| Literature DB >> 34899485 |
Jian-Bin Li1, An Yang2, Rui Zhang3,4, Tuen Yung Leung5, Zhouxing Li6.
Abstract
The occupational well-being (OWB) of early childhood educators (ECEs) play a crucial role in their job performance, the development of a child, and the operation of early childhood education sectors. OWB of ECEs has been an increasing concern in recent years and this concern might be particularly salient for beginning ECEs given the multiple adaptive changes and challenges they encounter during the transition from training to teaching. However, research on the beginning ECEs' OWB has been scarce. In this study, we employed both variable-centered and person-centered approaches to explore OWB and examined job demands and resources as predictors in 117 Hong Kong beginning ECEs (113 females, M age = 21.71 years). They first reported job demands (i.e., class size, working hours, dealing with children with special education needs) and job resources (i.e., salary and job support) at the end of the first month of the fall semester upon working as in-service teachers. They then reported on four OWB variables (i.e., job satisfaction, work engagement, job stress, and job burnout) at the beginning of the spring semester. Results of the variable-centered analysis revealed that beginning ECEs reported medium or above-medium levels on the positive OWB indicators and medium or below-medium levels on the negative OWB indicators. Regression analysis found that despite some exceptions, job demands and job resources negatively (positively) and positively (negatively) predicted positive (negative) OWB indicators, respectively. Results of person-centered analysis suggested that the complex pattern of different OWB indicators could be categorized into two OWB profiles (medium well-being vs. relatively weak well-being - emotional exhaustion). Results of regression analysis showed that beginning ECEs with higher job demands were less likely, whereas those with more job resources were more likely, to be assigned to the medium well-being profile. These results inform which leverage points could be targeted to enhance a specific OWB indicator and identify who would be in dire need to enhance their OWB at the very beginning of their teaching career.Entities:
Keywords: JD-R model; job demands; job resources; kindergarten teachers; person-oriented approach; professional well-being; transition; variable-oriented approach
Year: 2021 PMID: 34899485 PMCID: PMC8654929 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between occupational well-being (OWB) indicators for the total sample.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1. T2 Class size | 26.24 | 8.97 | − | |||||||||||
| 2. T2 SEN students in class (1 = yes, 2 = no) | 1.20 | 0.40 | 0.27 | − | ||||||||||
| 3. T2 Working hours | 9.81 | 1.46 | 0.12 | 0.05 | − | |||||||||
| 4. T2 Salary | 5.24 | 1.26 | 0.09 | –0.04 | 0.56 | − | ||||||||
| 5. T2 Job support | 4.42 | 0.82 | –0.12 | –0.10 | –0.04 | 0.10 | − | |||||||
| 6. T3 Job satisfaction | 3.45 | 0.58 | –0.08 | 0.01 | −0.36 | –0.06 | 0.62 | − | ||||||
| 7. T3 Work engagement: absorption | 3.24 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 0.01 | –0.11 | 0.13 | 0.36 | 0.41 | − | |||||
| 8. T3 Work engagement: dedication | 3.57 | 0.61 | –0.06 | 0.12 | −0.24 | 0.11 | 0.42 | 0.53 | 0.68 | − | ||||
| 9. T3 Work engagement: vigor | 2.99 | 0.64 | 0.07 | 0.10 | –0.15 | 0.06 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 0.77 | 0.72 | − | |||
| 10. T3 Job stress | 2.71 | 0.76 | 0.19 | –0.12 | 0.42 | 0.22 | −0.26 | −0.50 | –0.09 | −0.24 | –0.14 | − | ||
| 11. T3 Job burnout: emotional exhaustion | 4.07 | 1.31 | 0.14 | −0.22 | 0.44 | 0.20 | −0.28 | −0.55 | −0.23 | −0.38 | −0.35 | 0.63 | − | |
| 12. T3 Job burnout: reduced efficacy | 2.59 | 0.92 | 0.03 | –0.08 | 0.06 | –0.12 | −0.32 | −0.34 | −0.35 | −0.48 | −0.34 | 0.29 | 0.14 | − |
