Fair pay, supportive working conditions, and flexible arrangements are fundamental to attracting, motivating and retaining talent in the public sector as they are important drivers of employee engagement and well-being. This chapter examines central administration employees’ satisfaction with their pay, benefits, working arrangements and physical and remote work environment. It also explores the extent to which employees use remote working arrangements across countries, alongside employees’ satisfaction with both remote working conditions and physical working environments. Finally, the chapter analyses how these factors impact employees’ overall engagement and well-being.
Workforce Insights from Central Governments
Findings of the 2024 OECD/EU Survey of Public Servants
Abstract
The conditions under which people work are important to their job satisfaction, engagement, and overall well-being. Pay and job security remain critical factors influencing employee retention and motivation. While adequate compensation and job security are inherently valuable to employees, they also serve strategic purposes, as they affect staff engagement and turnover. At the same time, the nature of work has evolved, with remote and hybrid working arrangements becoming a more common part of public service employment (OECD, 2023[1]). These shifts have transformed workplace dynamics, presenting both opportunities and challenges for employees and employers alike. As governments confront emerging challenges such as an ageing workforce (OECD, forthcoming 2025) that create additional financial pressure on public administrations, understanding the effects of employee’s perceptions of pay, employment security, and working conditions can help design more effective and sustainable reform strategies.
This chapter examines three key aspects of working life: satisfaction with pay and employment security, remote working arrangements, and satisfaction with the physical and remote working environment. It explores how these dimensions affect key outcomes including employee engagement, well-being and team performance.
Public employees’ satisfaction with their pay and broader benefits package is relatively low across the EU8 countries, as is perceptions of compensation fairness relative to the private sector. The mean across these three items is 48.3, reflecting relatively neutral views from employees (Figure 6.1). Perceived fairness of compensation compared to the private sector was especially low, with a mean of 43. This may be detrimental to attracting and retaining employees with in-demand skills within central public administrations.
Across remuneration items, there is a high degree of variation across countries. For the three items related to pay and benefit satisfaction, the Netherlands and Belgium have the highest scores; for example, pay satisfaction in the Netherlands has a score of 68.5 (Figure 6.1). Conversely, at the other end of the ranking, Slovenia and Lithuania report pay satisfaction scores of 44.6 and 39.6, respectively. It should be noted that these findings reflect public servants’ perceived satisfaction with their remuneration rather than objective pay comparisons.
Employment security is relatively high across the EU8, with a mean score of 72.8. This is 24.5 percentage points higher than the average score for remuneration items (Figure 6.1). Public service employees may make trade-offs between perceived potential earnings and employment security. Employment security is generally considered high in the central administration, where public servants are traditionally hired under a specific legal status that emphasises stability and lifelong employment, which entrails high levels of job security (OECD, 2021[2]). The ranking of countries is similar to the pattern observed for satisfaction with remuneration, with the Netherlands scoring highest at 86.3, and Lithuania at the other end with a score 23 percentage points lower (63.3).
Note: The figure presents country averages for questions measuring employee satisfaction with pay, benefits, and employment security on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). The exact wording of the question items is: “I am satisfied with my salary,” “I am satisfied with my benefits package (monetary and non-monetary benefits),” “Compared to people doing a similar job in the private sector, I feel that I am fairly compensated,” and “I am satisfied with the security of my employment.” Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. Mean differences between the items are statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level in all countries where both indices are available.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 illustrate the distribution of positive, neutral and negative scores across the countries regarding their satisfaction with pay and employment security. These two topics are often included in government-run employee engagement surveys across other OECD countries; however, identifying broader trends remains valuable.
Pay satisfaction is assessed across OECD countries using varying survey items. In Australia, 63% of employees feel adequately remunerated; in Ireland, 42% report feeling positive about their remuneration; in the United Kingdom, 50% express satisfaction with their total benefits package; and in the United States, 59% report positive scores on their pay satisfaction. For the EU8, the average share of positive responses for pay satisfaction is 41%, placing it at the lower end of the spectrum compared to other OECD countries.
For employment security, the average share of positive responses for the EU8 is 74%. This is comparable to Australia, where 85% of employees report positive perceptions of job stability and security, and higher than Ireland, where 65% of respondents express positive views on terms and conditions of employment.
