher on ethical measures, which contrasts with Nikolaidis et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], who found minimal influence of marital status on ethical outcomes. This divergence might be due to cultural norms prevalent in Iranian society, where family roles and responsibilities often reinforce professional accountability and social conformity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, work experience was positively correlated with both QWL and ethical behaviour, affirming prior conclusions by Lee et al. (2022) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] and Sha et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], who indicated that professional maturity improves judgment, self-regulation, and moral engagement in complex workplace settings. Although the present study did not directly examine ethical leadership, the findings resonate with Baydeniz et al. (2025) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], who highlighted that experienced professional contribute to ethical work climates when supported by transparent performance appraisals and value-driven workplace systems. These structural supports may indirectly reinforce ethical conduct, aligning with our observations on the role of work experience and QWL dimensions. In contrast, variables such as year of graduation and holding a second job did not significantly influence QWL or ethics in this study. This contradicts results by Khanian et al. (2024) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], who noted that job multiplicity may reduce ethical consistency due to role conflict and burnout. However, such effects might be less salient in occupational health settings where job scopes are well-defined, and workloads are systematically distributed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe weak correlation between General Living Space and ethical behaviour further suggests that environmental comfort outside the workplace has limited bearing on professional morality. This is consistent with findings from Madsen et al. (2019) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], who emphasized that ethical performance is primarily shaped by institutional culture, peer dynamics, and internalized professional values, rather than by external living conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, our findings reinforce the theoretical underpinnings of the QWL\u0026ndash;ethics relationship, confirm multiple prior empirical patterns, and reveal context-specific dynamics that shape ethical behaviour in nuanced ways. Divergences from earlier studies, particularly regarding income and dual employment, underscore the importance of localized analysis and cultural sensitivity in ethical behaviour research. These insights suggest that future policy and training initiatives aimed at enhancing workplace ethics should consider not only universal organizational factors but also regional values, socio-cultural norms, and individual career trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Scientific Contributions and Policy Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study offers several novel contributions to the interdisciplinary literature on professional ethics and QWL, particularly within the domain of WHS. While a growing body of research has examined ethical behaviour in professions such as nursing, education, and management, there is a notable scarcity of empirical studies focusing specifically on WHS professionals. A comprehensive review across major scholarly databases revealed that ethical behaviour among occupational health specialists remains a largely unexplored topic. As a result, many of the studies used for comparative discussion in this paper are drawn from adjacent fields. This contextual gap highlights the novelty of our research and underscores the need to expand ethical inquiry into WHS-related disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this study advances SET by demonstrating how specific QWL dimensions align with SET constructs like perceived organizational support, symbolic rewards, and relational reciprocity. Unlike previous studies that have examined QWL and ethics in isolation, our integrated model explains not only whether these constructs are linked, but also how and why they interact. The differentiated strength of association across QWL dimensions suggests that ethical reciprocity is driven more by developmental and relational resources than by structural or material conditions. This selectivity offers a refined application of SET and contributes to theory-building in occupational ethics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a policy perspective, the findings provide actionable insights for organizational leaders, human resource practitioners, and regulatory bodies. Investment in capability development and inclusive social structures appears more effective in promoting ethical conduct than external incentives such as salary adjustments. Policymakers should therefore prioritize workplace-based strategies to create ethical cultures. Moreover, the cultural and institutional specificity of the findings calls for context-sensitive ethics promotion strategies, especially in collectivist environments like Iran\u0026rsquo;s public health sector. In such settings, ethical engagement may be better sustained through institutional trust and shared norms rather than through individual traits or material inducements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Overall, this study not only fills a significant gap in the empirical literature but also provides a robust analytical framework for understanding and improving ethical conduct among WHS professionals, an area of increasing importance given the complex moral dilemmas faced in health and safety regulation, risk communication, and compliance monitoring.