DOI: 10.4121/b8937901-139e-45c1-88ac-4d8e8bab9771
title: Survey data underlying the publication: An intervention among entrepreneurs: Effects on well-being, financial stress, and work-life balance

description: <strong style="color:windowtext;">METHODS</strong><strong>Sample </strong>Data were collected among Dutch entrepreneurs who owned private companies and employed less than 50 employees (cf. Jayasekara et al., 2020). After completing the informed consent, respondents filled out the questionnaire. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were emphasized and assured, and participation was voluntary. The Ethics Review Board of the university approved the study. A total of N = 75 entrepreneurs signed up for the intervention and filled out the first questionnaire. Of these N = 74, N = 67 started the self-training intervention, N = 53 participated in the pre-questionnaire, and N = 30 participated in the post-questionnaire of the workshop (Dropout of 40%). A total of N = 59 entrepreneurs participated in the pre- questionnaire and N= 56 participated in the post-measure of the control group (Dropout of 5%). Giving a total sample of N = 87 participants. The sample included 45 men (51.7 %) and 35 women (40.2%). Their mean age was 40 years (SD = 13.59). The average age of their business was 6.7 years (SD = 6.25), and most participants were active in business services (23%), the culture and leisure sector (12.6%), health and social work (11.5%), and trading (9.2%). The control group and the intervention matched based on gender and sector in which the entrepreneur was active. However, the groups differed in age (t = -7.25, p &lt; .05). The intervention group was on average older (M = 51.6, SD = 9.02). In contrast, the control group had an average age of M = 34 (SD = 11.4). As age has a positive effect on how entrepreneurs manage their business (Zhao et al., 2021), this variable was added as control variables in our analysis.<br><strong>General survey</strong>All responses were given on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 ((almost) never) to 5 ((almost) always) referring to the past two weeks. All variables were in Dutch and rewritten to apply to entrepreneurs. <em>Business crafting</em> was measured with adapted job crafting scales by Demerouti and Peeters (2018) and Petrou et al. (2012) that had been used previously (Boesten et al., 2023) and was measured with nine items. For increasing resources (e.g., “I have tried to learn new things for my business”), Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .77 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .64. For increasing challenging demands (e.g., “I have tried new approaches”), Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .88 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .78. For optimizing demands (e.g., “I look for ways to do my work more efficiently”), Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .83 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .71. <em>Leisure crafting</em> was measured with the four-item scale of Petrou and Bakker (2016) (e.g., “I have tried to build relationships through leisure activities.”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .89 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .77. <em>Network crafting</em> was measured with the five-item scale of van Gool et al. (2023), (e.g., “I improve my network of relations with connections outside of our company to make my job more productive”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .91 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .83. <em>Financial Stress</em> was measured with the five-item scale developed by Dijk et al., (2022) (e.g., “I wondered all the time if I have enough money.”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .94 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .86. <em>Work-life Balance </em>was measured with the four-item scale from Brough et al., (2014) (e.g., “I had a good balance between the time I spend at work and the time I have available for private activities.”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .90 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .48. <em>Well-being</em> was distinguished in motivation and fatigue severity and measured using shortened subscales of the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS; Bültmann et al., 2000). We used four items to measure <em>motivation</em> (e.g., “I was full of plans”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .81 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .50. Another four items were used to measure <em>fatigue severity</em> (e.g., “I felt tired”), Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .88 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .57.<em>Operational goal attainment </em>was<em> </em>measured with three items in total (Grebner et al., 2010); e.g., “I completed my financial goals”). Cronbach’s α was at T1 was .88 and Cronbach’s α at T2 was .89.  <strong>Strategy of analysis</strong>Data was analyzed using univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) in R-studio (Egbewale et al., 2014; Valente & MacKinnon, 2017). Only the complete data (N = 29 intervention group; N = 56 control group) was used to examine the effects of the intervention over time. With ANCOVA, the effect of the intervention was tested using T0 as the covariate and T1 as the outcome. Besides ANCOVA being a reliable method to analyze the effect of interventions (Egbewale et al., 2014; Wan, 2021), we also decided to use ANCOVA because of a significant difference in our baseline. The mediating effect of the intervention through the trained strategies was tested using latent change scores (LCS) ANCOVA (Valente et al., 2021). <br>