| Literature DB >> 35651565 |
Jing He1, Yanling Zhang1, Si Qin2, Wei Liu3.
Abstract
Metro driver is the prime person who is responsible for metro operation safety. The mental health of a metro driver is very important for the operation of the subway and requires the driver to keep high mental alertness to monitor the surrounding environment and also handle emergencies under uncertain or dangerous conditions. After a long-term occupational strain, a metro driver is likely to suffer from some mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, that ultimately threaten the lives of passengers. Therefore, in this study, we focus on the psychological symptoms of metro drivers from the angle of occupational strain and neuroticism. A total of 396 metro drivers from Kunming Rail Transit Operation Co., Ltd. in China were investigated through a questionnaire survey. Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Personal Strain Questionnaire (PSQ), and NEO-Five-Factor Inventory-Neuroticism Subscale (NEO-FFI-N) were applied to evaluate the psychological symptoms, occupational strain, and neuroticism in metro drivers, respectively. The surveyed data were analyzed by SPSS software. Based on the data, a path structural equation model was established to explore the correlation among occupational strain, psychological symptoms, and neuroticism. The results show that the scores for psychological symptoms and occupational strain are higher than the Chinese adult norm among metro drivers. The occupational strain, neuroticism, and psychological symptoms are all positively correlated in the metro drivers. Occupational stress has a direct influence on the psychological symptom, while neuroticism plays a partial mediation role between occupational strain and psychological symptoms. The results of this study can be applied to optimize the employee selection system and training system for metro operation companies.Entities:
Keywords: mediating role; metro driver; neuroticism; occupational strain; psychological symptom
Year: 2022 PMID: 35651565 PMCID: PMC9149560 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.823682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Statistical description of samples.
| Variable | Category | Number | Percentage |
| Age | 18–23 | 83 | 21% |
| 24–26 | 191 | 48.2% | |
| 27–30 | 102 | 25.8% | |
| 30–45 | 20 | 5.1% | |
| Education | High school | 2 | 0.5% |
| Secondary specialized school | 85 | 21.5% | |
| Junior college | 204 | 51.5% | |
| Undergraduate | 105 | 26.5% | |
| Position | First-class metro driver | 29 | 7.3% |
| Second-class metro driver | 322 | 81.3% | |
| Foreman | 45 | 11.4% | |
| Marital status | Married | 141 | 35.6% |
| Unmarried | 255 | 64.4% |
Reliability analysis of questionnaires used in this study.
| Name of questionnaire | Cronbach’s α-value |
| SCL-90 | 0.972 |
| PSQ | 0.821 |
| NEO-FFI-N | 0.701 |
KMO values and probability of Barlett’s sphericity test for questionnaires.
| Name of questionnaire | KMO value | Significant probability of Barlett’s test sphericity |
| SCL-90 | 0.938 | 0.000 |
| PSQ | 0.897 | 0.000 |
| NEO-FFI-N | 0.783 | 0.000 |
Convergent validity analysis of the questionnaire.
| Questionnaire name | AVE | CR |
| SCL-90 | 0.294 | 0.973 |
| PSQ | 0.242 | 0.796 |
| NEO-FFI-N | 0.193 | 0.69 |
Discriminant validity analysis of SCL-90.
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | |
| F1 | 0.592 | |||||||||
| F2 | 0.635 | 0.692 | ||||||||
| F3 | 0.51 | 0.744 | 0.817 | |||||||
| F4 | 0.697 | 0.815 | 0.755 | 0.807 | ||||||
| F5 | 0.673 | 0.753 | 0.719 | 0.826 | 0.837 | |||||
| F6 | 0.603 | 0.671 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.703 | 0.745 | ||||
| F7 | 0.526 | 0.64 | 0.681 | 0.724 | 0.711 | 0.581 | 0.74 | |||
| F8 | 0.596 | 0.713 | 0.744 | 0.774 | 0.739 | 0.669 | 0.654 | 0.79 | ||
| F9 | 0.63 | 0.752 | 0.776 | 0.815 | 0.816 | 0.694 | 0.699 | 0.794 | 0.845 | |
| F10 | 0.661 | 0.659 | 0.56 | 0.7 | 0.675 | 0.565 | 0.532 | 0.624 | 0.646 | 0.717 |
Discriminant validity analysis of PSQ.
| VS | PSY | IS | PHS | |
| VS | 0.519 | |||
| PSY | 0.497 | 0.603 | ||
| IS | 0.474 | 0.542 | 0.582 | |
| PHS | 0.427 | 0.613 | 0.499 | 0.632 |
Results of psychological symptom assessment in metro drivers surveyed by SCL-90.