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite offering valuable insights into the relationship between QWL and professional ethics, this study is not without limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the design restricts the ability to infer causal relationships. Second, the study was geographically confined to occupational health professionals in Iran, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Cultural, institutional, and regulatory differences across regions or countries could influence both QWL perceptions and ethical norms. Future studies should consider multi-site or cross-cultural designs to explore these contextual dynamics. Third, although the measurement tools used in this study demonstrated strong reliability and validity, self-reported data are inherently prone to social desirability bias. Participants may have overstated their ethical behaviour or QWL perceptions due to perceived expectations. Future research could benefit from incorporating mixed methods or observational designs to triangulate findings. Lastly, the study did not account for organizational variables such as leadership style, organizational justice, or ethical training programs, all of which could significantly mediate or moderate the relationship between QWL and ethics. Future studies are encouraged to include these organizational-level variables to build a more comprehensive and explanatory model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these limitations, future research should: (1) conduct longitudinal or panel studies to explore causal pathways; (2) replicate the current model in other occupational sectors beyond health and safety; (3) incorporate additional theoretical lenses and organizational variables; and (4) prioritize culturally comparative research to uncover universal versus context-dependent ethical predictors. Such directions will help expand the generalizability, theoretical richness, and practical utility of research on QWL and professional ethics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003e This study examined the relationship between QWL and professional ethics among occupational health professionals in Iran, grounded in SET. Results revealed a moderate but significant correlation, with Human Capabilities Development, Safe Work Environment, and Social Integration emerging as key drivers of responsibility, autonomy, and trustworthiness. The novelty of this research lies in its contextual focus on the WHS sector, an area largely neglected in previous ethics literature. Most prior studies have centred on healthcare, education, or business professions; thus, this work offers a unique contribution to understanding ethical behaviour in high-risk, compliance-driven environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractically, the findings indicate that organizational investment in psychosocial and developmental factors can foster ethical engagement. For policymakers and regulatory bodies in the WHS domain, these insights may guide the refinement of training strategies, ethical auditing, and supervisory systems, especially within collectivist and hierarchical work cultures. While constrained by its cross-sectional design and regional scope, the study opens avenues for future research to explore causal mechanisms through longitudinal or mixed-method approaches. Further inquiry into mediating variables such as ethical climate, perceived fairness, and organizational identification can deepen understanding of how QWL translates into professional ethics across diverse cultural settings. These findings are particularly relevant for middle-income countries where regulatory infrastructures are evolving, and ethical conduct plays a critical role in occupational health system maturity. As ethical breaches in safety-related professions can have far-reaching consequences, integrating QWL into organizational ethics frameworks may serve as a scalable intervention to improve compliance, trust, and overall institutional resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research did not receive any specific grant or financial support from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: Roghayye Rasouli, Mehran Seif Farshad, Seyyed Shamseddin Alizadeh Data curation: Roghayye Rasouli, Omid Akbarzadeh, Neda Gilani,. Formal analysis: Neda Gilani, Omid Akbarzadeh. Investigation: Roghayye Rasouli , Rasoul Ahmadpour, Neda Gilani, Mehran Seif Farshad. Methodology: Neda Gilani, Mehran Seif Farshad, Seyyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Project administration: Roghayye Rasouli, Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Resources: Mehran Seif Farshad, Rasoul Ahmadpour Ghashlaghi. Software: Neda Gilani, Omid Akbarzadeh. Supervision: Mehran Seif Farshad , Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh. Visualisation: Omid Akbarzadeh. Writing \u0026ndash; original draft: Omid Akbarzadeh, Roghayye Rasouli. Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing: Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh, Omid Akbarzadeh.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgment\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The authors thank Tabriz University of Medical Sciences for its support and the occupational health professionals who participated in the study..\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYazdani, N. and H.S. Murad, \u003cem\u003eToward an ethical theory of organizing.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. \u003cstrong\u003e127\u003c/strong\u003e(2): p. 399\u0026ndash;417.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandler, D., \u003cem\u003eOrganizational susceptibility to institutional complexity: Critical events driving the adoption and implementation of the ethics and compliance officer position.\u003c/em\u003e Organization Science, 2014. \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 1722\u0026ndash;1743.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLukhele, T.M., B. Botha, and S. Mbanga, \u003cem\u003eExploring the nexus between professional ethics and occupational health and safety in construction projects: A case study approach.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Construction Management, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e(12): p. 2048\u0026ndash;2057.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaal, N.C., \u003cem\u003eOccupational and Environmental Health and Safety Professional Ethics.\u003c/em\u003e Safety \u0026amp; Emergency Services Journal, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKvamme, O.A., \u003cem\u003eProfessional Ethics, Loyalties and Interpretative Space.\u003c/em\u003e Human Arenas, 2024: p. 1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiyono, B., S. Hartati, and F. Fatdina, \u003cem\u003eQuality of work life (QWL) from psychological perspective and the development of its measurement.\u003c/em\u003e Jurnal Psikologi, 2022. \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 87\u0026ndash;103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaeissi, P., et al., \u003cem\u003eQuality of work life and factors associated with it among nurses in public hospitals, Iran.