The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Family Function: A study in Thai pharmacists working in pharmaceutical companies

The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Family Function: A study in Thai pharmacists working in pharmaceutical companies | 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 The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Family Function: A study in Thai pharmacists working in pharmaceutical companies Watcharasarn Rattananan, MD, MBA This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Job satisfaction is a key factor in organizational behaviour and human resource management (HRM), yet some influencing factors remain underexplored. While psychological well-being and job burnout have been linked to family function, little is known about the direct relationship between job satisfaction and family function. This study investigates the relationship, focusing on affective aspects, using a cross-sectional analytic design and self-reported data. Job satisfaction and family function were measured using the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and Family APGAR scores, respectively. Data were collected online from 156 participants, a highly educated group. The average BIAJS score was 3.58 (out of 5), while the Family APGAR score averaged 13.91 (out of 20). A weakly-positive correlation was found between job satisfaction and family function (r = 0.301; p < 0.01), but no significant correlations between individual facets were observed. Subgroup analysis showed no demographic or job-related factors significantly influenced the correlation. Interestingly, subjects with dysfunctional families exhibited negative correlations between job satisfaction and family function. These findings highlight the subtle relationship between job satisfaction and family function, providing insights for HRM and organizational behaviour. Future studies should further investigate this relationship to deepen understanding and inform practice. Other Business employee well-being Human Resource Management Employee Relations Family APGAR family dysfunction Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction In today’s competitive business environment, employee job satisfaction has emerged as a critical element of organizational success. Managers increasingly rely on behavioral science insights to understand and enhance job satisfaction. Previous studies have linked psychological well-being (PWB) to job satisfaction, suggesting that personal life factors, perhaps including family dynamics, may play a role. However, limited research has directly examined the relationship between job satisfaction and family function. Family function, a core component of personal life, refers to the processes through which family members support each other emotionally and function as a cohesive unit. Dysfunctional family dynamics can affect psychological well-being, which in turn influences work performance and satisfaction. By exploring the direct association between job satisfaction and family function, this study contributes to understanding the broader context of employee well-being and its implications for organizational behavior. Specifically, the study focuses on Thai pharmacists, a critical workforce group in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. 2. Backgrounds 2.1 Job Satisfaction The concept of job satisfaction encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions and interpretations. Locke ( 1976 ) characterized job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience,” a widely recognized and enduring definition. Steers ( 1991 ) aligned with this perspective, describing job satisfaction as an attitude towards one’s job, influenced by an individual’s expectations, stemming from both internal and external dimensions. Internal factors, such as enjoyment derived from the work itself or from interactions with colleagues, and external factors, such as compensation, rewards, and opportunities for promotion, contribute to job satisfaction. There were several ways to assess job satisfaction. These included assessing emotional reaction to the job, satisfaction about compensation (e.g. salary), and attitudes toward various other dimensions (Luthans, 1997 ). Job satisfaction could be viewed as a global picture showing if an individual liked his/her job as a whole; however, it could alternatively be assessed deeper into several different facets (Spector, 1997 ). Recent advancements in theory have shifted toward psychological models to elucidate employees’ responses to their work environments. The ‘three-component’ model proposed by Hulin and Judge ( 2003 ) and Jex ( 2002 ) integrates affect, cognition, and behavior, offering a more comprehensive framework to analyze job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has often been dissected into internal and external components. Hackman and Oldman (1975) identified two primary facets: context satisfaction and affective satisfaction, a view corroborated by Arvey et al. ( 1989 ), who emphasized intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intriguingly, individuals may demonstrate similar satisfaction levels across different jobs irrespective of job characteristics, suggesting that job satisfaction is significantly influenced by personal background and experiences (Arvey et al., 1989 ; Vecchio, 1991 ). Additionally, satisfaction levels may vary between job components, reflecting employees’ unique interactions and personal histories (Greenberg & Baron, 1993 ). Several demographic variables influence job satisfaction, albeit with varying degrees of consistency. It was believed that men tended to have higher satisfaction levels than women; however, this difference diminished when controlling for factors such as education and income ( Lefkowitz, 1994 ) . Age, another critical variable, displayed conflicting trends: some studies suggested a linear increase in job satisfaction with age (McKenna, 2000 ), while others reported a U-shaped trajectory (Clark, Oswald & Warr, 1996 ). The array of factors affecting job satisfaction extends beyond demographics to organizational and interpersonal dimensions. Variables such as appreciation, communication, relationships with coworkers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of work, organizational culture, growth opportunities, policies, promotion, recognition, job security, and supervisory support have been extensively documented as influencing satisfaction levels (Spector, 1997 ). Psychological models, particularly those focusing on affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, seems to well explain human behaviour (Jex, 2002 ). Many authors use the terms “affect” and “emotion” interchangeably, referring to internal feeling of employee toward job. Unsurprisingly, previous studies have shown connection between employees’ emotion and job satisfaction (Cote and Morgan, 2002 ; Fisher, 2000 ). This relationship appears to be more robust compared to associations with cognitive or behavioral dimensions. Many self-reported questionnaires measuring job satisfaction depend heavily on the affective component. A good example among those questionnaires is the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) which is overtly affective based (Thompson and Phua, 2012 ). Numerous instruments have been developed to measure job satisfaction, reflecting its multifaceted nature. Notable examples include the Faces Scales, Job Descriptive Index (JDI), Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ), Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ), and the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS). The Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955 ), one of the earliest tools, measures overall job satisfaction with a single-item visual format, making it accessible for low-literacy populations. The JDI (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969 ) adopts a multi-dimensional approach, evaluating five aspects, primarily targeting cognitive dimensions of satisfaction. The JSS (Spector, 1985 ) extends this framework, incorporating 36 items across nine facets. In similar fashion, the MSQ, available in both long and short forms, evaluates 20 dimensions, offering broad applicability across diverse contexts. Specialized tools, such as the PSQ (Heneman & Schwab, 1985 ) and TJSQ (Lester, 1987 ), cater to specific occupational groups or facets, focusing on pay satisfaction and teacher satisfaction, respectively. These instruments highlight the diversity in measuring tools tailored to particular organizational or professional environments. Among these, the BIAJS stands out as a concise, affective-focused measure. The BIAJS includes four items, evaluating employees’ emotional responses to their jobs, with acceptable content validity, internal consistency reliability (ranging between 0.81–0.87), temporal stability, and cross-population invariance. Its design reflects an emphasis on affective satisfaction while requiring minimal cognitive input, a feature that aligns with its intent to provide a brief, yet robust, measurement tool (Thompson & Phua, 2012 ). Given the practical implications of these measures, particularly the BIAJS, which balances brevity and reliability, organizations can effectively use these tools to assess and enhance job satisfaction across diverse workforces. By leveraging instruments like the BIAJS alongside comprehensive tools such as the Family APGAR, researchers can derive meaningful insights into employee well-being and organizational dynamics. 2.2 Family Function The family is considered the smallest social unit within a community. Changes at the family level often cascade, influencing broader societal dynamics, while community and social factors reciprocally shape family adaptation and transformation. Walsh ( 1993 ) described a ‘normal family’ as one that functions effectively, encompassing physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions. Families with proper functionality foster growth and self-fulfillment among their members, although these characteristics are subject to variation based on internal and external factors such as family life cycle, sociocultural influences, and stressors. The concept of ‘family function’ is diverse and explained through various theoretical models, for instance, the McMaster Model of Family Function (MMFF), Circumflex Model of Marital and Family Systems, Beavers System Model, and the Family APGAR model. Each model offers a different perspective on family functionality. The McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF) identifies six key dimensions of family functioning: problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, and behavior control (Walsh, 1993 ). In contrast, the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems emphasizes three primary aspects: cohesion, adaptability, and communication (Olson, 1989 ). The Beavers System Model divides family function into ‘Competence’, reflecting the family’s management ability, and ‘Style’, referring to interaction patterns between members. Interaction styles are categorized as centripetal (inward) or centrifugal (outward), with flexible adjustment being a hallmark of functional families (Beavers, Hampson & Hulgus, 1985 ). Variability in style has been linked to ethnicity (Hampson, Beavers & Hulgus, 1990 ) and income, with low-income families demonstrating centripetal tendencies and high-income families exhibiting centrifugal styles (Hampson, Beavers & Hulgus, 1989 ). The Family APGAR model, introduced by Smilkstein ( 1978 ), identifies five independent dimensions contributing to overall family function: Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve. The model’s name derives from the first letters of these dimensions, inspired by the well-known neonatal APGAR score (Apgar, 1973 ). The Family APGAR framework is particularly notable for its simplicity and applicability across diverse populations. Family function can be assessed through in-depth interviews, observations, and structured or self-reported tools. Examples