## 3 Results
### Impact of Perceived Control on Perceived Comfort and Health  
#### 3.4.1 Combined Perceived Control vs. Perceived Comfort and Health--Bivariate Analysis  
The relationships between perceived control and perceived comfort are presented in Table 6. Perceived overall comfort correlated significantly and positively with perceived control over all control parameters. When the scores of the perceived control were combined, the correlation with the overall comfort increased, reaching the highest value of \(r=0.465\). The combined correlation values are stronger than the correlations between the single perceived control parameters. The strongest correlation for perceived overall temperature was indicated with control over temperature (\(r=0.420\)) and not with the combined controls. The satisfaction with extreme hot or cold temperature conditions seems to have the strongest correlation only with the control over temperature (\(r=0.281\)), while the combined perceived controls show equal effect. On the other hand, temperature variation was found to be more related to the combined control over temperature and shading from the sun controls (\(r=0.209\)). Perceived air quality about dry or humid air and odor did not show strong correlations, either with single or with combined perceived control parameters, indicating that these parameters were more difficult to be controlled by the occupants. However, perceived overall air quality satisfaction and perceived satisfaction with fresh air were found to be more correlated with the combined control perception over temperature, ventilation and shading from the sun (\(r=0.380\) and \(0.320\), respectively). Perceived comfort regarding natural light correlated positively with perceived control over shading from the sun and over light (\(r=0.370\)). Moreover, artificial light perception showed correlation with the perceived control over light (\(r=0.377\)). This means that occupants with higher degrees of shading and lighting controls feel more satisfied with the light levels in their offices. Perceived satisfaction with glare did not show strong correlation. In general, combined controls do not significantly affect light satisfaction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Factors** & **OR (CI 95\%)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Office characteristics** & & \\ Floor surface of the office & **1.06 (1.02–1.1)** & 0.002 \\ Number of people in the office on average & & \\ Private (vs. 30+) & 2.51 (1.59–3.97) & **<0.001** \\
2–4 (vs. 30+) & 3.73 (2.78–4.99) & **<0.001** \\
5–9 (vs. 30+) & 2.3 (1.79–2.96) & **<0.001** \\
10–29 (vs. 30+) & 1.58 (1.29–1.93) & **<0.001** \\ Type of office & & \\ Shared private office (vs. Single person private office) & **0.36 (0.23–0.55)** & **<0.001** \\ Open space with partitions (vs. Single person private office) & **0.23 (0.14–0.36)** & **<0.001** \\ Open space without partitions (vs. Single person private office) & **0.26 (0.17–0.4)** & **<0.001** \\ Other (vs. Single person private office) & 0.57 (0.25–1.29) & 0.178 \\ Partitions within the offices (vs. No) & 1.02 (0.64–1.61) & 0.935 \\ Noise source of Occupants–distracting conversations (vs. No) & **0.69 (0.49–0.97)** & **0.034** \\ PC or laptop monitor position & & \\ In front of windows (vs. Not) & 1.32 (0.94–1.86) & 0.103 \\ Printer/copy machines location & & \\ In the offices (vs. on the corridor) & 0.99 (0.63–1.55) & 0.956 \\ In a separate printing room (vs. on the corridor) & 1.23 (0.76–1.99) & 0.396 \\ Location of air supply devices inside offices—ceiling (vs. No air supply) & 0.81 (0.51–1.28) & 0.365 \\ Location of air exhaust devices inside offices & & \\ High (vs. None) & 1.43 (0.61–3.34) & 0.408 \\ Low (vs. None) & 0.93 (0.37–2.35) & 0.879 \\ \hline County level \(\sigma\)2/PCV (\%) & 0.42/10 & \\ Building level \(\sigma\)2/PCV (\%) & 0.14/88 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: \(Cont.\)