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e94\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNayak, T., C.K. Sahoo, and P.K. Mohanty, \u003cem\u003eWorkplace empowerment, quality of work life and employee commitment: a study on Indian healthcare sector.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Asia Business Studies, 2018. \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e(2): p. 117\u0026ndash;136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeng, Z., et al., \u003cem\u003ePsychological resilience and work engagement of Chinese nurses: a chain mediating model of career identity and quality of work life.\u003c/em\u003e Frontiers in Psychology, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 1275511.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhanian, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eInvestigating the correlation between organizational ethics and professional ethics with job burnout and organizational commitment: a cross-sectional study in the nursing staff.\u003c/em\u003e BMC nursing, 2024. \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 560.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBabamohamadi, H., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe association between workload and quality of work life of nurses taking care of patients with COVID-19.\u003c/em\u003e BMC nursing, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdams, T.L., et al., \u003cem\u003eRegulating professional ethics in a context of technological change.\u003c/em\u003e BMC Medical Ethics, 2024. \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNikolaidis, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe moral limits of professional ethics enculturation.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Ethics Education, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 133\u0026ndash;154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDejean, C., et al., \u003cem\u003eProfessional ethics in the French medical physicist community: Survey results and implications.\u003c/em\u003e Physica Medica, 2024. \u003cstrong\u003e123\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 103416.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsadi, Y., et al., \u003cem\u003eInvestigating the relationship between resilience and professional ethics in nurses: a cross-sectional study in southern Iran.\u003c/em\u003e BMC nursing, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 409.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOMIDI, N., H. ASGARI, and M.R. OMIDI, \u003cem\u003eThe relationship between professional ethics and the efficiency of the nurses employed in Imam Hospital and Mostafa Khomeini Hospital in Ilam.\u003c/em\u003e 2016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRazavi, S.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eEvaluation of dentists\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards principles of Professional Ethics.\u003c/em\u003e International dental journal, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e73\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 580\u0026ndash;586.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrande, R.A.N., et al., \u003cem\u003eNurses\u0026apos; professional values and competency in Saudi Arabia: A structural equation modelling approach.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e32\u003c/strong\u003e(15-16): p. 4741\u0026ndash;4751.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaydeniz, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eOrganizational characteristics, ethical leadership, and employee job performance: An investigation from the lenses of appraisal responses to the behavioral outcomes model.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e130\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 104257.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSha, C.-c., L. Wang, and X.-l. Pan, \u003cem\u003eEffect of ethical leadership on unethical deviant behavior of employees in state-owned enterprises: based on cognitive-affective system theory.\u003c/em\u003e Current Psychology, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e44\u003c/strong\u003e(10): p. 8823\u0026ndash;8835.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBates, J., J.M. Beus, and S. Parkinson, \u003cem\u003eContextualizing ethical climate: Examining contextual moderators of the connection between ethical climate perceptions and ethical behavior.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Business Ethics, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e196\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 129\u0026ndash;148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, L.J., \u003cem\u003eDecomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011. \u003cstrong\u003e96\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMadsen, C.U., P. Hasle, and H.J. Limborg, \u003cem\u003eProfessionals without a profession: Occupational safety and health professionals in Denmark.\u003c/em\u003e Safety Science, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e113\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 356\u0026ndash;361.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarstedt, M., C.M. Ringle, and J.F. Hair, \u003cem\u003ePartial least squares structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003eHandbook of market research\u003c/em\u003e. 2021, Springer. p. 587\u0026ndash;632.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRingle, C.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eA perspective on using partial least squares structural equation modelling in data articles.\u003c/em\u003e Data in brief, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 109074.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohammed, I.S., et al., \u003cem\u003eWork engagement: the key driver in transforming organizational commitment into enhanced work performance among midwives in Ghana-a structural equation modelling approach.\u003c/em\u003e BMC Health Services Research, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 840.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad, R., et al., \u003cem\u003eSocial exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions.\u003c/em\u003e Frontiers in psychology, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 1015921.