| Literature DB >> 28070386 |
Melinda Soh1, Antonio Zarola1, Kat Palaiou1, Adrian Furnham2.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the different dimensions of well-being (namely, work engagement, job satisfaction, and psychological stress) and possible predictors such as personality and perceived organizational support. A cross-sectional survey design was used, with a sample of 490 ambulance personnel in the United Kingdom. Significant correlations were found between the dimensions of job satisfaction, engagement, and stress. The results also supported a hierarchical model with job satisfaction, stress, and engagement loading onto one higher order factor of work well-being. Emotional stability and perceived organizational support were identified as significant predictors of well-being. The findings suggest the importance of measuring the work-related well-being of ambulance personnel holistically and present perceived organizational support as a possible area for interventions to improve well-being.Entities:
Keywords: adults; anxiety; beliefs; mental illness; worry
Year: 2016 PMID: 28070386 PMCID: PMC5193259 DOI: 10.1177/2055102916628380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Psychol Open ISSN: 2055-1029
Figure 1.Hypothesized model of work-related well-being.
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α coefficients, and Pearson correlations between measures.
| Variables | Mean ( | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIMP | ||||||||||||
| 1. Extraversion (R) | 5.15 (1.81) | – | – | |||||||||
| 2. Agreeableness | 5.93 (1.80) | – | −.127 | – | ||||||||
| 3. Emotional stability | 5.25 (1.78) | – | −.004 | .060 | – | |||||||
| 4. Conscientiousness (R) | 6.04 (1.71) | – | −.015 | −.153 | −.061 | – | ||||||
| 5. Openness | 5.15 (1.66) | – | .063 | .078 | −.029 | −.099 | – | |||||
| 6. SPOS | 3.35 (1.47) | .95 | .025 | .203 | .131 | −.042 | .000 | – | ||||
| 7. PSS | 3.02 (1.21) | .78 | −.104 | −.036 | −.320 | .016 | .014 | −.461 | – | |||
| UWES | ||||||||||||
| 8. Absorption | 4.42 (1.35) | .80 | .135 | .133 | .114 | .011 | .075 | .532 | −.384 | – | ||
| 9. Dedication | 5.22 (1.29) | .85 | .131 | .157 | .194 | .021 | .047 | .481 | −.438 | .687 | – | |
| 10. Vigor | 3.70 (1.41) | .86 | .124 | .104 | .262 | .010 | .018 | .568 | −.684 | .652 | .677 | – |
| 11. Job satisfaction | 4.19 (1.00) | .79 | .011 | .186 | .137 | −.063 | −.005 | .734 | −.495 | .545 | .471 | .562 |
SIMP: single-item measure of personality; SPOS: survey of perceived organizational support; PSS: perceived supervisor support; UWES: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; SD: standard deviation.
Items marked (R) were reverse scored. All values for job satisfaction were calculated as an average across the different facet.
p < .05, **p < .001.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the theoretical framework of work engagement.
| Model | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | NFI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-factor engagement | 617.452 | 27 | 22.869 | .211 | .801 | .734 | .794 |
| Work engagement | 308.570 | 24 | 12.854 | .156 | .904 | .856 | .897 |
| Work engagement allowing covariance | 97.322 | 20 | 4.866 | .089 | .974 | .953 | .968 |
RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis Index; NFI: Normed-Fit Index; df: degree of freedom.
Figure 2.Alternative models of work-related well-being.
Goodness-of-fit indices for models of work-related well-being.
| Model | RMSEA | CFI | TLI | NFI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized model | 681.974 | 180 | 3.789 | .076 | .903 | .886 | .874 |
| Model 1 | 688.555 | 180 | 3.825 | .076 | .902 | .886 | .872 |
| Model 2 | 688.555 | 180 | 3.825 | .076 | .902 | .886 | .872 |
| Hypothesized model (allow covariance) | 571.567 | 174 | 3.292 | .068 | .923 | .907 | .894 |
| Model 1 (allow covariance) | 579.728 | 174 | 3.310 | .069 | .922 | .906 | .893 |
| Model 2 (allow covariance) | 579.225 | 175 | 3.310 | .069 | .922 | .906 | .893 |
RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis Index; NFI: Normed-Fit Index; df: degree of freedom.
Figure 3.Hypothesized structural model of work-related well-being, with path coefficients and error covariances.
Figure 4.Hypothesized structural model of the relationship between personality, POS, and work-related well-being.
Standardized and unstandardized estimates, standard errors, and significance of hypothesized causal model, and post-hoc causal model.
| Parameter | Unstandardized estimate | Standardized estimate | Standard error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized causal model | |||
| Emotional stability → POS | .100 | .134 | .034 |
| Extraversion → POS | .019 | .025 | .034 |
| Emotional stability → work-related well-being | .036 | .157 | .010 |
| Extraversion → work-related well-being | .014 | .064 | .008 |
| POS → work-related well-being | .258 | .829 | .047 |
| Post-hoc hypothesized causal model | |||
| Emotional stability → POS | .100 | .134 | .034 |
| Emotional stability → work-related well-being | .036 | .153 | .010 |
| POS → work-related well-being | .263 | .834 | .047 |
POS: perceived organizational support.
p < .01, **p < .001.
Figure 5.Post-hoc model of the relationship between personality, POS, and work-related well-being.