| Psychological symptom | Metro drivers | Chinese adult norm |
|
| Somatization | 1.61 ± 0.56 | 1.37 ± 0.48 | 8.682 |
| Compulsion | 1.96 ± 0.63 | 1.62 ± 0.58 | 10.685 |
| Interpersonal relationship | 1.68 ± 0.52 | 1.65 ± 0.51 | 1.113 |
| Depression | 1.68 ± 0.56 | 1.50 ± 0.59 | 6.260 |
| Anxiety | 1.58 ± 0.53 | 1.39 ± 0.43 | 7.179 |
| Hostility | 1.64 ± 0.66 | 1.48 ± 0.56 | 4.876 |
| Terror | 1.45 ± 0.51 | 1.23 ± 0.41 | 8.333 |
| Crankiness | 1.58 ± 0.55 | 1.43 ± 0.57 | 5.576 |
| Psychopathy | 1.49 ± 0.47 | 1.29 ± 0.42 | 8.218 |
| Total score | 148.84 ± 42.66 | 129.96 ± 38.76 | 8.805 |
t is the statistical value of the Student’s t-test; ***p < 0.001. All dimensions are converted into factor scores for the Student’s t-test, and the total score is the sum of the original scores of the questionnaire.
Occupational strain assessment results for metro drivers from PSQ.
| Occupational strain | Metro driver ( | Chinese adult norm |
|
| Vocational strain | 24.37 ± 3.71 | 20.4 ± 5.2 | 21.248 |
| Psychologic strain | 25.52 ± 5.37 | 23.8 ± 5.9 | 6.370 |
| Interpersonal strain | 28.17 ± 3.81 | 25.6 ± 4.4 | 13.418 |
| Physical strain | 26.12 ± 4.82 | 22.6 ± 5.6 | 14.516 |
| Total score | 104.17 ± 14.18 | 92.5 ± 17.3 | 16.376 |
t is the statistical value of the Student’s t-test; ***p < 0.001.
Correlation coefficients of each dimension in the SCL-90, PSQ, and NEO-FFI-N for metro drivers.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | |
| A | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| B | 0.72 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| C | 0.86 | 0.50 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| D | 0.77 | 0.47 | 0.54 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| E | 0.82 | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.50 | 1 | |||||||||||
| F | 0.45 | 0.27 | 0.47 | 0.24 | 0.40 | 1 | ||||||||||
| G | 0.36 | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.37 | 0.79 | 1 | |||||||||
| H | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.88 | 0.63 | 1 | ||||||||
| I | 0.38 | 0.27 | 0.38 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.83 | 0.51 | 0.74 | 1 | |||||||
| J | 0.43 | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.24 | 0.39 | 0.93 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.76 | 1 | ||||||
| K | 0.39 | 0.26 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.35 | 0.90 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.83 | 1 | |||||
| L | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.41 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.79 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 1 | ||||
| M | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.25 | 0.78 | 0.53 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 1 | |||
| N | 0.44 | 0.27 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.85 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 1 | ||
| O | 0.41 | 0.26 | 0.43 | 0.23 | 0.37 | 0.90 | 0.63 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.79 | 1 | |
| P | 0.40 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.21 | 0.43 | 0.78 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.56 | 0.53 | 0.62 | 0.65 | 1 |
All dimensions were positively correlated (p < 0.05). A represents PSQ total score; B represents vocational strain; C represents psychologic strain; D represents interpersonal strain; E represents physical strain; F represents SCL-90 total score; G represents somatization; H represents compulsion; I represents interpersonal relationship; J represents depression; K represents anxiety; L represents hostility; M represents terror; N represents crankiness; O represents psychopathy; P represents neuroticism. **p < 0.01.
FIGURE 1The principle of path structural equation model: (I) sub-model (A); (II) sub-model (B). The numbers listed in the figures are standardized path coefficients (β); continuous pathways are significant at p < 0.01.
Model fitting index of occupational strain and neuroticism on psychological symptoms of metro drivers.
| Model fitting index | χ2/df | GFI | NFI | CFI | TLI | RFI | RMSEA |
| Recommended value | <5 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 |
| Sub model A | 3.508 | 0.918 | 0.946 | 0.961 | 0.953 | 0.935 | 0.075 |
| Sub model B | 3.497 | 0.911 | 0.940 | 0.957 | 0.948 | 0.929 | 0.075 |
Results of neuroticism mediating effect between occupational strain and psychological symptoms.
| Effect | Boot SE | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI |
| |
| Direct effect | 0.348 | 0.070 | 0.023 | 0.061 | 0.000 |
| Indirect effect | 0.187 | 0.030 | 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.000 |
| Total effect | 0.536 | 0.057 | 0.043 | 0.082 | 0.001 |
Boot SE, Boot LLCI, and Boot ULCI refer to standard error, 95% confidence interval lower limit, and upper limit of indirect effect estimated by deviation-corrected percentile bootstrap method, respectively.