| Literature DB >> 34073657 |
Jin-Hwa Lee1, In-Ok Sim1.
Abstract
The aim of this study to discover the relationship between psychological well-being, emotional intelligence, willpower, and job-efficacy. The data were collected from 26 May to 30 May 2020 by distributing a questionnaire to 317 clinical nurses with six months of experience in a general hospital located in Seoul. Three hundred copies were collected and used for final data analysis. The results of the study verified that the direct factors of psychological well-being, emotional intelligence, and willpower affect the job-efficacy of clinical nurses and confirmed that emotional intelligence is a mediating factor between psychological well-being and job-efficacy. This study is meaningful in that it proves the necessity of establishing various curriculums focusing on these factors so that nursing students can best perform their duties as professional nurses. In particular, it is suggested that an educational program and curriculum be established that can strengthen the psychological well-being and enhance the emotional intelligence of nursing students. It is expected that such training will equip professional clinical nurses to effectively handle future work in their stress-filled field.Entities:
Keywords: clinical nurse; emotional intelligence; job-efficacy; psychological well-being; willpower
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34073657 PMCID: PMC8197135 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study model.
General characteristics of participants.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Rate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <25 years | 1 | 0.3 |
| Gender | Male | 13 | 4.3 |
| Marital status | Single | 160 | 53.3 |
| Academic record | Junior college | 43 | 14.3 |
| Type of work | 3 shifts | 214 | 71.3 |
| Position | General nurse | 215 | 71.6 |
| Total | 300 | 100 | |
Technical metrics of the measurement variables (n = 300).
| Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological well-being | Environmental mastery | 3.39 | 0.35 | 0.074 | 0.267 |
| Self-acceptance | 3.22 | 0.37 | −0.037 | 0.143 | |
| Positive relations with others | 2.85 | 0.43 | 0.461 | 0.293 | |
| Autonomy | 2.30 | 0.32 | 0.326 | 0.555 | |
| Purpose in life | 2.87 | 0.30 | 0.314 | 0.554 | |
| Personal growth | 3.04 | 0.31 | 0.206 | 0.039 | |
| Emotional intelligence | Self-emotional appraisal | 3.89 | 0.54 | −0.618 | 1.380 |
| Other’s emotional appraisal | 3.71 | 0.61 | −0.487 | 0.343 | |
| Regulation of emotion | 3.52 | 0.60 | −0.143 | −0.174 | |
| Use of emotion | 3.14 | 0.70 | −0.400 | −0.188 | |
| Willpower | Limited resource theory | 3.81 | 0.62 | −0.204 | 0.043 |
| Nonlimited resource theory | 3.38 | 0.74 | −0.179 | −0.260 | |
| Job-efficacy | Job-efficacy | 3.60 | 0.61 | −0.359 | 0.301 |
Correlations between the observed variables.
| Division | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological Well-being | ||||||||||||||
| Self-acceptance | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Environmental mastery | 0.50 ** | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Positive relations with others | 0.33 ** | 0.46 ** | 1 | |||||||||||
| Autonomy | 0.23 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.18 ** | 1 | ||||||||||
| Purpose in life | 0.41 ** | 0.69 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.27 ** | 1 | |||||||||
| Personal growth | 0.36 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.53 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.60 ** | 1 | ||||||||
| Emotional Intelligence | ||||||||||||||
| Regulation of emotion | 0.30 ** | 0.56 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.47 ** | 1 | |||||||
| Other’s emotional appraisal | 0.11 * | 0.11 | 0.24 ** | 0.01 | 0.17 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.30 ** | 1 | ||||||
| Use of Emotion | 0.30 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.16 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.14 * | 1 | |||||
| Self-emotional appraisal | 0.29 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.15 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.45 ** | 0.25 ** | 1 | ||||
| Willpower | ||||||||||||||
| Limited resource theory | 0.12 * | 0.21 ** | 0.00 | 0.14 * | 0.09 | 0.11 * | 0.21 ** | 0.00 | 0.29 ** | 0.07 | 1 | |||
| Nonlimited resource theory | 0.07 | 0.16 ** | −0.06 | 0.20 ** | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.19 ** | 0.01 | 0.33 ** | 0.05 | 0.70 ** | 1 | ||
| Job-Efficacy | ||||||||||||||
| Job-efficacy 1–5 | 0.38 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.58 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.13 * | 1 | |
| Job-efficacy 6–10 | 0.23 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.01 | 0.19 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.44 ** | 1 |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Fitness index of the measurement model.