Note: The figure presents country and EU8 average of responses to the question: “I am satisfied with my salary’’. EU8 includes all project countries, Positive responses represent the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: The figure presents country and EU8 averages of responses to the question: “I am satisfied with the security of my employment.” EU8 includes all project countries. Positive responses represent the combined share of respondents selecting ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree,’ neutral responses those selecting ‘neither agree nor disagree,’ and negative responses those selecting ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree.’ Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: Exact wording of salary-related questions: In Australia, the question was phrased as “I am fairly remunerated (e.g., salary, superannuation) for the work that I do.” In Ireland, it was “Compared to people doing a similar job to me, I feel that my pay is reasonable.” In the United Kingdom, respondents were asked, “I am satisfied with the total benefits package,” and in the United States, the question was “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?”. Exact wording of employment security questions: In Australia, the question was “I am satisfied with the stability and security of my job,” while in Ireland, it was “I am satisfied with the terms and conditions of my employment.”
Sources: Australia’s Public Service Census 2024 (APS, 2024[3]), Irelands Civil Service Employee Engagement Survey (Gov.ie, 2024[4]), United Kingdom Civil Service People Survey 2023 Results Highlights (Gov.uk, 2024[5]), United States Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Summary (OPM, 2024[6])
Pay satisfaction and satisfaction with employment security vary across key demographic characteristics (Figure 6.4). Men have a 5.1 percentage point higher level of pay satisfaction (53.3) than women (48.2). This difference may reflect underlying gender pay gaps, which may be influenced by disparities in job positions. This is further illustrated by the notable 12.1 percentage point difference in pay satisfaction between managers (56.9) and non-managers (44.8). While women make up a high share of respondents overall, only 17% of responding managers are women, compared to 21% of men (see Chapter 1).
The youngest age group, employees aged 24 years and under, have the highest level of salary satisfaction (53.3), whereafter the satisfaction gradually decreases until the oldest age group (56 years and older), where it again slightly increases to 52.8. This U-shaped pattern could be attributed to younger employees having lower salary expectations at career entry and feeling optimistic about future growth potential, while mid-career professionals may face growing financial responsibilities and heightened salary expectations. The slight increase at the highest age level could reflect potential career progression and benefits towards the end of the career. The same pattern persists for employment security, where men, the young group of employees and managers report a higher level of satisfaction; however, the within-group differences are smaller compared to pay satisfaction (Figure 6.4).
Note: The figure presents the average EU8 scores for the questions: “I am satisfied with my salary” and “I am satisfied with the security of my employment,” disaggregated by subgroups. Scores are shown on a scale from 0 (‘strongly disagree’) to 100 (‘strongly agree’). EU8 includes all project countries. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size. For details on the exact wording of the items, please refer to the technical annex. Statistical significance between subgroups is indicated by stars next to each bar: a single asterisk (*) indicates significance at the 90% level, two asterisks (**) at the 95% level, and three asterisks (***) at the 99% level. ‘N.S.’ denotes a non-significant difference compared to the reference group. “Men”, those who are “24 years and under” and “non-managers” are reference groups.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Pay satisfaction affects employee engagement positively. A gradual increase in pay satisfaction is associated with a corresponding increase in employee engagement. Specifically, employees who ‘strongly agree’ are 10.9 percentage points more engaged, and those who ‘strongly disagree’ are 11 percentage points less engaged, compared to the neutral pay satisfaction category (‘neither agree nor disagree’).1 Unpacking this relationship, particularly for groups low in pay satisfaction, is important for identifying potential engagement and retention risks in the face of growing fiscal pressures, as employee engagement is important for the workforce’s ability to deliver quality public services.
Employees who are more satisfied with their pay are also less likely to report turnover intent2. Specifically, those who are satisfied are 28.7% less likely to intend to leave their organisation, and those who are unsatisfied are 67.8% more likely to intend to leave their organsiation, when compared to employees with neutral views on their pay satisfaction (‘neither agree nor disagree’). This high increase in likelihood should be considered in the context of the relatively small group of employees (12.8%) who intend to leave. However, it is noticeable that 19% of those who are dissatisfied with their pay indicate turnover intent.
Satisfaction with employment security likewise affects employee engagement positively. A gradual increase in employment security satisfaction is associated with a corresponding increase in engagement.3 Specifically, when comparing to the neutral employment security satisfaction category (‘neither agree nor disagree’), employees who ‘strongly agree’ are 14.1 percentage points more engaged, and those who ‘strongly disagree’ are 12 percentage points less engaged. Employment security thus shows a slightly stronger effect compared to pay satisfaction.
This subsection examines how different remote working arrangements affect employee engagement, well-being and team performance. Around two in five employees never work remotely (37.2%), and one in five work remote 1-2 days a week (22.6%) (Figure 6.5). Figure 6.6 shows the remote working modalities combined into three categories. On average in the EU7, 43% work remotely on a weekly basis, 20% occasionally and the remaining 37% never work remotely. Working modalities vary a lot by country. Belgium has the highest share of employees working remotely, with 88% doing so weekly. At the other end of the scale, Bulgaria has only 2% working remotely on a weekly basis. With 15%, The Slovak Republic has the second-lowest share of employees working remotely weekly, but it has the highest share of employees doing so occasionally or on an infrequent basis. This shows the wide diversity not only in the extent employees work remotely but how these arrangements are structured.
