| Literature DB >> 35270419 |
Min Xie1, Shunsen Huang1, Li Ke2, Xia Wang3, Yun Wang1.
Abstract
To better understand burnout and its development, researchers have shown an increasing interest in recent years in identifying different profiles of burnout and its development process. However, there have been few longitudinal studies on the profile and development of teacher burnout. This study used a person-centred approach to explore the profiles of teacher burnout, transition probabilities and the associations between these aspects and resource factors. Data were collected from 3743 primary school teachers in a two-wave longitudinal test over three years. The results showed that teacher burnout exhibited six relatively stable profiles across the whole study population and that the transition of individual profiles over time followed a certain probability. Psychological capital and professional identity were important resource factors in reducing the occurrence of teacher burnout and increasing transition probability toward burnout symptom alleviation over time, while positive coping played an important role in reducing the occurrence of teacher ineffectiveness. Therefore, the results indicated that the overall teacher burnout profile was stable, a discovery which has important implications for conducting group interventions to benefit more teachers, while the individual burnout profile exhibited a latent transition probability over time. Interventions employing different resource factors can be adopted to alleviate the symptoms of different burnout profiles.Entities:
Keywords: latent profiles; latent transition analysis; resource factors; teacher burnout
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270419 PMCID: PMC8910542 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Fit statistics for latent profiles of teacher burnout at T1 and T2.
| Wave | Number | AIC | aBIC | Entropy | Probabilities of Each Profile | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 1 | 24,810.80 | 24,828.25 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 23,257.22 | 23,286.30 | 0.79 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.75;0.25 | |
| 3 | 22,522.68 | 22,563.40 | 0.81 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.58;0.14;0.28 | |
| 4 | 22,054.20 | 22,106.55 | 0.76 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.13;0.13;0.41;0.33 | |
| 5 | 21,666.62 | 21,730.60 | 0.78 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.41;0.06;0.20;0.18;0.15 | |
| 6 | 21,321.77 | 21,397.38 | 0.80 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.19;0.16;0.40;0.06;0.02;0.17 | |
| 7 | 21,148.52 | 21,235.76 | 0.81 | 0.042 | 0.000 | 0.36;0.08;0.06;0.10;0.17;0.19;0.03 | |
| 8 | 21,002.27 | 21,101.14 | 0.78 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 0.12;0.11;0.06;0.11;0.28;0.08;0.02;0.23 | |
| T2 | 1 | 23,888.97 | 23,906.42 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 21,659.33 | 21,688.41 | 0.87 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.77;0.23 | |
| 3 | 21,016.51 | 21,057.22 | 0.87 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.25;0.71;0.04 | |
| 4 | 20,460.11 | 20,512.46 | 0.86 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.23;0.03;0.12;0.62 | |
| 5 | 20,120.98 | 20,184.95 | 0.83 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.57;0.08;0.17;0.03;0.14 | |
| 6 | 19,882.84 | 19,958.45 | 0.84 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.54;0.02;0.07;0.19;0.15;0.03 | |
| 7 | 19,670.32 | 19,757.57 | 0.78 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.26;0.08;0.02;0.07;0.38;0.13;0.06 | |
| 8 | 19,475.57 | 19,574.45 | 0.79 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.32;0.12;0.07;0.02;0.09;0.07;0.29;0.02 |
Note: aBIC = Bayesian information criterion calibrated by sample size; LMR = Lo-Mondell-Ruben’s calibrated likelihood ratio test; BLRT = Bootstrap likelihood ratio test.
Mean of three dimensions in the six latent profiles.
| Profiles | T1 | T2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | EE | DP | PA | N | EE | DP | PA | |
| (1) Low/no burnout | 1497(40%) | 2.02 | 1.32 | 1.86 | 2021(54%) | 1.92 | 1.32 | 1.79 |
| (2) Highly ineffective | 225(6%) | 1.45 | 1.18 | 4.53 | 75(2%) | 1.52 | 1.20 | 4.31 |
| (3) Ineffective instigated | 636(17%) | 2.46 | 1.96 | 3.32 | 711(19%) | 2.43 | 1.95 | 2.98 |
| (4) Exhaustion instigated | 711(19%) | 3.50 | 1.78 | 2.15 | 262(7%) | 3.73 | 1.79 | 1.88 |
| (5) EE & DP dominated burnout | 75(2%) | 4.52 | 3.78 | 2.49 | 112(3%) | 4.47 | 3.96 | 2.14 |
| (6) Burnout | 599(16%) | 3.64 | 2.74 | 2.78 | 561(15%) | 3.45 | 2.80 | 2.69 |
| Mean (Total) | 2.66 | 1.79 | 2.50 | 2.46 | 1.78 | 2.23 | ||
| Median (Total) | 2.56 | 1.67 | 2.25 | 2.22 | 1.67 | 2.00 | ||
| 1440.32 | 2967.14 | 1013.74 | 1341.77 | 3155.95 | 644.24 | |||
| Effect size η2 | 0.690 | 0.821 | 0.610 | 0.674 | 0.830 | 0.498 | ||
Figure 1Six latent profiles of burnout at T1 and T2.