of structured tools include the McMaster Structured Interview of Family Functioning (McSIFF), while self-reported tools include the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), Family Assessment Device (FAD), Family Function Index (FFI), and Family APGAR questionnaire. Family members often report varying levels of family function, with adolescents tending to score lower than parents (Sawyer et al., 1988 ). The MMFF, though detailed, is complex and costly, making it less practical for routine use (Bishop et al., 1984 ). In contrast, the Family APGAR questionnaire is widely regarded for its low complexity, minimal training requirements, and adaptability to various populations. These characteristics closely correspond to those of the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and support the selection of the Family APGAR questionnaire as the preferred screening tool for assessing family dysfunction in certain clinical practices. The Family APGAR questionnaire comprises five self-reported items, each corresponding to a dimension of family function. Respondents rate the frequency of specific experiences on a scale from 0 to 2, yielding total scores ranging from 0 to 10. Scores are interpreted as follows: 8–10 (highly functional), 4–7 (moderately dysfunctional), and 0–3 (dysfunctional; Smilkstein, Ashworth & Montano, 1982 ). Its reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.80) and validity (correlation with FFI = 0.80) have been substantiated (Good et al., 1979 ). Extended response scales (e.g., five-option Likert) enhance reliability while retaining comparable interpretability (Cano et al., 2003 ). The questionnaire has been translated into multiple languages, demonstrating cross-cultural applicability. For instance, the Chinese version showed a test-retest reliability of 0.83 among Taiwanese populations aged 10 years and older (Chen et al., 1980 ). The Thai version yielded comparable results, with an average score of 7.53 and Cronbach’s α of 0.73, and demonstrated associations between family function and socioeconomic status (Rattananan, 2005 ). Similarly, Spanish and Peruvian studies have validated the Family APGAR’s utility in diverse populations (Bellón Saameño et al., 1996; Castilla et al., 2014 ; Gomez and Ponce, 2010). However, criticism of the Family APGAR has focused on its limited sensitivity compared to more comprehensive tools or in-depth interviews (Gwyther et al., 1993 ; Smucker et al., 1995 ). Therefore, some experts recommended to use the questionnaire as a supplementary tool, added on to other standard measurement (Hilliard, Gjerde & Parker, 1986 ). 2.3 Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Family Function Existing literature highlights the influence of psychological well-being (PWB) and life satisfaction on job satisfaction, yet the direct relationship between family function and job satisfaction remains underexplored. PWB, defined by Wright and Cropanzano ( 2000 ) as “the overall effectiveness of an individual’s psychological functioning,” encompasses critical aspects of life such as work, family, and community. Their studies demonstrated significant correlations between PWB and job satisfaction, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.30 to 0.35 (p < 0.01) (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000 ; Wright, Cropanzano & Bonett, 2007 ). Additional research has identified PWB as a predictor of both job satisfaction and job performance, underscoring its role in workplace outcomes (Robertson, Jansen Birch & Cooper, 2012 ). The reciprocal effects of job dynamics on family function have also been examined, particularly concerning burnout. Doostian, Maleki, and Doostian ( 2015 ) found a significant inverse relationship between job burnout and family functioning. In addition, job satisfaction’s correlation with life satisfaction is documented. Rain, Lane, and Steiner ( 1991 ) reported that individuals satisfied with their jobs are more likely to experience overall life satisfaction and vice versa, though this relationship is inherently multifactorial and complex. It can be inferred that individuals from families with strong functionality are likely to exhibit higher PWB, which in turn may positively influence job satisfaction. Despite these theoretical connections, the direct association between family function and job satisfaction remains untested in the literature. Furthermore, the potential relationships between specific components of family function and job satisfaction warrant deeper investigation. 3. Methods 3.1 Study Design and Participants This study employs a cross-sectional analytic design to investigate the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function, along with their respective components. The target population comprises pharmacists employed in Thailand, with a primary focus on those working in international pharmaceutical companies. However, pharmacists from domestic companies and organizations of varying sizes are also included. Participants are required to have sufficient proficiency in English to complete the self-reported questionnaire. This population was chosen based on its high educational level, ensuring the ability to comprehend and accurately respond to the research tool. The sample size was calculated using a standard formula for interval-scale data, assuming an unknown total population. For the Family APGAR questionnaire (five-option Likert scale), prior research reported a standard deviation (SD) of 5.09 (Cano et al., 2003 ). With a 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96) and a margin of error (e) of 1, the calculated sample size was 99.53 participants. Similarly, for the BIAJS questionnaire, an SD of 0.60 was reported (Thompson & Phua, 2012 ). Using a margin of error of 0.12, the required sample size was 96.04 participants. To ensure robust data collection, the study targeted a minimum of 100 participants, with additional efforts to maximize response rates. 3.2 Measures The study utilized a composite self-reported questionnaire combining the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and the Family APGAR. These tools were selected for their alignment with the study’s focus on affective psychological dimensions and their demonstrated reliability across diverse populations and contexts. The combined instrument, referred to as “BIAJS-FAPGAR,” comprises nine items: four from the BIAJS, which measure affective job satisfaction, and five from the Family APGAR, assessing family function. The BIAJS uses a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), with total scores ranging from 4 to 20. The Family APGAR employs a five-point Likert scale (0 = Never to 4 = Always), with total scores ranging from 0 to 20. To optimize the flow of responses, BIAJS items were placed before Family APGAR items, minimizing cognitive load on participants by addressing affective responses first. Demographic and personal data were collected in separate sections of the questionnaire, alongside screening questions, informed consent, and optional open-text input. 3.3 Data Collection The questionnaire was distributed through electronic means, utilizing a secure and reliable online survey platform. Participants were invited via multiple channels, including professional associations, alumni networks, and social media, ensuring a diverse and representative sample. The invitations included detailed study information and instructions for accessing the survey. Respondents were required to provide informed consent before participating. To ensure data integrity, only responses with completed BIAJS and Family APGAR sections were included in the analysis. The survey design prioritized participant convenience, allowing completion in approximately five minutes. Ethical considerations were addressed. Rigorous data security measures were implemented to safeguard participant anonymity and confidentiality. The survey platform was chosen for its robust privacy protections, and data were stored securely, accessible only to the researcher. 3.4 Data Analysis The data were categorized into three groups: (1) demographic and personal information, (2) job satisfaction scores, and (3) family function scores. Descriptive statistics, including percentages, means, medians, and standard deviations, were used to summarize the data. Graphical representations supplemented the statistical summaries for clarity. Inferential analyses were performed to evaluate relationships between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients (‘r’) and p-values were calculated to determine the strength and significance of associations between job satisfaction and family function scores. Subgroup analyses were conducted where relevant to identify additional patterns or insights within specific demographic or job-related factors. Statistical analyses were conducted using offline and online data analysis software to ensure accuracy. 4. Results and Analysis 4.1 Participant Characteristics This study included 156 eligible participants, comprising pharmacists employed across various sectors of the Thai pharmaceutical industry. Most participants (88%) were employed full-time, with the remainder working part-time (9%) or reporting past employment in the pharmaceutical industry (3%). Job tenure varied significantly, ranging from less than one year to over a decade, with some participants having prior experience in healthcare settings such as hospitals or government agencies. Participants represented a broad spectrum of job levels: 20% held senior managerial or higher positions, 31% were middle managers, and 45% were at intermediate or entry-level roles. A small number (4%) self-identified as “other” job levels, with roles subsequently categorized based on free-text descriptions where possible. The distribution of monthly incomes was skewed, with a median income of 60,000–69,999 Thai Baht (THB) and 31% earning 100,000 THB or more. Regarding family demographics, most participants were single (57%), followed by those married or in domestic partnerships (37%) with approximately 7% widowed, divorced, or separated. Household sizes ranged from one to six or more members, with three- to four-person households being the most common. Compared to previous studies of the general population in Thailand (Rattananan, 2005 ), participants in this study were more likely to be single and have smaller households. These characteristics reflect the social and professional dynamics of a highly educated workforce and align with the study’s focus on pharmacists. 4.2 Correlation Between Job Satisfaction and Family Function Job satisfaction, as measured by the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS), had an average score of 3.58 out of 5, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.73 (Fig. 1). Family function, assessed using the Family APGAR, yielded an average score of 13.91 out of 20, with SD of 4.12 (Fig. 2). Both measures demonstrated internal consistency, with inter-item correlations ranging from 0.49–0.69 for BIAJS and 0.45–0.69 for Family APGAR. The primary analysis revealed a weakly positive correlation (r = 0.301, p < 0.01) between job satisfaction and family function scores (Fig. 3; Table 1). This finding aligns with prior research linking psychological well-being (PWB) to job satisfaction, where similar correlation coefficients (r = 0.30–0.35) have been reported (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000 ; Wright, Cropanzano & Bonett, 2007 ). Based on the existing evidence, we conclude that the correlation between job satisfaction and family function falls within the ‘weakly positive’ range, comparable in magnitude to the correlation observed between job satisfaction and PWB. While both family function and PWB appear to be interconnected, the precise nature of their relationship remains unclear. It is uncertain whether family function directly influences job satisfaction, exerts its effects indirectly through PWB, or operates via a combination of these pathways. Nonetheless, the comparable strength of the correlations between job satisfaction and these two variables suggests that family function and PWB warrant equal consideration in certain contexts. 