This data illustrates the uneven impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had in accelerating the adoption of flexible working arrangements in the public sector (OECD, 2023[1]). In many countries, the increased use of remote work has transformed the traditional workplace dynamics, offering flexibility while introducing new challenges. Previous studies have shown mixed results of remote work’s effect on employee engagement and well-being depending on individual circumstances and organisational practices. For some employees remote work enhances work-life balance and productivity, fostering greater engagement (Weideman and Hofmeyr, 2020[7]) For others, it can lead to feelings of isolation or blurred boundaries between work and personal life, potentially affecting well-being and engagement (Darouei and Pluut, 2021[8]). Given the relatively recent adoption of remote work arrangements, particularly in the public sector, their effects on engagement and well-being remains limited. Understanding these relationships is essential for developing evidence-based remote work policies.
This survey contributes to this research with a more nuanced and mixed set of findings. On the one hand, remote working at any frequency, whether weekly or occasionally, is linked to higher levels of well-being (see Chapter 2); while remote working on a weekly basis is associated with higher perceptions of team performance (see Chapter 3). On the other hand, weekly remote work is associated with lower levels of engagement (see Chapter 2).
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average scores for the question: “How many days a week do you work remotely (i.e. from home or from another approved location)?” EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: The figure presents the country and EU7 results for the question: “How many days a week do you work remotely (i.e. from home or from another approved location)?”. The responses are grouped into three recoded categories: ‘Weekly (more than one day per week)’ includes respondents who selected ‘5 days a week or more,’ ‘3–4 days a week,’ or ‘1–2 days a week’; ‘Occasionally/Infrequently/Unscheduled’ includes those who selected ‘Less than one day a week’ or ‘Very infrequently, on an unscheduled or short-term basis’; and ‘Never’ includes respondents who selected “Never.” EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Remote work patterns vary by age, with younger public employees using it the most—and wanting more of it. The age groups 25-35 years and 36-45 old works remotely most frequently: with respective 66.3% and 66.7% of employees working remotely do so either weekly or occasionally, while this share gradually declines with the increase in age (Figure 6.7). Furthermore, for employees under 55, more than half would like to remote work more frequently than they currently do, and fewer than 4% across all age groups would like to remote work less frequently than they currently do (Figure 6.8). This finding confirms previous studies showing that the possibility of working remotely significantly increases job attraction and retention (Moens et al., 2024[9]).
Note: The figure presents the EU7 average for the question: “How many days a week do you work remotely (i.e. from home or from another approved location)?” by age group. The responses are grouped into three recoded categories: ‘Weekly (more than one day per week)’ includes respondents who selected ‘5 days a week or more,’ ‘3–4 days a week,’ or ‘1–2 days a week’; ‘Occasionally/Infrequently/Unscheduled’ includes those who selected ‘Less than one day a week’ or ‘Very infrequently, on an unscheduled or short-term basis’; and ‘Never’ includes respondents who selected “Never.” EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Note: The figure presents the breakdown results for the question: “If I could choose freely, I would work from home or from another approved location” by age group. Averages are normalised to assign equal weight to each country, regardless of sample size. The shown results are weighted averages across all project countries excluding the Netherlands due the lack of data availability.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The most commonly selected reason employees do not work remotely more frequently is that they have to be physically present at the office to do their job (selected by 11 493 respondents). The second most common reason is that their organisation does not permit remote work (8 136). Both of these reasons reflect structural and organisational constraints. The third most commonly selected reason relates to employees’ personal preference to work at the office (7 328). At the lower end, a few respondents expressed concern about missing out on career opportunities if they are not in the office as much as others (835), or reported experiencing technical issues that prevent them from working remotely (2 517).
Note: The figure presents the EU7 responses to the question: “Why do you not work remotely more frequently?”. This question was asked to all respondents who reported working remotely two days or less per week in response to the question: “How many days a week do you work remotely (i.e., from home or from another approved location)?” Respondents could select all applicable options, so the bars may add up to more than the total number of respondents. Averages are normalised to give equal weight to each country, regardless of sample size. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The working environment, whether in the physical office space or remotely, influences employee engagement and well-being. The physical workspace environment, including office layout, ergonomics, facilities, as well as ambient factors like noise, lighting, and cleanliness, has been found in previous studies to have a substantial impact on employee satisfaction (Vischer, 2008[10]). Remote working conditions go beyond the physical workspace at the remote work location by also considering factors such as trust from management and work-life balance when working remotely. This section examines satisfaction with both the physical and remote working environment and, in turn, how this affects employee engagement and well-being.
