| Literature DB >> 31905883 |
Yin Ma1, Junjer You2, Yuanxiong Tang3.
Abstract
Drawing on the psychology of working theory (PWT), the present study was performed to evaluate the predictor session of the PWT and career exploration behavior with a sample of Chinese nursing college students from diverse backgrounds. The research employed a cross-sectional research design and 854 nursing students were recruited from one health vocational college situated in Northwest China. Structural equation modeling was utilized to conduct the analysis; confirmatory factor analysis and structural model testing were performed accordingly. Moreover, mediation analysis that used bias-corrected percentile bootstrapping method and moderation analysis were carried out in accordance. Overall, most of the proposed direct paths were significant, but the mediation results were mixed. Proactive personality simply moderated the impact of economic constraints on career adaptability. The results suggest that PWT is applicable to nursing college students and the model is generally supported in the Chinese context. It is the first empirical work that used this model among nursing college students and future decent work perceptions contributed another important antecedent of career exploration behavior. The practical implications based on these findings are provided as well.Entities:
Keywords: career exploration; future decent work perceptions; nursing students; psychology of working theory
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31905883 PMCID: PMC6981666 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17010254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The hypothesized model.
Sample demographics.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|
| University Grade | ||
| Freshman | 146 | 17.1% |
| Sophomore | 323 | 37.8% |
| Junior | 158 | 18.5% |
| Senior | 227 | 26.6% |
| Place of Origin | ||
| Rural | 609 | 71.3% |
| Urban | 245 | 28.7% |
| Parental Educational Level | ||
| Primary certificate or below | 149 | 17.4% |
| Junior high school | 320 | 37.5% |
| Senior high school | 247 | 28.9% |
| Undergraduate degree or above | 138 | 16.2% |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 177 | 20.7% |
| Female | 677 | 79.3% |
Standardized loadings and reliabilities.
| Construct | Indicators | Factor Loading | Composite Reliability | Cronbach’s α | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EC | EC1 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.76 |
| EC2 | 0.92 | -- | -- | -- | |
| EC3 | 0.77 | -- | -- | -- | |
| EC4 | 0.90 | -- | -- | -- | |
| WV | WV1 | 0.76 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.59 |
| WV2 | 0.74 | -- | -- | -- | |
| WV3 | 0.73 | -- | -- | -- | |
| WV4 | 0.84 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CA | CA1 | 0.68 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.63 |
| CA2 | 0.84 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CA3 | 0.77 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CA4 | 0.87 | -- | -- | -- | |
| FDP | FDP1 | 0.56 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.59 |
| FDP2 | 0.76 | -- | -- | -- | |
| FDP3 | 0.89 | -- | -- | -- | |
| FDP4 | 0.81 | -- | -- | -- | |
| FDP5 | 0.78 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CE | CE1 | 0.76 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.66 |
| CE2 | 0.73 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CE3 | 0.91 | -- | -- | -- | |
| CE4 | 0.83 | -- | -- | -- |
Note: AVE: average of variance extracted; EC: economic constraints; WV: work volition; CA: career adaptability; FDP: future decent work perceptions; CE: career exploration.
Correlation coefficient matrix and discriminant validity.
| Mean | SD | AVE | CE | FDP | CA | WV | EC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | 3.50 | 0.87 | 0.66 |
| ||||
| FDP | 4.79 | 1.17 | 0.59 | 0.37 |
| |||
| CA | 3.87 | 0.78 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.41 |
| ||
| WV | 4.59 | 1.25 | 0.59 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 0.51 |
| |
| EC | 4.31 | 1.65 | 0.76 | −0.16 | −0.14 | −0.12 | −0.06 |
|
Note: EC: economic constraints; WV: work volition; CA: career adaptability; FDP: future decent work perceptions; CE: career exploration. Off diagonals are Pearson’s correlation of constructs. Square root of AVE in bold on diagonals.
Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement scales.
| Fit Index | Recommended Value | Measurement Model | Structural Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-squared/df | ≤5 | 2.72 | 4.02 |
| GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.95 | 0.92 |
| CFI | ≥0.92 | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| NFI | ≥0.90 | 0.96 | 0.93 |
| IFI | ≥0.90 | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| TLI | ≥0.90 | 0.97 | 0.94 |
| RFI | ≥0.90 | 0.95 | 0.92 |
| PGFI | ≥0.50 | 0.73 | 0.73 |
| PCFI | ≥0.50 | 0.83 | 0.82 |
| PNFI | ≥0.50 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
| RMSEA | ≤0.08 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index, CFI=comparative fit index, NFI = normed fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, TLI = Tucker Lewis index, RFI=relative fit index, PGFI = parsimony goodness-of-fit index, PCFI = parsimony comparative-of-fit index, PNFI = parsimony normed fit index, RMSEA = the root mean square error of approximation.
Summary of hypotheses testing results.
| Hypotheses | Standardized Path Coefficients | Supported | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | EC → WV | −0.06 | −1.67 | No |
| H2 | EC → CA | −0.09 * | −2.59 | Yes |
| H3 | WV → CA | 0.50 *** | 12.72 | Yes |
| H4 | EC → FDP | −0.09 ** | −2.88 | Yes |
| H5 | WV → FDP | 0.51 *** | 10.18 | Yes |
| H6 | CA → FDP | 0.17 *** | 4.11 | Yes |
| H7 | FDP → CE | 0.40 *** | 9.26 | Yes |
Note: EC: economic constraints; WV: work volition; CA: career adaptability; FDP: future decent work perceptions; CE: career exploration. * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.001.
Figure 2Standardized solution of structural modeling analysis (* p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.01; *** p-value < 0.001).
Mediation tests.
| Parameter | Estimate | Lower | Upper | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H6a | EC-WV-FDP | −0.018 | −0.042 | 0.004 | 0.113 |
| H6b | EC-CA-FDP | −0.008 | −0.018 | −0.002 | 0.003 |
| H6c | EC-FDP-CE | −0.018 | −0.035 | −0.004 | 0.007 |
| H6d | WV-CA-FDP | 0.064 | 0.028 | 0.100 | 0.002 |
| H6e | EC-WV-FDP-CE | −0.006 | −0.015 | 0.001 | 0.110 |
| H6f | EC-WV-CA-FDP | −0.003 | −0.008 | 0.001 | 0.089 |
| H6g | EC-CA-FDP-CE | −0.003 | −0.007 | −0.001 | 0.004 |
| H6h | EC-WV-CA-FDP-CE | −0.001 | −0.003 | 0.000 | 0.079 |
Note: EC: economic constraints; WV: work volition; CA: career adaptability; FDP: future decent work perceptions; CE: career exploration.