| 13. T3 Job burnout: cynicism | 2.50 | 1.43 | 0.08 | –0.12 | 0.23 | 0.03 | −0.30 | −0.40 | –0.15 | −0.34 | −0.26 | 0.47 | 0.59 | 0.24 |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Regression of OWB indicators on job demands and job resources.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| T2 Class size | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.570 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.360 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.461 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.028 | 0.18 |
| T2 SEN | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.245 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.426 | 0.08 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.011 | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.033 | 0.20 |
| T2 Working hours | –0.13 | 0.03 | <0.001 | –0.34 | –0.08 | 0.05 | 0.118 | –0.19 | –0.14 | 0.04 | 0.001 | –0.34 | –0.09 | 0.00 | 0.042 | –0.20 |
| T2 Salary | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.430 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.049 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.012 | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.141 | 0.14 |
| T2 Job support | 0.42 | 0.05 | <0.001 | 0.59 | 0.27 | 0.07 | <0.001 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.001 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.06 | <0.001 | 0.37 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| T2 Class size | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.252 | 0.08 | –0.00 | 0.01 | 0.966 | –0.00 | –0.01 | 0.01 | 0.526 | –0.05 | –0.00 | 0.01 | 0.862 | –0.01 |
| T2 SEN | –0.22 | 0.17 | 0.183 | –0.12 | –0.80 | 0.25 | 0.001 | –0.25 | –0.31 | 0.18 | 0.080 | –0.14 | –0.56 | 0.24 | 0.021 | –0.16 |
| T2 Working hours | 0.19 | 0.05 | <0.001 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.09 | <0.001 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.249 | 0.12 | 0.025 | 0.10 | 0.008 | 0.26 |
| T2 Salary | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.680 | 0.04 | –0.01 | 0.09 | 0.890 | –0.01 | –0.12 | 0.10 | 0.222 | –0.17 | –0.11 | 0.09 | 0.248 | –0.10 |
| T2 Job support | –0.21 | 0.08 | 0.009 | –0.23 | –0.42 | 0.12 | 0.001 | –0.26 | –0.35 | 0.13 | 0.006 | –0.32 | –0.49 | 0.18 | 0.006 | –0.28 |
SEN students in class (1 = yes, 2 = no).
Summary of latent profile models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 Profile | −1127.602 | 16 | 2287.205 | 2331.400 | 2280.882 | – | – | – | 117 |
|
| − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 Profiles | −986.819 | 34 | 2041.638 | 2135.552 | 2028.075 | 0.930 | 0.616 | <0.001 | 33/81/3 |
Bolded entries represent the solution chosen in this study.
Means, standard deviations, and MANOVA tests for OWB indicators between the two profiles.
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Job satisfaction | 3.69 | 0.43 | 2.85 | 0.45 | 89.14 | <0.001 | 0.44 |
| Work engagement: absorption | 3.47 | 0.50 | 2.70 | 0.62 | 49.81 | <0.001 | 0.30 |
| Work engagement: dedication | 3.81 | 0.42 | 2.96 | 0.59 | 77.11 | <0.001 | 0.40 |
| Work engagement: vigor | 3.23 | 0.51 | 2.42 | 0.55 | 57.14 | 0.001 | 0.33 |
| Job stress | 2.50 | 0.74 | 3.22 | 0.53 | 26.67 | <0.001 | 0.19 |
| Job burnout: emotional exhaustion | 3.64 | 1.18 | 5.14 | 0.95 | 43.80 | <0.001 | 0.28 |
| Job burnout: reduced efficacy | 2.29 | 0.73 | 3.33 | 0.92 | 42.16 | <0.001 | 0.27 |
| Job burnout: cynicism | 2.05 | 1.20 | 3.58 | 1.36 | 36.36 | <0.001 | 0.24 |
Logistic regression of class membership on predictors (with relatively weak well-being – emotional exhaustion as a reference group).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| T2 Class size | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.815 | 0.99 | [0.93, 1.05] |
| T2 SEN students in class (1 = yes, 2 = no) | 2.37 | 0.92 | 0.010 | 10.70 | [1.76, 64.92] |
| T2 Working hours | −1.06 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.35 | [0.33, 0.37] |
| T2 Salary | 0.68 | 0.34 | 0.046 | 1.97 | [1.01, 3.84] |
| T2 Job support | 1.57 | 0.46 | 0.001 | 4.81 | [1.95, 11.84] |