4.3 Subgroup Analyses To further explore the relationship between job satisfaction and family function, subgroup analyses were conducted based on demographic, job-related characteristics, and family pathology. These analyses revealed several notable trends: Gender and Age: Both male (r = 0.414) and female (r = 0.306) participants exhibited weakly positive correlations, with slightly stronger associations observed in males. Across age groups, correlations ranged from r = 0.276 in the youngest cohort (21–29 years) to r = 0.337 in participants aged 40 and above. While the correlation appeared to strengthen with age, the differences were not statistically significant. Educational Attainment, Employment Status and Experience: Participants with postgraduate degrees demonstrated a higher correlation (r = 0.435) compared to those with bachelor’s degrees (r = 0.201). This suggests that higher educational attainment may enhance the alignment between perceptions of job satisfaction and family function. Part-time workers exhibited a stronger correlation (r = 0.458) than their full-time counterparts (r = 0.270), possibly reflecting the impact of work-life pattern on the interplay between job satisfaction and family dynamics. However, as these correlations remain within the ‘weak’ range, their practical implications may be limited. Of note, monthly income had no discernible effect on the correlation. Family Dysfunction: Participants with Family APGAR scores below 7, indicating family dysfunction, demonstrated negative correlations between overall scores and specific components of family function and job satisfaction (Table 2). Among these nine participants, all exhibited a score of zero in at least one Family APGAR component, with ‘Affection’ being the most commonly deficient aspect (n = 8). However, the small sample size of this subgroup (n = 9) necessitates cautious interpretation of these findings. 5. Discussion 5.1 Theoretical Implications The study provides novel insights into the interplay between affective job satisfaction and family function, contributing to the broader organizational behavior literature. The observed weakly positive correlation (r = 0.301) between these variables highlights the relevance of family dynamics in shaping employees' psychological experiences in the workplace. These findings extend prior research on psychological well-being (PWB) and its connection to job satisfaction, suggesting that family function, as a discrete construct, also plays a role. Importantly, this study is among the first to quantitatively assess the association between family function and job satisfaction using validated tools, specifically the Family APGAR and BIAJS questionnaires. The findings signal that while the overall correlation is weak, family function may hold particular significance for certain subgroups, such as employees experiencing ‘family dysfunction’. These results pave the way for future investigations into the nuanced pathways by which family and work domains interact. The exceptionality of the family dysfunction subgroup, which exhibited negative correlations between some Family APGAR components and job satisfaction, warrants further theoretical exploration. This phenomenon suggests a compensatory mechanism where employees with deficient family support may place disproportionate value on their professional roles. Understanding such dynamics can enhance theoretical models of work-life interaction, emphasizing the dual influences of personal and professional spheres on employee outcomes. 5.2 Implications for Practice From an organizational behavior (OB), employee relations (ER), and human resource management (HRM) perspective, these findings offer meaningful insights for managing employee well-being. Although the correlation between job satisfaction and family function is weak, it highlights the interconnectedness of employees’ personal and professional lives. Managers should consider family-related factors as part of a holistic approach to understanding employee behavior, engagement, and performance. Incorporating family function assessments into well-being initiatives (using tools such as the BIAJS, Family APGAR, or their combination) could be beneficial during routine job satisfaction surveys, performance evaluations, or counseling sessions. Such assessments can help identify employees requiring additional support to address work-life challenges. Special attention should be directed toward employees experiencing family dysfunction, as evidenced by the distinct patterns observed in this subgroup. Proactive measures, such as access to psychological counseling, flexible work arrangements, and family-oriented benefits, could mitigate the adverse effects of family challenges on job satisfaction and performance. Additionally, raising awareness among managers about the potential impact of family dynamics can enhance their ability to provide effective support. Organizations may also consider broader family-related factors, such as socioeconomic status and family resources, which influence family function. Tailoring employee support programs to address these underlying factors can further enhance their effectiveness. 5.3 Limitations and Future Research While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function, certain limitations should be acknowledged. These limitations, however, do not diminish the importance of the findings but rather highlight opportunities for further exploration and refinement in future research. One among limitations is the relatively small sample size (n = 156). While sufficient for detecting the observed correlations, a larger sample would enhance statistical power, reduce the margin of error, and allow for more robust subgroup analyses. Future studies with larger and more diverse populations can help to confirm these findings and explore issues beyond the scope of this research. The reliance on voluntary participation through online surveys may have introduced selection bias, as participants were limited to those with internet access and technological proficiency. Although this approach aligns well with the targeted population of pharmacists in the pharmaceutical industry, broader sampling methods, such as stratified or randomized sampling, could improve generalizability in future research. Incorporating offline or hybrid data collection methods could also reduce potential exclusion of less technologically inclined participants. Another consideration is the use of self-reported questionnaires as the primary data collection tool. While the BIAJS and Family APGAR are validated instruments, self-reported data can be subject to biases such as social desirability or inaccuracies in self-perception. Future research could complement self-reported measures with other data sources, such as peer assessments, supervisor evaluations, or objective performance metrics, to strengthen the validity of the findings. The cross-sectional design of this study, while efficient for identifying associations, does not allow for causal inferences. Longitudinal research would be instrumental in uncovering the directionality and temporal dynamics of the relationship between job satisfaction and family function. Additionally, experimental studies exploring interventions, such as workplace policies or family-oriented benefits, could provide insights into causal mechanisms and practical solutions. Despite these limitations, this study represents a foundational contribution to understanding the interplay between job satisfaction and family function. By addressing these limitations in future research, scholars can build on these findings to develop more comprehensive models and practical applications for improving employee well-being and organizational outcomes. 6. Conclusion This study highlights the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function through a quantitative approach, providing valuable insights into organizational behavior and human resource management. The findings underscore the importance of considering employees' family dynamics, as they can significantly influence workplace experiences and satisfaction. These results advocate for organizations to implement strategies that integrate family-oriented support, fostering both employee well-being and enhanced performance. Additionally, this research lays the foundation for further exploration of the intersection between job satisfaction and family function. By examining how family dynamics shape workplace outcomes, the study offers both theoretical advancements and practical guidance for organizations seeking to enhance employee well-being and productivity. Future research is encouraged to build on these insights, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between personal and professional domains. References Apgar, V. (1973). A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Current Res Anesth Analg, 32, pp.260. Arvey, R., Bouchard, T., Segal, N. and Abraham, L. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), pp.187-192. Beavers, W., Hampson, R. and Hulgus, Y. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24(3), pp.398-405. Bellon Saameno A., Delgado Sanchez A., Luna del Castillo D. and Lardelli Charet P. (1996). [Validity and reliability of the family APGAR family function test] [Article in Spanish]. Aten Primaria, 18(6), pp.289 – 96. Bishop, D., Epstein, N., Gilbert, R., van der Spuy, H., Levin, S. and McClemont, S. (1984). Training family physicians to treat families: Unexpected compliance problems. Family Systems Medicine, 2(4), pp.380-386. Cano, A., Scaturo, I., Sprafkin P., Lantinga, J., Fiese, H. and Brand, F. (2003). Family Support, Self – Rated Health and Psychological Distress. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry, 5(3), pp.111 – 7. Castilla, H., Caycho, T., Shimabukuro, M. and Valdivia, A. (2014). Perception of family functioning: psychometric analysis of Family APGAR Scale in adolescents in Lima. Propósitos y Representaciones, 2(1), pp.65-78. Chen Y.C., Chen C.C., Hsu H. and Lin C. (1980). A Preliminary study of family APGAR Index. Acta Paediatr Sinica, 21, pp.210. Clark, A., Oswald, A. and Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), pp.57-81. Cote, S. and Morgan, L. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), pp.947-962. Doostian, R., Maleki, Y. and Doostian, Y. (2015). The relationship between burnout and family functions and the moral and ethical aspects of banking executives. Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology, 3(2), pp.411-8. Fisher, C. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), pp.185-202. Gómez, F. and Ponce, R. (2010). Una nueva propuesta para la interpretación de Family APGAR (versión en español). Revista Atención Familiar, 17 (4), 102-106. Good, D., Smilkstein, G., Good, J., Shaffer, T. and Arons, T. (1979). The Family APGAR index: A study of construct validity. J Fam Pract, 8, pp.577 – 82. Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. (1993). Behavior in organizations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gwyther, E., Bentz, J., Drossman, A. and Berolzheimer, N. (1993). Validity of the family APGAR in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Fam Med, 25(1), pp.21 – 5. Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), pp.159-170. Hampson, R., Beavers, W. and Hulgus, Y. (1989). Insiders' and outsiders' views of family: The assessment of family competence and style. Journal of Family Psychology, 3(2), pp.118-136. Hampson, R., Beavers, W. and Hulgus, Y. (1990). Cross-ethnic family differences: Interactional assessment of White, Black, and Mexican-American families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16(3), pp.307-319. Heneman, H. and Schwab, D. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(1), pp.129-141. Hilliard R, Gjerde C, Parker L. (1986). Validity of two psychological screening measures in family practice: Personal inventory and family APGAR. J Fam Pract, 23(4), pp.345 – 9. Hulin, C. L., and Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ligen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York Kunin, T. (1955). The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. Personnel Psychology, 8(1), pp.65-77. Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: Now you see them. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), pp.323-349. Lester, P. (1987). Development and Factor Analysis of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), pp.223-233. Locke, E. (1976). The nature and the causes of job satisfaction. The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 1297-1343. Luthans, F. (1997). Organizational behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. McKenna, E. (2000). Business psychology and organisational behaviour. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Olson, D. (1989). Families. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Rain, J., Lane, I. and Steiner, D. (1991). A Current Look at the Job Satisfaction/Life Satisfaction Relationship: Review and Future Considerations. Human Relations, 44(3), pp.287-307. Rattananan, W. (2005). The Study of Family Function by Using Family APGAR Questionnaire. Research accepted by The College of Family Physicians of Thailand. Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok Thailand. [Article in Thai] Robertson, I., Jansen Birch, A. and Cooper, C. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(3), pp.224-232. Sawyer, M., Sarris, A., Baghurst, P., Cross, D. and Kalucy, R. (1988). Family assessment device: Reports from mothers, fathers, and adolescents in community and clinic families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14(3), pp.287-296. Smilkstein, G. (1978). The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. The Journal of family practice, 6, pp.1231-9. Smilkstein, G., Ashworth, C., and Montano, D. (1982). Validity and reliability of the Family APGAR as a test of family function. The Journal of Family Practice, 15(2), 303-311. Smith, P., Kendall, L. and Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Smucker, D., Wildman, G., Lynch, R. and Revolinsky, C. (1995). Relationship between the family APGAR and behavioral problems in children. Arch Fam Med, 4(6), pp.535 – 9. Spector, P. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), pp.693-713. Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Steers, R. (1991). Introduction to organizational behavior. New York: Harper Collins. Thompson, E. and Phua, F. (2012). A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), pp.275-307. Vecchio, R. (1991). Organizational behavior. 2nd ed. Fort Worth, Tex.: The Dryden Press. Walsh, F. (1993). Normal family processes. New York: Guilford Press. Wright, T. and Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), pp.84-94. Wright, T., Cropanzano, R. and Bonett, D. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), pp.93-104. Tables Table 1 Correlation (r) between components of Family APGAR and BIAJS Family APGAR BIAJS Adaptation Partnership Growth Affection Resolve Total score Question 1 0.237 0.223 0.219 0.228 0.226 0.279 Question 2 0.248 0.181 0.258 0.242 0.207 0.279 Question 3 0.204 0.245 0.145 0.226 0.215 0.255 Question 4 0.262 0.150 0.113 0.123 0.096 0.184 Average score 0.285 0.241 0.222 0.248 0.226 0.301 (p < 0.01) Table 2 Correlation (r) between components of Family APGAR and BIAJS in family dysfunction Family APGAR BIAJS Adaptation Partnership Growth Affection Resolve Total score Question 1 0.211 -0.195 -0.275 0.244 0 -0.005 Question 2 0.251 -0.177 -0.177 -0.442 0 -0.027 Question 3 0.180 -0.354 -0.367 -0.240 0 -0.203 Question 4 0.301 -0.472 -0.506 -0.775 0 -0.301 Average score 0.286 -0.359 -0.397 -0.359 0 -0.157 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-6596061","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":452206638,"identity":"4b103807-cd7c-45ac-b647-efe563f9e3dd","order_by":0,"name":"Watcharasarn Rattananan, MD, MBA","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7671-6611","institution":"Police General Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"","middleName":"MD Watcharasarn","lastName":"Rattananan","suffix":"MD"}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-05 16:12:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82134594,"identity":"38af8018-4264-48a3-8b9b-e364b6f99005","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:04:21","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15110,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBIAJS scores of the research subjects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6596061/v1/a47ddcb0ba16351597edbd45.png"},{"id":82136313,"identity":"52f36308-57ec-4a4c-82e1-f7c0dedbef96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:12:21","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16743,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily APGAR scores of the research subjects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6596061/v1/c97d55a2287817bdf85aff77.png"},{"id":82134598,"identity":"44f03ce3-041f-4612-97ee-9f3a6e1c7c03","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:04:21","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43862,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation between BIAJS and Family APGAR scores\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6596061/v1/9a975c088a640f11cb03e00e.png"},{"id":82137758,"identity":"c4db50b3-4848-4758-9fa2-cc2a1720b984","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-07 06:20:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":748460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6596061/v1/ecac7895-3eee-468e-8a98-5437e5aca5b1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Family Function: A study in Thai pharmacists working in pharmaceutical companies\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn today’s competitive business environment, employee job satisfaction has emerged as a critical element of organizational success. Managers increasingly rely on behavioral science insights to understand and enhance job satisfaction. Previous studies have linked psychological well-being (PWB) to job satisfaction, suggesting that personal life factors, perhaps including family dynamics, may play a role. However, limited research has directly examined the relationship between job satisfaction and family function.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFamily function, a core component of personal life, refers to the processes through which family members support each other emotionally and function as a cohesive unit. Dysfunctional family dynamics can affect psychological well-being, which in turn influences work performance and satisfaction. By exploring the direct association between job satisfaction and family function, this study contributes to understanding the broader context of employee well-being and its implications for organizational behavior. Specifically, the study focuses on Thai pharmacists, a critical workforce group in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Backgrounds","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Job Satisfaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of job satisfaction encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions and interpretations. Locke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e) characterized job satisfaction as \u0026ldquo;a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one\u0026rsquo;s job or job experience,\u0026rdquo; a widely recognized and enduring definition. Steers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) aligned with this perspective, describing job satisfaction as an attitude towards one\u0026rsquo;s job, influenced by an individual\u0026rsquo;s expectations, stemming from both internal and external dimensions. Internal factors, such as enjoyment derived from the work itself or from interactions with colleagues, and external factors, such as compensation, rewards, and opportunities for promotion, contribute to job satisfaction. There were several ways to assess job satisfaction. These included assessing emotional reaction to the job, satisfaction about compensation (e.g. salary), and attitudes toward various other dimensions (Luthans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Job satisfaction could be viewed as a global picture showing if an individual liked his/her job as a whole; however, it could alternatively be assessed deeper into several different facets (Spector, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Recent advancements in theory have shifted toward psychological models to elucidate employees\u0026rsquo; responses to their work environments. The \u0026lsquo;three-component\u0026rsquo; model proposed by Hulin and Judge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) and Jex (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) integrates affect, cognition, and behavior, offering a more comprehensive framework to analyze job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction has often been dissected into internal and external components. Hackman and Oldman (1975) identified two primary facets: context satisfaction and affective satisfaction, a view corroborated by Arvey et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasized intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intriguingly, individuals may demonstrate similar satisfaction levels across different jobs irrespective of job characteristics, suggesting that job satisfaction is significantly influenced by personal background and experiences (Arvey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e; Vecchio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, satisfaction levels may vary between job components, reflecting employees\u0026rsquo; unique interactions and personal histories (Greenberg \u0026amp; Baron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral demographic variables influence job satisfaction, albeit with varying degrees of consistency. It was believed that men tended to have higher satisfaction levels than women; however, this difference diminished when controlling for factors such as education and income \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e(\u003c/span\u003eLefkowitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e. Age, another critical variable, displayed conflicting trends: some studies suggested a linear increase in job satisfaction with age (McKenna, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), while others reported a U-shaped trajectory (Clark, Oswald \u0026amp; Warr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe array of factors affecting job satisfaction extends beyond demographics to organizational and interpersonal dimensions. Variables such as appreciation, communication, relationships with coworkers, fringe benefits, job conditions, nature of work, organizational culture, growth opportunities, policies, promotion, recognition, job security, and supervisory support have been extensively documented as influencing satisfaction levels (Spector, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Psychological models, particularly those focusing on affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, seems to well explain human behaviour (Jex, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Many authors use the terms \u0026ldquo;affect\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;emotion\u0026rdquo; interchangeably, referring to internal feeling of employee toward job. Unsurprisingly, previous studies have shown connection between employees\u0026rsquo; emotion and job satisfaction (Cote and Morgan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This relationship appears to be more robust compared to associations with cognitive or behavioral dimensions. Many self-reported questionnaires measuring job satisfaction depend heavily on the \u003cem\u003eaffective\u003c/em\u003e component. A good example among those questionnaires is the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) which is overtly affective based (Thompson and Phua, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumerous instruments have been developed to measure job satisfaction, reflecting its multifaceted nature. Notable examples include the Faces Scales, Job Descriptive Index (JDI), Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ), Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ), and the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS). The Faces Scale (Kunin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1955\u003c/span\u003e), one of the earliest tools, measures overall job satisfaction with a single-item visual format, making it accessible for low-literacy populations. The JDI (Smith, Kendall \u0026amp; Hulin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1969\u003c/span\u003e) adopts a multi-dimensional approach, evaluating five aspects, primarily targeting cognitive dimensions of satisfaction. The JSS (Spector, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) extends this framework, incorporating 36 items across nine facets. In similar fashion, the MSQ, available in both long and short forms, evaluates 20 dimensions, offering broad applicability across diverse contexts. Specialized tools, such as the PSQ (Heneman \u0026amp; Schwab, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) and TJSQ (Lester, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), cater to specific occupational groups or facets, focusing on pay satisfaction and teacher satisfaction, respectively. These instruments highlight the diversity in measuring tools tailored to particular organizational or professional environments. Among these, the BIAJS stands out as a concise, affective-focused measure. The BIAJS includes four items, evaluating employees\u0026rsquo; emotional responses to their jobs, with acceptable content validity, internal consistency reliability (ranging between 0.81\u0026ndash;0.87), temporal stability, and cross-population invariance. Its design reflects an emphasis on affective satisfaction while requiring minimal cognitive input, a feature that aligns with its intent to provide a brief, yet robust, measurement tool (Thompson \u0026amp; Phua, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the practical implications of these measures, particularly the BIAJS, which balances brevity and reliability, organizations can effectively use these tools to assess and enhance job satisfaction across diverse workforces. By leveraging instruments like the BIAJS alongside comprehensive tools such as the Family APGAR, researchers can derive meaningful insights into employee well-being and organizational dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Family Function\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe family is considered the smallest social unit within a community. Changes at the family level often cascade, influencing broader societal dynamics, while community and social factors reciprocally shape family adaptation and transformation. Walsh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) described a \u0026lsquo;normal family\u0026rsquo; as one that functions effectively, encompassing physical, psychological, and spiritual dimensions. Families with proper functionality foster growth and self-fulfillment among their members, although these characteristics are subject to variation based on internal and external factors such as family life cycle, sociocultural influences, and stressors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of \u0026lsquo;family function\u0026rsquo; is diverse and explained through various theoretical models, for instance, the McMaster Model of Family Function (MMFF), Circumflex Model of Marital and Family Systems, Beavers System Model, and the Family APGAR model. Each model offers a different perspective on family functionality. The McMaster Model of Family Functioning (MMFF) identifies six key dimensions of family functioning: problem solving, communication, roles, affective responsiveness, affective involvement, and behavior control (Walsh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems emphasizes three primary aspects: cohesion, adaptability, and communication (Olson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The Beavers System Model divides family function into \u0026lsquo;Competence\u0026rsquo;, reflecting the family\u0026rsquo;s management ability, and \u0026lsquo;Style\u0026rsquo;, referring to interaction patterns between members. Interaction styles are categorized as centripetal (inward) or centrifugal (outward), with flexible adjustment being a hallmark of functional families (Beavers, Hampson \u0026amp; Hulgus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Variability in style has been linked to ethnicity (Hampson, Beavers \u0026amp; Hulgus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) and income, with low-income families demonstrating centripetal tendencies and high-income families exhibiting centrifugal styles (Hampson, Beavers \u0026amp; Hulgus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The Family APGAR model, introduced by Smilkstein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e), identifies five independent dimensions contributing to overall family function: Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve. The model\u0026rsquo;s name derives from the first letters of these dimensions, inspired by the well-known neonatal APGAR score (Apgar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1973\u003c/span\u003e). The Family APGAR framework is particularly notable for its simplicity and applicability across diverse populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamily function can be assessed through in-depth interviews, observations, and structured or self-reported tools. Examples of structured tools include the McMaster Structured Interview of Family Functioning (McSIFF), while self-reported tools include the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES), Family Assessment Device (FAD), Family Function Index (FFI), and Family APGAR questionnaire. Family members often report varying levels of family function, with adolescents tending to score lower than parents (Sawyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). The MMFF, though detailed, is complex and costly, making it less practical for routine use (Bishop et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the Family APGAR questionnaire is widely regarded for its low complexity, minimal training requirements, and adaptability to various populations. These characteristics closely correspond to those of the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and support the selection of the Family APGAR questionnaire as the preferred screening tool for assessing family dysfunction in certain clinical practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Family APGAR questionnaire comprises five self-reported items, each corresponding to a dimension of family function. Respondents rate the frequency of specific experiences on a scale from 0 to 2, yielding total scores ranging from 0 to 10. Scores are interpreted as follows: 8\u0026ndash;10 (highly functional), 4\u0026ndash;7 (moderately dysfunctional), and 0\u0026ndash;3 (dysfunctional; Smilkstein, Ashworth \u0026amp; Montano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). Its reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80) and validity (correlation with FFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80) have been substantiated (Good et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Extended response scales (e.g., five-option Likert) enhance reliability while retaining comparable interpretability (Cano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The questionnaire has been translated into multiple languages, demonstrating cross-cultural applicability. For instance, the Chinese version showed a test-retest reliability of 0.83 among Taiwanese populations aged 10 years and older (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). The Thai version yielded comparable results, with an average score of 7.53 and Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α of 0.73, and demonstrated associations between family function and socioeconomic status (Rattananan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Spanish and Peruvian studies have validated the Family APGAR\u0026rsquo;s utility in diverse populations (Bell\u0026oacute;n Saame\u0026ntilde;o et al., 1996; Castilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Gomez and Ponce, 2010). However, criticism of the Family APGAR has focused on its limited sensitivity compared to more comprehensive tools or in-depth interviews (Gwyther et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Smucker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, some experts recommended to use the questionnaire as a supplementary tool, added on to other standard measurement (Hilliard, Gjerde \u0026amp; Parker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Family Function\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting literature highlights the influence of psychological well-being (PWB) and life satisfaction on job satisfaction, yet the direct relationship between family function and job satisfaction remains underexplored. PWB, defined by Wright and Cropanzano (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) as \u0026ldquo;the overall effectiveness of an individual\u0026rsquo;s psychological functioning,\u0026rdquo; encompasses critical aspects of life such as work, family, and community. Their studies demonstrated significant correlations between PWB and job satisfaction, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.30 to 0.35 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) (Wright \u0026amp; Cropanzano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Wright, Cropanzano \u0026amp; Bonett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Additional research has identified PWB as a predictor of both job satisfaction and job performance, underscoring its role in workplace outcomes (Robertson, Jansen Birch \u0026amp; Cooper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The reciprocal effects of job dynamics on family function have also been examined, particularly concerning burnout. Doostian, Maleki, and Doostian (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) found a significant inverse relationship between job burnout and family functioning. In addition, job satisfaction\u0026rsquo;s correlation with life satisfaction is documented. Rain, Lane, and Steiner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e) reported that individuals satisfied with their jobs are more likely to experience overall life satisfaction and vice versa, though this relationship is inherently multifactorial and complex.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt can be inferred that individuals from families with strong functionality are likely to exhibit higher PWB, which in turn may positively influence job satisfaction. Despite these theoretical connections, the direct association between family function and job satisfaction remains untested in the literature. Furthermore, the potential relationships between specific components of family function and job satisfaction warrant deeper investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Study Design and Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employs a cross-sectional analytic design to investigate the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function, along with their respective components. The target population comprises pharmacists employed in Thailand, with a primary focus on those working in international pharmaceutical companies. However, pharmacists from domestic companies and organizations of varying sizes are also included. Participants are required to have sufficient proficiency in English to complete the self-reported questionnaire. This population was chosen based on its high educational level, ensuring the ability to comprehend and accurately respond to the research tool.