| Literature DB >> 36248524 |
Xuebing Su1, Victor Wong2, Kun Liang3.
Abstract
The decent work notion has sparkled a keen academic interest in studying the psychological influence of decent work on workers in organizational contexts. Duffy's decent work notion has left a window for addressing the interpersonal barriers on or factors for enhancing people's equal access to decent work, which may enhance the capacity of the decent work notion and the psychology of working theory to promote inclusiveness within the organizational context through leveraging the interpersonal mechanisms. Against this backdrop, a across-sectional study was conducted to validate a decent work scale incorporated with a social recognition component among young adult social workers aged 21-29 in Hong Kong (N = 362). The results of confirmatory factor analyses supported the six-factor-higher-order model of the decent work scale incorporated with a social recognition component. Decent work incorporated with social recognition correlated with job demands, job resources, and work engagement in the expected directions, and the results of average variance extracted analyses supported the discriminant validity of the decent work scale incorporated with social recognition. The value added by decent work in enhancing work engagement after controlling the effects of job resources justifies the concurrent validity of the concept. The expanded notion of decent work incorporated with the social recognition component is deemed applicable to informing further research and practice.Entities:
Keywords: decent work; helping professionals; psychology of working theory; psychosocial perspective; social recognition; social workers; sustainable development; youth development
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248524 PMCID: PMC9554093 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Sociodemographic of participants (N = 362).
| Variables | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Female | 264 (72.9) |
| Male | 98 (27.1) |
|
| |
| 21 | 6 (1.7) |
| 22 | 9 (2.5) |
| 23 | 27 (7.5) |
| 24 | 34 (9.4) |
| 25 | 58 (16.0) |
| 26 | 38 (10.5) |
| 27 | 40 (11.0) |
| 28 | 70 (19.3) |
| 29 | 80 (22.1) |
|
| |
| Secondary school or below | 0 |
| Associate degree | 94 (26.0) |
| Bachelor’s degree | 193 (53.3) |
| Master’s degree | 75 (20.7) |
|
| |
| Single or unmarried | 306 (84.5) |
| Married or co-living | 56 (15.5) |
| Divorced | 0 |
|
| |
| Junior | 196 (54.1) |
| Middle | 161 (44.5) |
| Senior | 4 (1.1) |
| CEO | 1 (0.3) |
|
| |
| $1,949 or below | 6 (1.7) |
| $1,950 – $2,599 | 14 (3.9) |
| $2,600 – $3,249 | 158 (43.6) |
| $3,250 – $3,899 | 61 (16.9) |
| $3,900 – $4,549 | 81 (22.4) |
| $4,550 – $5,199 | 33 (9.1) |
| $5,200 – $6,499 | 8 (2.2) |
| $6,500 – $7,799 | 1 (0.3) |
The results of CFA (N = 362).
| Tested models |
|
| df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher-order model* | 0.000 | 300.25 | 126 | 2.38 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.062 |
| Correlational model* | 0.000 | 282.117 | 120 | 2.35 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.061 |
| Bifactor model | 0.000 | 1212.16 | 117 | 10.36 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.161 |
*Statistically acceptable models by referring to a cluster of criteria on goodness-of-fit statistics: normed Chi-square (X2/df) < 3, a CFI > 0.90, a Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) > 0.90, a RMSEA < 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1998; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
Figure 1The higher-order model of the Decent Work Scale incorporated with a social recognition component among young adult social workers. All coefficients represent standardized estimates significant at 0.001 level; SWC, safe working conditions. AHC, access to health care. AC, adequate compensation. FTR, free time and rest. CV, complementary values. SR, social recognition.
Figure 2The correlational model of the Decent Work Scale incorporated with a social recognition component among young adult social workers. All coefficients represent standardized estimates significant at 0.001 level; SWC, safe working conditions. AHC, access to health care. AC, adequate compensation. FTR, free time and rest. CV, complementary values. SR, social recognition.
Square root of average variance extracted and correlations of decent work components with validating scales (N = 362).
|
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1. SWC | 0.76 | |||||||||
| 2. AHC | 0.24 | 0.92 | ||||||||
| 3. AC | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.67 | |||||||
| 4. FTR | 0.23 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.72 | ||||||
| 5. CV | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.84 | |||||
| 6. SR | 0.37 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.72 | ||||
| 7. DW | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.78 | |||
| 8. JD | −0.45 | −0.26 | −0.27 | −0.50 | −0.34 | −0.34 | −0.60 | 0.56 | ||
| 9. JR | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.19 | 0.44 | 0.59 | 0.66 | −0.43 | 0.65 | |
| 10. WE | 0.32 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.36 | −0.24 | 0.41 | 0.82 |
SWC, safe working conditions. AHC, access to health care. AC, adequate compensation. FTR, free time and rest. CV, complementary values. SR, social recognition. DW, decent work. JD, job demands. JR, job resource. WE, work engagement.
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.001.
The numbers in the diagonal lines are the square roots of average variance extracted.
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting work engagement (N = 362).
| Work engagement | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Adjusted |
|
|
| Job resources | 0.16*** | 0.32 | 4.95 |
| Decent work with a recognition component | 0.18*** | 0.15 | 2.24 |
***p < 0.001.