| Literature DB >> 35409829 |
Ezza Mad Baguri1, Samsilah Roslan1, Siti Aishah Hassan2, Steven Eric Krauss3, Zeinab Zaremohzzabieh1.
Abstract
(1) Background: The closure of schools and the transition to online teaching because of the COVID-19 pandemic's restrictions have resulted in significant changes in the workplace. Consequently, several resilience strategies have been implemented, and chief among them focus on the topic of burnout and coping abilities; (2) Purpose: Thus, this study investigates the influence of self-esteem, dispositional hope, and mattering on teacher resilience, and how crisis self-efficacy and gender differences mediate and moderate the relationships among associated variables. (3)Entities:
Keywords: crisis self-efficacy; dispositional hope; mattering; self-esteem; teacher resilience
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409829 PMCID: PMC8998510 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19074150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Mean, standard deviation, and inter-correlation among variables.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Dispositional hope | 5.06 | 0.55 | 1 | |||
| 2. Resilience | 5.06 | 0.79 | 0.719 ** | 1 | ||
| 3. Self-esteem | 5.52 | 0.74 | 0.650 ** | 0.551 ** | 1 | |
| 4. Mattering | 5.17 | 0.67 | 0.588 ** | 0.487 ** | 0.524 ** | 1 |
| 5. Crisis self-efficacy | 5.04 | 0.69 | 0.631 ** | 0.591 ** | 0.519 ** | 0.422 ** |
Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Measurement model assessment.
| Constructs | Items | Loading | α | rho_A | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOP | 0.68 | 0.707 | 0.82 | 0.604 | ||
| CPE3 | 0.701 | |||||
| CPE5 | 0.816 | |||||
| CPE6 | 0.81 | |||||
| MAT | 0.752 | 0.764 | 0.843 | 0.576 | ||
| MAT2 | 0.751 | |||||
| MAT3 | 0.744 | |||||
| MAT4 | 0.807 | |||||
| MAT5 | 0.822 | |||||
| RES | 0.848 | 0.85 | 0.892 | 0.623 | ||
| RES1 | 0.804 | |||||
| RES2 | 0.779 | |||||
| RES3 | 0.83 | |||||
| RES4 | 0.812 | |||||
| RES6 | 0.715 | |||||
| SEE | 0.791 | 0.796 | 0.864 | 0.614 | ||
| SEE1 | 0.759 | |||||
| SEE2 | 0.754 | |||||
| SEE3 | 0.794 | |||||
| SEE4 | 0.826 | |||||
| CSE | 0.887 | 0.891 | 0.91 | 0.559 | ||
| CSE1 | 0.728 | |||||
| CSE11 | 0.704 | |||||
| CSE2 | 0.769 | |||||
| CSE3 | 0.771 | |||||
| CSE4 | 0.783 | |||||
| CSE5 | 0.777 | |||||
| CSE7 | 0.734 | |||||
| CSE8 | 0.709 |
Note. Dispositional Hope = HOP, Mattering = MAT, Resilience = RES, Self-esteem = SEE, Crisis self-efficacy = CSE.
Fornell–Larcker criterion.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. HOP | 0.777 | ||||
| 2. CSE | 0.5 | 0.747 | |||
| 3. MAT | 0.596 | 0.435 | 0.759 | ||
| 4. RES | 0.57 | 0.585 | 0.521 | 0.789 | |
| 5. SEE | 0.629 | 0.561 | 0.578 | 0.588 | 0.784 |
Note. Dispositional Hope = HOP, Mattering = MAT, Resilience = RES, Self-esteem = SEE, Crisis self-efficacy = CSE.
HTMT criterion.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. HOP | ||||
| 2. CSE | 0.622 | |||
| 3. MAT | 0.808 | 0.521 | ||
| 4. RES | 0.71 | 0.666 | 0.651 | |
| 5. SEE | 0.835 | 0.66 | 0.739 | 0.71 |
Note. Dispositional Hope = HOP, Mattering = MAT, Resilience = RES, Self-esteem = SEE, Crisis self-efficacy = CSE.
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypotheses | Relationships | Std β | BC 0.95% LL | BC 0.95% UL | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | HOP → RES | 0.199 | 2.892 | 0.005 | 0.046 | 0.332 | SU |
| H2 | CSE → RES | 0.305 | 3.817 | 0.000 | 0.156 | 0.477 | SU |
| H3 | MAT → RES | 0.151 | 2.210 | 0.016 | 0.032 | 0.269 | SU |
| H4 | SEE → RES | 0.204 | 2.303 | 0.019 | 0.028 | 0.362 | SU |
| H5a | HOP → CSE →RES | 0.063 | 2.044 | 0.041 | 0.021 | 0.143 | SU |
| H5b | MAT →CSE → RES | 0.029 | 0.923 | 0.356 | −0.026 | 0.098 | NS |
| H5c | SEE →CSE → RES | 0.115 | 2.752 | 0.006 | 0.051 | 0.212 | SU |
Note. Dispositional Hope = HOP, Mattering = MAT, Resilience = RES, Self-esteem = SEE, Crisis self-efficacy = CSE, Supported = SU, Not supported = NS.
Figure 1Diagram for the structural model of the study.
Partial least squares results for the moderating effects of gender.
| Hypotheses | Relationships | Male | Female | Decision | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Std β | Std β | |||||||
| H6a | HOP → RES | 0.344 | 3.792 | 0.093 | 1.156 | 2.085 | 0.039 | SU |
| H6b | SEE → RES | −0.008 | 0.074 | 0.448 | 3.757 | 2.803 | 0.006 | SU |
| H6c | MAT → RES | 0.118 | 1.164 | 0.065 | 0.572 | 0.350 | 0.727 | NS |
| H6d | CSE → RES | 0.368 | 3.792 | 0.231 | 2.189 | 0.873 | 0.384 | NS |
Note. Dispositional Hope = HOP, Mattering = MAT, Resilience = RES, Self-esteem = SEE, Crisis self-efficacy = CSE, Supported = SU, Not supported = NS.