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample size was calculated using a standard formula for interval-scale data, assuming an unknown total population. For the Family APGAR questionnaire (five-option Likert scale), prior research reported a standard deviation (SD) of 5.09 (Cano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). With a 95% confidence level (Z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.96) and a margin of error (e) of 1, the calculated sample size was 99.53 participants. Similarly, for the BIAJS questionnaire, an SD of 0.60 was reported (Thompson \u0026amp; Phua, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Using a margin of error of 0.12, the required sample size was 96.04 participants. To ensure robust data collection, the study targeted a minimum of 100 participants, with additional efforts to maximize response rates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Measures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study utilized a composite self-reported questionnaire combining the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and the Family APGAR. These tools were selected for their alignment with the study\u0026rsquo;s focus on affective psychological dimensions and their demonstrated reliability across diverse populations and contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe combined instrument, referred to as \u0026ldquo;BIAJS-FAPGAR,\u0026rdquo; comprises nine items: four from the BIAJS, which measure affective job satisfaction, and five from the Family APGAR, assessing family function. The BIAJS uses a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Disagree to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly Agree), with total scores ranging from 4 to 20. The Family APGAR employs a five-point Likert scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Never to 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Always), with total scores ranging from 0 to 20. To optimize the flow of responses, BIAJS items were placed before Family APGAR items, minimizing cognitive load on participants by addressing affective responses first. Demographic and personal data were collected in separate sections of the questionnaire, alongside screening questions, informed consent, and optional open-text input.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was distributed through electronic means, utilizing a secure and reliable online survey platform. Participants were invited via multiple channels, including professional associations, alumni networks, and social media, ensuring a diverse and representative sample. The invitations included detailed study information and instructions for accessing the survey. Respondents were required to provide informed consent before participating. To ensure data integrity, only responses with completed BIAJS and Family APGAR sections were included in the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey design prioritized participant convenience, allowing completion in approximately five minutes. Ethical considerations were addressed. Rigorous data security measures were implemented to safeguard participant anonymity and confidentiality. The survey platform was chosen for its robust privacy protections, and data were stored securely, accessible only to the researcher.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data were categorized into three groups: (1) demographic and personal information, (2) job satisfaction scores, and (3) family function scores. Descriptive statistics, including percentages, means, medians, and standard deviations, were used to summarize the data. Graphical representations supplemented the statistical summaries for clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInferential analyses were performed to evaluate relationships between variables. Pearson correlation coefficients (\u0026lsquo;r\u0026rsquo;) and p-values were calculated to determine the strength and significance of associations between job satisfaction and family function scores. Subgroup analyses were conducted where relevant to identify additional patterns or insights within specific demographic or job-related factors. Statistical analyses were conducted using offline and online data analysis software to ensure accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Analysis","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Participant Characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study included 156 eligible participants, comprising pharmacists employed across various sectors of the Thai pharmaceutical industry. Most participants (88%) were employed full-time, with the remainder working part-time (9%) or reporting past employment in the pharmaceutical industry (3%). Job tenure varied significantly, ranging from less than one year to over a decade, with some participants having prior experience in healthcare settings such as hospitals or government agencies. Participants represented a broad spectrum of job levels: 20% held senior managerial or higher positions, 31% were middle managers, and 45% were at intermediate or entry-level roles. A small number (4%) self-identified as \u0026ldquo;other\u0026rdquo; job levels, with roles subsequently categorized based on free-text descriptions where possible. The distribution of monthly incomes was skewed, with a median income of 60,000\u0026ndash;69,999 Thai Baht (THB) and 31% earning 100,000 THB or more.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding family demographics, most participants were single (57%), followed by those married or in domestic partnerships (37%) with approximately 7% widowed, divorced, or separated. Household sizes ranged from one to six or more members, with three- to four-person households being the most common. Compared to previous studies of the general population in Thailand (Rattananan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), participants in this study were more likely to be single and have smaller households. These characteristics reflect the social and professional dynamics of a highly educated workforce and align with the study\u0026rsquo;s focus on pharmacists.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Correlation Between Job Satisfaction and Family Function\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction, as measured by the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS), had an average score of 3.58 out of 5, with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.73 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). Family function, assessed using the Family APGAR, yielded an average score of 13.91 out of 20, with SD of 4.12 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Both measures demonstrated internal consistency, with inter-item correlations ranging from 0.49\u0026ndash;0.69 for BIAJS and 0.45\u0026ndash;0.69 for Family APGAR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary analysis revealed a weakly positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.301, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) between job satisfaction and family function scores (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3; Table\u0026nbsp;1). This finding aligns with prior research linking psychological well-being (PWB) to job satisfaction, where similar correlation coefficients (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30\u0026ndash;0.35) have been reported (Wright \u0026amp; Cropanzano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Wright, Cropanzano \u0026amp; Bonett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Based on the existing evidence, we conclude that the correlation between job satisfaction and family function falls within the \u0026lsquo;weakly positive\u0026rsquo; range, comparable in magnitude to the correlation observed between job satisfaction and PWB. While both family function and PWB appear to be interconnected, the precise nature of their relationship remains unclear. It is uncertain whether family function directly influences job satisfaction, exerts its effects indirectly through PWB, or operates via a combination of these pathways. Nonetheless, the comparable strength of the correlations between job satisfaction and these two variables suggests that family function and PWB warrant equal consideration in certain contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Subgroup Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo further explore the relationship between job satisfaction and family function, subgroup analyses were conducted based on demographic, job-related characteristics, and family pathology. These analyses revealed several notable trends:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender and Age: Both male (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.414) and female (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.306) participants exhibited weakly positive correlations, with slightly stronger associations observed in males. Across age groups, correlations ranged from r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.276 in the youngest cohort (21\u0026ndash;29 years) to r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.337 in participants aged 40 and above. While the correlation appeared to strengthen with age, the differences were not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational Attainment, Employment Status and Experience: Participants with postgraduate degrees demonstrated a higher correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.435) compared to those with bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degrees (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.201). This suggests that higher educational attainment may enhance the alignment between perceptions of job satisfaction and family function. Part-time workers exhibited a stronger correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.458) than their full-time counterparts (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.270), possibly reflecting the impact of work-life pattern on the interplay between job satisfaction and family dynamics. However, as these correlations remain within the \u0026lsquo;weak\u0026rsquo; range, their practical implications may be limited. Of note, monthly income had no discernible effect on the correlation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamily Dysfunction: Participants with Family APGAR scores below 7, indicating family dysfunction, demonstrated \u003cem\u003enegative\u003c/em\u003e correlations between overall scores and specific components of family function and job satisfaction (Table\u0026nbsp;2). Among these nine participants, all exhibited a score of zero in at least one Family APGAR component, with \u0026lsquo;Affection\u0026rsquo; being the most commonly deficient aspect (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8). However, the small sample size of this subgroup (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9) necessitates cautious interpretation of these findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Theoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study provides novel insights into the interplay between affective job satisfaction and family function, contributing to the broader organizational behavior literature. The observed weakly positive correlation (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.301) between these variables highlights the relevance of family dynamics in shaping employees' psychological experiences in the workplace. These findings extend prior research on psychological well-being (PWB) and its connection to job satisfaction, suggesting that family function, as a discrete construct, also plays a role. Importantly, this study is among the first to quantitatively assess the association between family function and job satisfaction using validated tools, specifically the Family APGAR and BIAJS questionnaires. The findings signal that while the overall correlation is weak, family function may hold particular significance for certain subgroups, such as