| Literature DB >> 35270602 |
Cristina Di-Giusto1, María Eugenia Martín-Palacio2, Marta Soledad García-Rodríguez3, Francisco Javier Sánchez-Sánchez4, Raquel de la Fuente-Anuncibay1, Andrés Fernando Avilés-Dávila2, Cesáreo Gabriel García-Rodríguez5.
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been a growing body of research showing the relationship between teaching work and several health problems, both physical and psychological. Some of these studies relate personal competencies and resources to teachers' occupational health. Based on the construct of Effective Personality, proposed by Martin del Buey, Martín Palacio, and Di Giusto, the aim was to analyse the relationship between the dimensions of the construct and Teachers' Occupational Health. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used. It was based on the application of the Teacher Health Questionnaire (CSD) and the Efficacy Personality Questionnaire-Adults (CPE-A). The sample consisted of 700 non-university teachers aged between 26 and 66 years, M = 47.65 SD = 8.68. Descriptive, correlational, linear regression, and structural equation analyses were carried out. The results confirmed the relationship between the Efficacy Personality construct and Teachers' Occupational Health (r = 0.45 **). In addition, the regression analysis indicated the relevance of each factor of Efficacy Personality in the factors of Teachers' Occupational Health. The variance of Self-efficacy is the most explained by the dimensions of Efficacy Personality (40.2%), with positive relationships. The structural equation analysis confirmed the influence between Efficacy Personality and the factors of Self-Efficacy and Satisfaction, explaining 55.0% of the variance. It is concluded, therefore, that Efficacy Personality has a protective function on Teacher Occupational Health; the higher the Efficacy Personality scores are, the better the results in health gain-Self-efficacy and satisfaction-and the lower the result in health loss-burnout, cognitive affections, musculoskeletal affections, and voice alterations. These results facilitate the design of prevention and intervention programmes for teachers' occupational health, which strengthen and improve personal and socio-affective competencies.Entities:
Keywords: effective personality; occupational health; satisfaction; teacher
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270602 PMCID: PMC8910527 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics for the population and the sample.
| Variable | Population | Sample |
|---|---|---|
| N | 11.796 | 699 |
| Age | ||
| Sex | ||
| Female | 8.562 (72.5%) | 506 (72.6%) |
| Male | 3.234 (27.5%) | 193 (27.6%) |
| Affiliation | ||
| Career or permanent civil servants | 4198 (64.4%) | 497 (71.1%) |
| Interim or permanent civil servants | 7598 (35.6%) | 202 (28.9%) |
| Educational stage | ||
| Teachers | 5615 (47.6%) | 275 (39.3%) |
| Secondary | 4976 (42.2%) | 297 (42.5%) |
| Vocational Education | 730 (6.2%) | 89 (12.7%) |
| Other education | 475 (4.0%) | 38 (5.5%) |
| Location of the centre | ||
| Large population centres (more than 100,000 inhabitants) | 129 centres (29.65%) | 289 (41.5%) |
| Small population centres (between 10,000 and 100,000 inhabitants) | 194 centres (44.60%) | 277 (39.5%) |
| Rural area (in population centres with less than 10,000 inhabitants) | 112 centres (25.75%) | 133 (19.0%) |
Descriptive of Occupational Health and Efficacy Personality.
| N Items | Theoretical | Empirical |
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDS satisfaction | 5 | 15 | 19.63 | 3.84 | 5 | 25 | −0.73 | 0.39 |
| CDS self-efficacy | 5 | 15 | 20.28 | 2.78 | 9 | 25 | −0.74 | 1.19 |
| CDS exhaustion | 3 | 9 | 9.86 | 3.07 | 3 | 15 | −0.24 | −0.62 |
| CDS voice alterations | 3 | 9 | 7.95 | 2.95 | 3 | 15 | 0.11 | −0.77 |
| CDS musculoskeletal affections | 3 | 9 | 9.51 | 3.28 | 3 | 15 | −0.22 | −0.82 |
| CDS cognitive affections | 4 | 12 | 13.32 | 3.28 | 4 | 20 | −0.40 | −0.14 |
| CDS total | 23 | 69 | 77.27 | 12.31 | 38 | 115 | 0.02 | 0.23 |
| CPE-A: Self-esteem | 8 | 24 | 29.77 | 4.01 | 16 | 40 | −0.28 | 0.58 |
| CPE-A: Labour Self-Realisation | 8 | 24 | 33.15 | 3.64 | 21 | 40 | −0.17 | 0.02 |
| CPE-A: Resolute Self-Efficacy | 5 | 15 | 19.73 | 2.70 | 8 | 25 | −0.40 | 0.51 |
| CPE-A: Social Self-Realisation | 9 | 27 | 34.55 | 5.11 | 17 | 45 | −0.55 | 0.33 |
| CPE-A: Total Effective Personality | 30 | 90 | 117.20 | 12.15 | 766 | 150 | −0.19 | 0.35 |
Correlations between Effective Personality and Teacher Health.