For the physical working environment, satisfaction is highest with office equipment (computers, laptops, screens, printers, etc.) (71.0), and lowest for breakrooms and eating areas and facilities (48.8) (Figure 6.10).
Note: The figure presents responses to five questions regarding satisfaction with physical workplace conditions: “Satisfaction with office equipment (e.g., computers, laptops, screens, printers)”; “Ergonomic workstations (e.g., lighting, adjustable desks and chairs, additional screens)”; “Cleanliness of workspaces”; “Noise levels”; and “Breakrooms or eating facilities.” All responses are measured on a scale from 0 (“strongly disagree”) to 100 (“strongly agree”). The data includes all project countries except Lithuania and the Netherlands. Averages are normalised to give equal weight to each country, regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
Figure 6.11 shows that satisfaction with the physical working environment is highest among those who work remotely the most, unsurprising as they are less exposed to this environment and therefore likely attribute less importance to it. Employees who work fully remotely have a physical working environment score of 67.3, and those who work remotely 1-2 days a week have a score of 61.8. Those who never work remotely and are therefore present full time in the physical office working environment have a score of 55.9, which is 11.4 percentage points lower than those who work fully remotely.
Note: The figure presents the EU7 results for the question: “Why do you not work remotely more frequently?” This question was asked to all respondents who reported working remotely two days or less per week in response to the question: “How many days a week do you work remotely (i.e., from home or from another approved location)?” Respondents could select all applicable options, so the bars may add up to more than the total number of respondents. Averages are normalised to give equal weight to each country, regardless of sample size. EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants’
Figure 6.12 shows satisfaction levels with the remote working environment. The highest score is for statement “My manager trusts me to do my job effectively, even if I am not working from the same location as them” with an average score of 81.1, and the lowest score is for the item “Remote work allows me to be more effective in my role” with an average score of 76.4. For three out of the four items, Belgium scores the highest and Bulgaria scores lowest. Figure 6.6 shows that these two countries also have, respectively, the highest and lowest share of employees working remotely. This could indicate that the conditions for remote work are better in countries where the remote work arrangements are more embedded in the working culture. In countries with a very low share of employees working remotely, such as Bulgaria where 85% of employees never work remotely (Figure 6.6)—those who do work remotely represent a minority, and the conditions and acceptance of remote work might not adequately reflect their needs.
Note: The figure presents the country and EU7 results for four questions related to remote work: “I have the conditions I need to work effectively from home or remotely (i.e., space, equipment, digital tools, etc.),” “Home and remote work positively enhance my work/life balance,” “Home and remote work allow me to be more effective in my job,” and “My manager trusts me to do my job effectively, even when I am working from home or remotely.” All responses are measured on a scale from 0 (“strongly disagree”) to 100 (“strongly agree”). EU7 includes all project countries except the Netherlands. Averages are normalised, giving equal weight to each country regardless of sample size.
Source: Standard EU/OECD Survey of Central Government Public Servants
The physical working environment4 positively affects the employees’ engagement and well-being5. For engagement, the coefficient is 0.34; this corresponds to an increase of 6.8 percentage points when moving from one answer category to another (i.e., from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). The effect on well-being is also positive, though slightly weaker, with a coefficient of 0.24, corresponding to a 4.8 percentage point increase when changing from one answer category to another. When comparing the effect size of the different sub-items of the physical environment, the strongest effect on well-being is linked to satisfaction with noise levels. For engagement, the strongest single statement effect is satisfaction with office equipment (computers, laptops, screens, printers, etc.).
The support for remote work6 positively affects employee engagement and well-being.7 For engagement the coefficient is 0.35; this corresponds to a an increase of 7 percentage points when changing from one answer category to another (i.e., from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’) The effect on well-being is also positive but slightly weaker with a coefficient of 0.3; this corresponds to a an increase of 6 percentage points when changing from one answer category to another (i.e., from ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘agree’). When comparing the effect sizes of the different sub-items of the remote work environment, the strongest single statement effect for both well-being and engagement is satisfaction with the statement: “My manager trusts me to do my job effectively, even when I am working from home or remotely”.