employees experiencing \u0026lsquo;family dysfunction\u0026rsquo;. These results pave the way for future investigations into the nuanced pathways by which family and work domains interact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe exceptionality of the family dysfunction subgroup, which exhibited negative correlations between some Family APGAR components and job satisfaction, warrants further theoretical exploration. This phenomenon suggests a compensatory mechanism where employees with deficient family support may place disproportionate value on their professional roles. Understanding such dynamics can enhance theoretical models of work-life interaction, emphasizing the dual influences of personal and professional spheres on employee outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Implications for Practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an organizational behavior (OB), employee relations (ER), and human resource management (HRM) perspective, these findings offer meaningful insights for managing employee well-being. Although the correlation between job satisfaction and family function is weak, it highlights the interconnectedness of employees\u0026rsquo; personal and professional lives. Managers should consider family-related factors as part of a holistic approach to understanding employee behavior, engagement, and performance. Incorporating family function assessments into well-being initiatives (using tools such as the BIAJS, Family APGAR, or their combination) could be beneficial during routine job satisfaction surveys, performance evaluations, or counseling sessions. Such assessments can help identify employees requiring additional support to address work-life challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecial attention should be directed toward employees experiencing family dysfunction, as evidenced by the distinct patterns observed in this subgroup. Proactive measures, such as access to psychological counseling, flexible work arrangements, and family-oriented benefits, could mitigate the adverse effects of family challenges on job satisfaction and performance. Additionally, raising awareness among managers about the potential impact of family dynamics can enhance their ability to provide effective support. Organizations may also consider broader family-related factors, such as socioeconomic status and family resources, which influence family function. Tailoring employee support programs to address these underlying factors can further enhance their effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Limitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function, certain limitations should be acknowledged. These limitations, however, do not diminish the importance of the findings but rather highlight opportunities for further exploration and refinement in future research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne among limitations is the relatively small sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;156). While sufficient for detecting the observed correlations, a larger sample would enhance statistical power, reduce the margin of error, and allow for more robust subgroup analyses. Future studies with larger and more diverse populations can help to confirm these findings and explore issues beyond the scope of this research. The reliance on voluntary participation through online surveys may have introduced selection bias, as participants were limited to those with internet access and technological proficiency. Although this approach aligns well with the targeted population of pharmacists in the pharmaceutical industry, broader sampling methods, such as stratified or randomized sampling, could improve generalizability in future research. Incorporating offline or hybrid data collection methods could also reduce potential exclusion of less technologically inclined participants. Another consideration is the use of self-reported questionnaires as the primary data collection tool. While the BIAJS and Family APGAR are validated instruments, self-reported data can be subject to biases such as social desirability or inaccuracies in self-perception. Future research could complement self-reported measures with other data sources, such as peer assessments, supervisor evaluations, or objective performance metrics, to strengthen the validity of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cross-sectional design of this study, while efficient for identifying associations, does not allow for causal inferences. Longitudinal research would be instrumental in uncovering the directionality and temporal dynamics of the relationship between job satisfaction and family function. Additionally, experimental studies exploring interventions, such as workplace policies or family-oriented benefits, could provide insights into causal mechanisms and practical solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, this study represents a foundational contribution to understanding the interplay between job satisfaction and family function. By addressing these limitations in future research, scholars can build on these findings to develop more comprehensive models and practical applications for improving employee well-being and organizational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the relationship between affective job satisfaction and family function through a quantitative approach, providing valuable insights into organizational behavior and human resource management. The findings underscore the importance of considering employees' family dynamics, as they can significantly influence workplace experiences and satisfaction. These results advocate for organizations to implement strategies that integrate family-oriented support, fostering both employee well-being and enhanced performance. Additionally, this research lays the foundation for further exploration of the intersection between job satisfaction and family function. By examining how family dynamics shape workplace outcomes, the study offers both theoretical advancements and practical guidance for organizations seeking to enhance employee well-being and productivity. Future research is encouraged to build on these insights, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between personal and professional domains.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApgar, V. (1973). A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Current Res Anesth Analg, 32, pp.260.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArvey, R., Bouchard, T., Segal, N. and Abraham, L. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), pp.187-192.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeavers, W., Hampson, R. and Hulgus, Y. (1985). Commentary: The Beavers systems approach to family assessment. Family Process, 24(3), pp.398-405.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellon Saameno A., Delgado Sanchez A., Luna del Castillo D. and Lardelli Charet P. (1996). [Validity and reliability of the family APGAR family function test] [Article in Spanish]. Aten Primaria, 18(6), pp.289 \u0026ndash; 96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop, D., Epstein, N., Gilbert, R., van der Spuy, H., Levin, S. and McClemont, S. (1984). Training family physicians to treat families: Unexpected compliance problems. Family Systems Medicine, 2(4), pp.380-386.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCano, A., Scaturo, I., Sprafkin P., Lantinga, J., Fiese, H. and Brand, F. (2003). Family Support, Self \u0026ndash; Rated Health and Psychological Distress. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry, 5(3), pp.111 \u0026ndash; 7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastilla, H., Caycho, T., Shimabukuro, M. and Valdivia, A. (2014). Perception of family functioning: psychometric analysis of Family APGAR Scale in adolescents in Lima. Prop\u0026oacute;sitos y Representaciones, 2(1), pp.65-78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen Y.C., Chen C.C., Hsu H. and Lin C. (1980). A Preliminary study of family APGAR Index. Acta Paediatr Sinica, 21, pp.210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, A., Oswald, A. and Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age?. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), pp.57-81.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCote, S. and Morgan, L. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), pp.947-962.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoostian, R., Maleki, Y. and Doostian, Y. (2015). The relationship between burnout and family functions and the moral and ethical aspects of banking executives. Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology, 3(2), pp.411-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher, C. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: missing pieces of job satisfaction?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), pp.185-202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026oacute;mez, F. and Ponce, R. (2010). Una nueva propuesta para la interpretaci\u0026oacute;n de Family APGAR (versi\u0026oacute;n en espa\u0026ntilde;ol). Revista Atenci\u0026oacute;n Familiar, 17 (4), 102-106.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGood, D., Smilkstein, G., Good, J., Shaffer, T. and Arons, T. (1979). The Family APGAR index: A study of construct validity. J Fam Pract, 8, pp.577 \u0026ndash; 82.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, J. and Baron, R. (1993). Behavior in organizations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGwyther, E., Bentz, J., Drossman, A. and Berolzheimer, N. (1993). Validity of the family APGAR in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Fam Med, 25(1), pp.21 \u0026ndash; 5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), pp.159-170.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHampson, R., Beavers, W. and Hulgus, Y. (1989). Insiders\u0026apos; and outsiders\u0026apos; views of family: The assessment of family competence and style. Journal of Family Psychology, 3(2), pp.118-136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHampson, R., Beavers, W. and Hulgus, Y. (1990). Cross-ethnic family differences: Interactional assessment of White, Black, and Mexican-American families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16(3), pp.307-319.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeneman, H. and Schwab, D. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(1), pp.129-141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHilliard R, Gjerde C, Parker L. (1986). Validity of two psychological screening measures in family practice: Personal inventory and family APGAR. J Fam Pract, 23(4), pp.345 \u0026ndash; 9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHulin, C. L., and Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ligen, \u0026amp; R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJex, S.M. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKunin, T. (1955). The Construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. Personnel Psychology, 8(1), pp.65-77.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLefkowitz, J. (1994). Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: Now you see them. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), pp.323-349.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLester, P. (1987). Development and Factor Analysis of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(1), pp.223-233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, E. (1976). The nature and the causes of job satisfaction. The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 1297-1343. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuthans, F. (1997). Organizational behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKenna, E. (2000). Business psychology and organisational behaviour. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlson, D. (1989). Families. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRain, J., Lane, I. and Steiner, D. (1991). A Current Look at the Job Satisfaction/Life Satisfaction Relationship: Review and Future Considerations. Human Relations, 44(3), pp.287-307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRattananan, W. (2005). The Study of Family Function by Using Family APGAR Questionnaire. Research accepted by The College of Family Physicians of Thailand. Lerdsin Hospital, Bangkok Thailand. [Article in Thai]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobertson, I., Jansen Birch, A. and Cooper, C. (2012). Job and work attitudes, engagement and employee performance. Leadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal, 33(3), pp.224-232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawyer, M., Sarris, A., Baghurst, P., Cross, D. and Kalucy, R. (1988). Family assessment device: Reports from mothers, fathers, and adolescents in community and clinic families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 14(3), pp.287-296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmilkstein, G. (1978). The Family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. The Journal of family practice, 6, pp.1231-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmilkstein, G., Ashworth, C., and Montano, D. (1982). Validity and reliability of the Family APGAR as a test of family function. The Journal of Family Practice, 15(2), 303-311.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, P., Kendall, L. and Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmucker, D., Wildman, G., Lynch, R. and Revolinsky, C. (1995). Relationship between the family APGAR and behavioral problems in children. Arch Fam Med, 4(6), pp.535 \u0026ndash; 9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpector, P. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), pp.693-713.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteers, R. (1991). Introduction to organizational behavior. New York: Harper Collins.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThompson, E. and Phua, F. (2012). A Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction. Group \u0026amp; Organization Management, 37(3), pp.275-307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVecchio, R. (1991). Organizational behavior. 2nd ed. Fort Worth, Tex.: The Dryden Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalsh, F. (1993). Normal family processes. New York: Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, T. and Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), pp.84-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, T., Cropanzano, R. and Bonett, D. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), pp.93-104. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:116%;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eTable 1 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Correlation (r) between components of Family APGAR and BIAJS\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable style=\"border-collapse: collapse;border: none;width: 609px;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:12px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eFamily\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:12px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAPGAR\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:13px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eBIAJS\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAdaptation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003ePartnership\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eGrowth\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAffection\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eResolve\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eTotal score\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.237\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.223\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.219\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.228\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.226\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.279\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.248\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.181\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.258\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.242\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.207\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.279\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.204\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.245\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.145\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.226\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.215\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.255\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.262\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.150\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.113\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.123\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(146, 208, 80);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.096\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.184\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAverage score\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.285\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.241\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.222\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.248\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.226\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(255, 102, 255);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.301\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:12px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e(p \u0026lt; 0.01)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:116%;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:116%;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eTable 2 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Correlation (r) between components of Family APGAR and BIAJS in family dysfunction\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable style=\"border-collapse: collapse;border: none;width: 609px;\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:12px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eFamily\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:12px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAPGAR\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:13px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eBIAJS\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAdaptation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003ePartnership\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eGrowth\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAffection\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eResolve\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-left: none;background: rgb(231, 230, 230);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eTotal score\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.211\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.195\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.275\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.244\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.251\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.177\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.177\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.442\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.027\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.180\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.354\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.367\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.240\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.203\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eQuestion 4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.301\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.472\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(156, 194, 229);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.506\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(46, 116, 181);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.775\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.301\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 75.75pt;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: 1pt solid windowtext;border-image: initial;border-top: none;background: rgb(234, 234, 232);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003eAverage score\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0.286\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66.75pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.359\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62.25pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.397\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(222, 234, 246);padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.359\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63pt;border-top: none;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: 1pt solid windowtext;background: white;padding: 0in 5.25pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: top;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:center;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-size:15px;font-family:\"Arial\",sans-serif;color:#333333;'\u003e-0.157\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Leicester","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"employee well-being, Human Resource Management, Employee Relations, Family APGAR, family dysfunction","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"SmallCaps\" class=\"SmallCaps\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eJob satisfaction is a key factor in organizational behaviour and human resource management (HRM), yet some influencing factors remain underexplored. While psychological well-being and job burnout have been linked to family function, little is known about the direct relationship between job satisfaction and family function. This study investigates the relationship, focusing on affective aspects, using a cross-sectional analytic design and self-reported data. Job satisfaction and family function were measured using the Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (BIAJS) and Family APGAR scores, respectively. Data were collected online from 156 participants, a highly educated group. The average BIAJS score was 3.58 (out of 5), while the Family APGAR score averaged 13.91 (out of 20). A weakly-positive correlation was found between job satisfaction and family function (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.301; p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), but no significant correlations between individual facets were observed. Subgroup analysis showed no demographic or job-related factors significantly influenced the correlation. Interestingly, subjects with dysfunctional families exhibited negative correlations between job satisfaction and family function. These findings highlight the subtle relationship between job satisfaction and family function, providing insights for HRM and organizational behaviour. Future studies should further investigate this relationship to deepen understanding and inform practice.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Family Function: A study in Thai pharmacists working in pharmaceutical companies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-07 06:04:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6596061/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"87f042b1-3f51-42f1-b5aa-4f943a253f94","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":48091863,"name":"Other Business"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-07T06:04:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-07 06:04:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6596061","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6596061","identity":"rs-6596061","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}