| Division | Criterion | Fit Measures | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute fit index | |||
| GFI | ≥0.90 | 0.94 | Fitness |
| AGFI | ≥0.85 | 0.89 | Fitness |
| S-RMR | ≤0.08 | 0.04 | Fitness |
| Incremental fit measures | |||
| NFI | ≥0.90 | 0.91 | Fitness |
| IFI | ≥0.90 | 0.87 | Good |
| TLI | ≥0.90 | 0.91 | Fitness |
| CFI | ≥0.90 | 0.94 | Fitness |
| Parsimonious fit measures | |||
| PRATIO (Parsimony Ratio) | ≥0.50 | 0.70 | Fitness |
| PNFI | ≥0.50 | 0.63 | Fitness |
| PCFI | ≥0.50 | 0.65 | Fitness |
| Other measure | |||
| RMSEA | ≤0.10 | 0.07 | Fitness |
Note: GFI: Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI: Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; S-RMR: Standardized-Root Mean Square Residual; NFI: Normed Fit Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; TLI: Tucker Lewis index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; PNFI: Parsimony Normed Fit Index; PCFI: Parsimony Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model.
| Variables | Standardized Regression Weight ( | Standard Error |
| C.R. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological well-being | Self-acceptance | 0.59 | |||
| Positive relations with others | 0.58 | 0.079 | <0.001 | 8.54 *** | |
| Autonomy | 0.44 | 0.049 | <0.001 | 6.84 *** | |
| Environmental mastery | 0.86 | 0.071 | <0.001 | 11.04 *** | |
| Purpose in life | 0.83 | 0.080 | <0.001 | 10.84 *** | |
| Personal growth | 0.66 | 0.061 | <0.001 | 9.34 *** | |
| Emotional intelligence | Regulation of emotion | 0.43 | |||
| Other’s emotional appraisal | 0.40 | 0.08 | <0.001 | 5.60 *** | |
| Use of emotion | 0.90 | 0.09 | <0.001 | 6.54 *** | |
| Self-emotional appraisal | 0.41 | 0.77 | <0.001 | 6.75 *** | |
| Willpower | Limited resource theory | 0.87 | |||
| Nonlimited resource theory | 0.88 | 0.17 | <0.001 | 5.94 *** | |
| Job-efficacy | Job-efficacy 1–5 | 0.77 | |||
| Job-efficacy 6–10 | 0.52 | 0.12 | <0.001 | 7.24 *** | |
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Final model. Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Relationships between the human effects of the measurement model.
| Directions | Standardized Regression Weight ( | Standard Error |
| C.R. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological well-being | 0.71 | 0.86 | <0.001 | 9.10 *** |
| Psychological well-being | 0.27 | 0.10 | <0.001 | 3.89 *** |
| Psychological well-being | 0.53 | 0.12 | <0.001 | 4.27 *** |
| Emotional intelligence | 0.31 | 0.11 | <0.01 | 2.85 ** |
| Willpower | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.067 | 0.53 |
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Mediated effect analysis.
| Directions | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Gross Effects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological well-being | → | Emotional intelligence | 0.71 *** | - | 0.71 *** | ||
| Emotional intelligence | → | Job-efficacy | 0.31 ** | - | 0.31 ** | ||
| Psychological well-being | → | Emotional intelligence | → | Job-efficacy | 0.53 *** | 0.23 ** | 0.76 *** |
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.