Latent transition probability of each profile from T1 to T2.
| Latent Transition Probability | T2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | ||
| T1 | (1) Low/no burnout | 62.0% | 5.8% | 22.5% | 3.2% | 0.8% | 5.7% |
| (2) Highly ineffective | 60.1% | 19.6% | 6.8% | 1.0% | 0.5% | 12.0% | |
| (3) Ineffective instigated | 16.6% | 21.3% | 33.0% | 1.9% | 2.6% | 24.6% | |
| (4) Exhaustion instigated | 15.4% | 1.9% | 43.7% | 27.0% | 5.4% | 6.5% | |
| (5) EE & DP dominated burnout | 4.8% | 7.0% | 18.2% | 16.5% | 29.2% | 24.3% | |
| (6) Burnout | 14.2% | 12.7% | 23.9% | 6.8% | 11.5% | 30.9% | |
Means and standard deviations of resource factors in each profile at T1.
| Profiles | Psychological Capital | Professional Identity | Positive Coping | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |
| (1) Low/no burnout | 3.31 | 0.36 | 4.20 | 0.76 | 3.31 | 0.47 |
| (2) Highly ineffective | 3.15 | 0.43 | 4.33 | 0.96 | 2.97 | 0.58 |
| (3) Ineffective instigated | 2.92 | 0.36 | 3.60 | 0.80 | 2.92 | 0.51 |
| (4) Exhaustion instigated | 3.07 | 0.37 | 3.60 | 0.82 | 3.22 | 0.46 |
| (5) EE&DP dominated burnout | 2.73 | 0.44 | 2.55 | 0.99 | 3.11 | 0.54 |
| (6) Burnout | 2.82 | 0.40 | 3.15 | 0.85 | 2.94 | 0.53 |
| Total | 3.13 | 0.39 | 3.84 | 0.85 | 3.16 | 0.50 |
| F (5,3737) | 267.92 | 268.22 | 91.67 | |||
| Effect size η2 | 0.292 | 0.293 | 0.124 | |||
The OR of the probability of each profile at T1 under the effects of resource factors.
| Factors | Highly Ineffective | Ineffective Instigated | Exhaustion Instigated | EE & DP Dominated Burnout | Burnout |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| psychological capital | 0.92 | 0.39 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.26 *** | <0.001 |
| professional identity | 1.82 * | 0.75 *** | 0.68 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.55 *** | <0.001 |
| positive coping | 0.64 ** | 0.81 | 1.16 | 1.28 | 1.00 | <0.01 |
Note: (1) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; (2) the p-value in the last column referred to the significance of the likelihood ratio test as a whole for each factor and p < 0.05 indicated that the factor had a significant influence on the outcome variables.
The OR of transition from T1 to T2 with the effects of resilience and positive coping.
| Latent Profile | Factors | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Low/no burnout | psychological capital | / | 0.17 * | 0.06 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.00 *** | 0.01 *** | <0.001 |
| professional identity | / | 12.26 *** | 0.53 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.06 *** | 0.19 *** | <0.001 | |
| positive coping | / | 0.70 | 0.52 *** | 1.54 | 1.60 | 0.48 ** | <0.001 | |
| (2) Highly ineffective | psychological capital | 2.33 | / | 0.15 * | a | a | 0.03 ** | <0.001 |
| professional identity | 0.77 | / | 0.66 | a | a | 0.25 ** | <0.001 | |
| positive coping | 3.63 * | / | 1.88 | a | a | 0.91 | <0.05 | |
| (3) Ineffective instigated | psychological capital | 21.58 *** | 2.03 | / | 1.66 | 0.05 * | 0.52 * | <0.001 |
| professional identity | 2.47 *** | 25.79 *** | / | 1.05 | 0.22 *** | 0.51 *** | <0.001 | |
| positive coping | 2.20 ** | 0.74 | / | 1.82 | 1.31 | 1.45 | <0.01 | |
| (4) Exhaustion instigated | psychological capital | 3.96 *** | 1.65 | 0.17 ** | / | 0.00 *** | 0.05 *** | <0.001 |
| professional identity | 1.76 *** | 1.97 | 1.06 | / | 0.14 *** | 0.48 *** | <0.001 | |
| positive coping | 1.61 | 0.08 * | 0.45 * | / | 1.82 | 0.87 | <0.001 | |
| (5) EE and DP dominated burnout | psychological capital | a | a | 1.39 | 1.18 | / | 0.83 | >0.05 |
| professional identity | a | a | 3.42 * | 5.71 ** | / | 1.37 | <0.01 | |
| positive coping | a | a | 0.15 * | 0.38 | / | 0.48 | >0.05 | |
| (6) Burnout | psychological capital | 24.84 *** | 1.69 | 1.90 | 5.97 ** | 0.30 ** | / | <0.001 |
| professional identity | 4.99 *** | 9.83 *** | 2.40 *** | 1.60 ** | 0.47 ** | / | <0.001 | |
| positive coping | 2.37 ** | 0.47 | 0.54 ** | 2.36 ** | 2.36 ** | / | <0.001 |
Note: (1) the rows were the latent profiles at T1, and the columns were the latent profiles at T2; (2) * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; (3) a the number of individuals in this cell was less than five, the OR value was ignored; (4) the p-value in the last column referred to the significance of the likelihood ratio test as a whole for each factor and p < 0.05 indicated that the factor had a significant influence on the outcome variables.