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCook, K.S., et al., \u003cem\u003eSocial exchange theory\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003eHandbook of social psychology\u003c/em\u003e. 2013, Springer. p. 61\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJha, J.K. and M. Singh, \u003cem\u003eWho cares about ethical practices at workplace? A taxonomy of employees\u0026rsquo; unethical conduct from top management perspective.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e(2): p. 317\u0026ndash;339.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNayak, T. and C.K. Sahoo, \u003cem\u003eQuality of work life and organizational performance: The mediating role of employee commitment.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Health management, 2015. \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 263\u0026ndash;273.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReader, T.W., et al., \u003cem\u003eOrganizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship.\u003c/em\u003e Human relations, 2017. \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 362\u0026ndash;385.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogo\u0026scaron;ić, A. and I. Perica, \u003cem\u003eAffective professional commitment and accounting ethics principles: examining the mediating role of the code of ethics.\u003c/em\u003e Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e36\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 480\u0026ndash;498.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMehra, H. and M. Narwal, \u003cem\u003eImpact of ethical leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; ethical behavior: mediation of ethical climate using PLS-SEM.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkter, S., S. Fosso Wamba, and S. Dewan, \u003cem\u003eWhy PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality.\u003c/em\u003e Production Planning \u0026amp; Control, 2017. \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e(11-12): p. 1011\u0026ndash;1021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair Jr, J.F., et al., \u003cem\u003eAn introduction to structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003ePartial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook\u003c/em\u003e. 2021, Springer. p. 1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarstedt, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eStructural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM.\u003c/em\u003e Tourism Economics, 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 531\u0026ndash;554.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBashir, H., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe impact of ethical leadership on employee intrapreneurship, work\u0026ndash;life balance, and psychological empowerment: A PLS-SEM analysis\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003eState of the Art in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Methodological Extensions and Applications in the Social Sciences and Beyond\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, Springer. p. 353\u0026ndash;374.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakhshi, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eAssessment of quality of work life and factors related to it based on the walton\u0026apos;s model: a cross-sectional study in employment of health and treatment sectors in Islamabad City.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Health in the Field, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 12\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShamsi-Gooshki, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eDeveloping\u0026quot; code of ethics for medical professionals, medical council of Islamic Republic of Iran\u0026quot;.\u003c/em\u003e Archives of Iranian Medicine, 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e(10): p. 658\u0026ndash;664.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKock, N., \u003cem\u003eHarman\u0026rsquo;s single factor test in PLS-SEM: Checking for common method bias.\u003c/em\u003e Data Analysis Perspectives Journal, 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e(2): p. 1\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., et al., \u003cem\u003eSocial exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies.\u003c/em\u003e Academy of management annals, 2017. \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 479\u0026ndash;516.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChernyak-Hai, L. and E. Rabenu, \u003cem\u003eThe new era workplace relationships: is social exchange theory still relevant?\u003c/em\u003e Industrial and organizational psychology, 2018. \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 456\u0026ndash;481.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeckman, J.J. and C.O. Corbin, \u003cem\u003eCapabilities and skills.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of human development and capabilities, 2016. \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 342\u0026ndash;359.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofmann, E., E. Hoelzl, and E. Kirchler. \u003cem\u003eEthical investment: How do moral considerations influence investment behaviour?\u003c/em\u003e in \u003cem\u003e30th Annual Congress JAREP. Prague, Czech Republic\u003c/em\u003e. 2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, M.-Y., et al. \u003cem\u003eThe moderating role of psychological safety in the relationship between job embeddedness, organizational commitment, and retention intention among home care attendants in Taiwan\u003c/em\u003e. in \u003cem\u003eHealthcare\u003c/em\u003e. 2023. MDPI.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZapata, C.P., J.E. Olsen, and L.L. Martins, \u003cem\u003eSocial exchange from the supervisor\u0026rsquo;s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice.\u003c/em\u003e Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2013. \u003cstrong\u003e121\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, N., \u003cem\u003eThe influencing outcomes of job engagement: an interpretation from the social exchange theory.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2018. \u003cstrong\u003e67\u003c/strong\u003e(5): p. 873\u0026ndash;889.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsai, M.-T. and N.-C. Cheng, \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding knowledge sharing between IT professionals\u0026ndash;an integration of social cognitive and social exchange theory.