| CPE-A: Total Effective Personality | CPE-A: Self-Esteem | CPE-A: Labour Self-Realisation | CPE-A: Resolute Self-Efficacy | CPE-A: Social Self-Realisation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDS Total | 0.45 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.32 ** |
| CDS Satisfaction | 0.47 ** | 0.33 ** | 0.43 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.37 ** |
| CDS Self-efficacy | 0.59 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.39 ** |
| CDS Exhaustion | −0.20 ** | −0.24 ** | −0.08 * | −0.19 ** | −0.14 ** |
| CDS Voice Alterations | −0.08 * | −0.11 ** | −0.01 | −0.09 * | −0.05 |
| CDS Musculoskeletal Affections | −0.06 | −0.11 ** | 0.03 | −0.07 | −0.04 |
| CDS Cognitive Affections | −0.30 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.15 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.23 ** |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Satisfaction.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Satisfaction | (Constant) | 0.76 | −1.75 | 3.26 | 0.49 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.01 * | |
| Labor Self-Realisation | 0.29 | 0.27 * | 0.21 | 0.37 | |||||
| Social Self-Realisation | 0.16 | 0.21 * | 0.10 | 0.21 | |||||
| Resolute Self-Efficacy | 0.19 | 0.14 * | 0.09 | 0.30 | |||||
* Bonferroni correction (p-value 0.05/3 tests = 0.016).
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Self-Efficacy.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Self-Efficacy | (Constant) | 3.16 | 1.59 | 4.74 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.01 * | |
| Labor Self-Realisation | 0.35 | 0.46 * | 0.29 | 0.41 | |||||
| Self-esteem | 0.11 | 0.16 * | 0.05 | 0.16 | |||||
| Social Self-Realisation | 0.07 | 0.13 * | 0.03 | 0.10 | |||||
* Bonferroni correction (p-value 0.05/3 tests = 0.016).
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Exhaustion.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Exhaustion | (Constant) | 14.38 | 12.24 | 16.52 | 0.27 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.01 * | |
| Self-esteem | −0.20 | −0.26 * | −0.28 | −0.13 | |||||
| Labor Self-Realisation | 0.13 | 0.15 * | 0.05 | 0.21 | |||||
| Resolute Self-Efficacy | −0.13 | −0.12 * | −0.24 | −0.03 | |||||
* Bonferroni correction (p-value 0.05/3 tests = 0.016).
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Voice Disturbance.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Voice Alterations | (Constant) | 10.37 | 8.74 | 12.01 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 * | |
| Self-esteem | −0.08 | −0.11 * | −0.14 | −0.03 | |||||
* p < 0.05.
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Musculoskeletal Disorders.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Musculoskeletal Affections | (Constant) | 12.32 | 10.51 | 14.14 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 * | |
| Self-esteem | −0.09 | −0.11 * | −0.15 | −0.03 | |||||
* p < 0.05.
Regression Analysis of the Influence of Effective Personality Factors on Cognitive Affections.
| DV | IV | B |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
|
| Change at | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | ||||||||
| Cognitive Affections | (Constant) | 21.75 | 19.44 | 24.07 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.01 * | |
| Self-esteem | −0.16 | −0.19 * | −0.24 | −0.07 | |||||
| Resolute Self-Efficacy | −0.23 | −0.19 * | −0.34 | −0.13 | |||||
| Social Self-Realisation | −0.08 | −0.12 * | −0.13 | −0.03 | |||||
| Labor Self-Realisation | 0.11 | 0.12 * | 0.02 | 0.19 | |||||
* Bonferroni correction (p-value 0.05/4 tests = 0.0125).
Figure 1Model 1: Effective Personality Relationship with Occupational Health.
Figure 2Model 2: Effective Personality Relationship with Satisfaction and Self-efficacy factors.
Model fit and validity and reliability indices.
|
|
| |||
| CMIN/DF | 19.67 | 8.96 | ||
| GFI | 0.80 | 0.97 | ||
| CFI | 0.73 | 0.96 | ||
| NFI | 0.72 | 0.95 | ||
| SRMR | 0.12 | 0.04 | ||
|
|
|
|
| |
| CR | 0.80 | 0.02 | 0.80 | 0.78 |
| AVE | 0.51 | 0.26 | 0.50 | 0.65 |
| MSV | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.55 |
| MaxR(H) | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.86 |
| Effective Personality | 0.71 | 0.76 *** | 0.71 | 0.74 *** |
| Occupational Health | 0.51 | 0.81 | ||
*** Correlation p < 0.001.
Figure 3Standardised Regression Weights of the SEM: Model of Structural Equations of Effective Personality Relationship with Satisfaction and Self-efficacy Factors.