While public employees generally express high levels of satisfaction with their employment security, satisfaction with pay, benefits, and perceived fairness of pay compared to the private sector remains low. In the EU8 countries, only two in five public employees report positive views about their pay. Low pay satisfaction is associated with reduced engagement, although its impact is modest compared to other aspects of the employee experience. However, low satisfaction with pay poses a greater risk for excessive staff turnover as employees who are dissatisfied with their salary are more likely to consider leaving their organisation, citing pay and benefits as key reasons for their intention to leave.
The use of remote work varies significantly across the EU8 countries. On average, around two in five public employees never work remotely. Despite this, there is a strong desire among employees to work remotely more often than they currently do. Very few would prefer to reduce their current level of remote work. Supporting remote work continues to be important for both employee engagement and well-being. In particular, managerial trust in employees who work remotely plays a key role, and tends to be lower in countries where remote work is less common.
Given this, public service leaders, managers and those designing reforms may wish to consider the following key considerations for policy actions:
The findings indicate that increasing pay satisfaction could boost employee engagement and reduce intentions to leave the organisation. Although raising pay will not be feasible or desirable in many countries, the results highlight the usefulness of conducting comparative analysis to identify existing pay gaps with the private sector and using the available pay envelope as a strategic tool to boost perceptions of pay fairness and satisfaction for key roles where attraction and retention risks are high.
As many governments look to identify efficiency savings to restore public finances, the survey identifies a risk that pay cuts and reforms to overall employment security could lead to lower engagement, and hence lower workforce productivity. While workforce reductions are sometimes necessary, the challenge is to design them in ways that limit the direct threat to the remaining employees’ perceptions of their job stability and pay satisfaction. For example, workforce strategy could be focused on reducing the size, but improving the skill of the workforce, thereby reducing redundant roles and simultaneously investing in new skills and mobility opportunities for the remaining workforce.
Offering some flexible working opportunities could help attract and retain talent. Around half of employees aged 55 or younger would prefer to work remotely more often, while fewer than 3% across all age groups wish to do so less. Younger employees not only work remotely most frequently but also express the strongest desire to do so even more. This highlights the opportunity to tailor flexible arrangements in the public sector, to find the right balance for operational coherence and employee flexibility. Findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that managers are well prepared to support flexible working, as among all aspects of the remote work environment, the strongest driver of both engagement and well-being is managers' trust in employees.
References
[3] APS (2024), Australian Public Service Employee Census 2023, https://www.apsc.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/workforce-information/aps-employee-census-2024.
[8] Darouei, M. and H. Pluut (2021), “Work from home today for a better tomorrow! How working from home influences work‐family conflict and employees’ start of the next workday”, Stress and Health, Vol. 37/5, pp. 986-999, https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3053.
[4] Gov.ie (2024), Civil Service Employee Engagement Survey, https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/5e7009-civil-service-employee-engagement-survey/.
[5] Gov.uk (2024), Civil Service People Survey 2023 Results Highlights, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-people-survey-2023-results/civil-service-people-survey-2023-results-highlights.
[9] Moens, E. et al. (2024), “Disentangling the attractiveness of telework to employees: A factorial survey experiment”, International Labour Review, Vol. 163/2, pp. 325-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12424.
[1] OECD (2023), Public Employment and Management 2023: Towards a More Flexible Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b378e11-en.
[2] OECD (2021), Public Employment and Management 2021: The Future of the Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/938f0d65-en.
[6] OPM (2024), Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results, https://www.opm.gov/fevs/reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-reports/governmentwide-management-report/2024/2024-governmentwide-management-report.pdf.
[10] Vischer, J. (2008), “Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for Work”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 51/2, pp. 97-108, https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5114.
[7] Weideman, M. and K. Hofmeyr (2020), “The influence of flexible work arrangements on employee engagement: An exploratory study”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18, https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v18i0.1209.
← 1. Based on a Linear Random-Effects regression model controlling for key demographic variables. As the model does not account for other key drivers, results reflect only that dimension and should not be interpreted as the relative importance of dimensions within the relevant index, and not as a standalone effect in relation the outcome variable.
← 2. Measured through item Q41 ‘I want to leave my organisation within the next 12 months.’
← 3. Based on a random-effects linear regression with all controls
← 4. These are the questions Q03a-d combined into one score and rescaled from 0 ‘Strongly disagree’ -100 ‘Strongly agree’, this is not considered as an index as the alpha values are fulfilling the index requirement meeting the requirement.
← 5. Based on a random-effects linear regression with all controls.
← 6. These are the questions Q7-Q10 combined into one score rescaled from 0 ‘Strongly disagree’-100 ‘Strongly agree’,, this is not considered as a n index as the alpha values are fulfilling the index requirement meeting the requirement. N size etc.
← 7. Based on a random-effects linear regression model with all controls