\u003c/em\u003e Behaviour \u0026amp; information technology, 2012. \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e(11): p. 1069\u0026ndash;1080.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R. and M.S. Mitchell, \u003cem\u003eSocial exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of management, 2005. \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 874\u0026ndash;900.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMixafenti, S., A. Karagkouni, and D. Dimitriou, \u003cem\u003eIntegrating Business Ethics into Occupational Health and Safety: An Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Risk Management.\u003c/em\u003e Sustainability, 2025. \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e(10): p. 4370.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaya, A., M.V. D\u0026uuml;zg\u0026uuml;n, and İ. Boz, \u003cem\u003eThe relationship between professional values, ethical sensitivities and caring behaviors among nursing students: A structural equation modeling approach.\u003c/em\u003e Nurse education in practice, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 103676.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKazemi, A., et al., \u003cem\u003eAnalysis of Factors Affecting Work Ethics, Using Structural Equation Modeling.\u003c/em\u003e Management and Development Process, 2015. \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 47\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGignac, G.E. and E.T. Szodorai, \u003cem\u003eEffect size guidelines for individual differences researchers.\u003c/em\u003e Personality and individual differences, 2016. \u003cstrong\u003e102\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 74\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDing, B. and T. Miao. \u003cem\u003eThe moderating effects of social responsibility climate and safety climate in keeping healthcare workers\u0026rsquo; engagement during COVID-19\u003c/em\u003e. in \u003cem\u003eHealthcare\u003c/em\u003e. 2023. MDPI.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDehghani, A., L. Mosalanejad, and N. Dehghan-Nayeri, \u003cem\u003eFactors affecting professional ethics in nursing practice in Iran: a qualitative study.\u003c/em\u003e BMC medical ethics, 2015. \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzadarmaki, T. and M. Bahar, \u003cem\u003eFamilies in Iran: Changes, challenges and future.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 2006. \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 589\u0026ndash;608.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, H. and H. Joo, \u003cem\u003eThe relationships among career maturity, motivation, and self‐regulation: a longitudinal study.\u003c/em\u003e The Career Development Quarterly, 2022. \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 215\u0026ndash;228.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Professional Ethics, Quality of Work Life, Occupational Health Professionals, Social Exchange Theory, Workplace Ethics","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the increasing complexity of ethical challenges in occupational health settings, limited attention has been paid to the ethical conduct of occupational health professionals themselves. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics among occupational health professionals, using Social Exchange Theory as the guiding framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 200 occupational health practitioners in East Azerbaijan. Data were analysed using SPSS and SmartPLS, involving Pearson correlation, t-tests, ANOVA, and structural equation modelling. Measurement models were validated for reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and common method bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings revealed a statistically significant and moderate positive correlation between Quality of Work Life and professional ethics (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.330, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Among Quality of Work Life dimensions, Human Capabilities Development, Safe Work Environment, and Social Integration were most strongly associated with ethical constructs such as responsibility and autonomy. Education level and work experience also showed significant predictive value, while income and gender did not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnhancing Quality of Work Life can serve as a catalyst for improving ethical standards in occupational health practice. The study underscores the need for institutional investments in developmental and relational aspects of work to strengthen moral responsibility. These findings are especially relevant for policymaking in developing countries where ethical conduct is central to workplace safety and public health credibility.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Quality of Work Life and Ethical Behaviour Among Occupational Health Professionals: A Social Exchange Theory Perspective","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-18 17:35:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326729/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-19T06:08:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-22T19:07:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-18T04:36:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-14T09:46:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"27877907063713228984696418572707065407","date":"2025-10-09T06:10:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"301184883372193247368512711261826219148","date":"2025-10-08T06:38:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"98140572602196426133430562645948609853","date":"2025-10-06T21:53:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-11T19:46:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T20:15:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T01:56:46+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T01:56:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-08-08T11:11:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7d8d1aa4-538e-42b1-9db7-e42141319d4e","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-29T08:54:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-18 17:35:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7326729","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7326729","identity":"rs-7326729","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}