| Literature DB >> 33212910 |
Nam-Shim Park1, Seung-Min Song2, Jung Eun Kim2.
Abstract
(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between social support in the workplace for childcare teachers, resilience, and self-care. This study explores the inner mechanism that helps to strengthen self-care of childcare teachers, which enables teachers to provide quality care to children and promote their own wellbeing. (2)Entities:
Keywords: childcare teachers; mediation analysis; resilience; self-care; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33212910 PMCID: PMC7698456 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized Model.
Characteristics of the Participants.
| Variable | Category | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 20–29 years old | 78 (16.7) |
| Work experience | Less than 5 years | 209 (44.8) |
| Daycare center type | Public | 88 (18.9) |
| Marital status | Married | 375 (80.5) |
| Educational attainment | Less than high school | 42 (9.0) |
| Monthly income | 1,000,000–2,000,000 (approximately US$900–1800) | 261 (56.0) |
| Working hours per day | Less than 9 hours | 95 (20.4) |
| Total | 466 (100) | |
Descriptive Statistics.
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social support | 1.00 | 4.00 | 2.94 | 0.43 | −0.27 | 1.97 |
| Resilience | 1.81 | 3.85 | 2.82 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 1.15 |
| Self-care | 1.79 | 4.00 | 2.69 | 0.32 | 0.65 | 1.96 |
Correlations among the Variables.
| Variable | Social Support | Resilience | Self-Care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social support | - | ||
| Resilience | 0.44 *** | - | |
| Self-care | 0.29 *** | 0.63 *** | - |
*** p < 0.001.
Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
| Number of Factors | X2 | df | GFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-factor | 1561.71 | 66 | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.22 |
| 2-factor | 897.11 | 65 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.17 |
| 3-factor | 215.55 | 63 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.07 |
Note: GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Testing of the Mediation Model (N = 466).
| Antecedent | Consequent | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resilience (M) | Self-Care (Y) | |||||||
| B (β) | SE |
| B (β) | SE |
| |||
| Social support (X) | 0.33 *** (0.44) | 0.03 | <0.001 | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.03 | 0.74 | ||
| Resilience (M) | - | - | - | 0.62 *** (0.62) | 0.04 | <0.001 | ||
| Constant | 1.85 *** | 0.09 | <0.001 | 0.93 *** | 0.11 | <0.001 | ||
| Model Summary | R2 = 0.19 | R2 = 0.40 | ||||||
| Significance test of the indirect effect (bootstrap samples = 5000; level of confidence 95%) | ||||||||
| Effect size (standardized size) | BootSE | BootLLCI | BootULCI | |||||
| 0.20 (0.27) | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.27 | |||||
Note: *** p < 0.001. ‘SE’ denotes standard errors. “LLCI” denotes “Lower limit confidence interval,” and “ULCI” denotes “Upper limit confidence interval.”
Figure 2Testing of the Mediation Model. *** p < 0.001.