心理社会风险在职业倦怠、心身障碍和工作满意度中的作用:线性模型与非大学教师的QCA方法。

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychology & Health Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-04 DOI:10.1080/08870446.2023.2253258
Marta Llorca-Pellicer, Pedro Gil-LaOrden, Vicente J Prado-Gascó, Pedro R Gil-Monte
{"title":"心理社会风险在职业倦怠、心身障碍和工作满意度中的作用:线性模型与非大学教师的QCA方法。","authors":"Marta Llorca-Pellicer, Pedro Gil-LaOrden, Vicente J Prado-Gascó, Pedro R Gil-Monte","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2023.2253258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to assess the effect of psychosocial risks and resources on burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction using Hierarchical Regression Modelling (HRM) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of 9020 non-university public education teachers (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 45.33 years, <i>SD</i> = 9.15; 72.5% women).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demands variables (Workload, Emotional labour, Imbalance, and Interpersonal conflict) were better predictors than resources variables (Job autonomy, Social support, and Resources at work). Resources also significantly improved the model's predictive capacity, except in the case of Indolence. In the QCA results, none of the conditions seems to be necessary. Regarding sufficiency, the combination of the different conditions explains between 44-49% of high levels of Burnout and between 40-47% of low levels of Burnout; between 44-47% of high levels of Psychosomatic disorders and 40-47% of low levels of Psychosomatic disorders; 49% of high Job satisfaction levels and 45-56% of low Job satisfaction levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results show that QCA models have better explanatory capacity than HRM. Some variables were not significant in HRM, but they were present in combination with other QCA model variables. The findings contribute to understanding how psychosocial risks affect workers' health and job satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"681-695"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of psychosocial risks in burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction: lineal models vs a QCA approach in non-university teachers.\",\"authors\":\"Marta Llorca-Pellicer, Pedro Gil-LaOrden, Vicente J Prado-Gascó, Pedro R Gil-Monte\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08870446.2023.2253258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aims to assess the effect of psychosocial risks and resources on burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction using Hierarchical Regression Modelling (HRM) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of 9020 non-university public education teachers (<i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 45.33 years, <i>SD</i> = 9.15; 72.5% women).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demands variables (Workload, Emotional labour, Imbalance, and Interpersonal conflict) were better predictors than resources variables (Job autonomy, Social support, and Resources at work). Resources also significantly improved the model's predictive capacity, except in the case of Indolence. In the QCA results, none of the conditions seems to be necessary. Regarding sufficiency, the combination of the different conditions explains between 44-49% of high levels of Burnout and between 40-47% of low levels of Burnout; between 44-47% of high levels of Psychosomatic disorders and 40-47% of low levels of Psychosomatic disorders; 49% of high Job satisfaction levels and 45-56% of low Job satisfaction levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results show that QCA models have better explanatory capacity than HRM. Some variables were not significant in HRM, but they were present in combination with other QCA model variables. The findings contribute to understanding how psychosocial risks affect workers' health and job satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"681-695\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2023.2253258\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2023.2253258","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在运用层次回归模型(HRM)和定性比较分析(QCA)评估心理社会风险和资源对职业倦怠、心身障碍和工作满意度的影响。方法:样本为9020名非高校公立教育教师(年龄45.33岁,SD = 9.15;72.5%的女性)。结果:需求变量(工作量、情绪劳动、不平衡和人际冲突)比资源变量(工作自主性、社会支持和工作资源)具有更好的预测效果。资源也显著提高了模型的预测能力,除了懒惰的情况。在QCA的结果中,似乎没有一个条件是必要的。在充分性方面,不同条件的结合解释了44-49%的高倦怠水平和40-47%的低倦怠水平;44-47%的高水平心身疾病患者和40-47%的低水平心身疾病患者;49%的工作满意度高,45% -56%的工作满意度低。结论:结果表明QCA模型比HRM具有更好的解释能力。有些变量在人力资源管理中不显著,但它们与其他QCA模型变量结合出现。这些发现有助于理解心理社会风险如何影响工人的健康和工作满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of psychosocial risks in burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction: lineal models vs a QCA approach in non-university teachers.

This study aims to assess the effect of psychosocial risks and resources on burnout, psychosomatic disorders, and job satisfaction using Hierarchical Regression Modelling (HRM) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).

Method: The sample consisted of 9020 non-university public education teachers (Mage = 45.33 years, SD = 9.15; 72.5% women).

Results: Demands variables (Workload, Emotional labour, Imbalance, and Interpersonal conflict) were better predictors than resources variables (Job autonomy, Social support, and Resources at work). Resources also significantly improved the model's predictive capacity, except in the case of Indolence. In the QCA results, none of the conditions seems to be necessary. Regarding sufficiency, the combination of the different conditions explains between 44-49% of high levels of Burnout and between 40-47% of low levels of Burnout; between 44-47% of high levels of Psychosomatic disorders and 40-47% of low levels of Psychosomatic disorders; 49% of high Job satisfaction levels and 45-56% of low Job satisfaction levels.

Conclusions: The results show that QCA models have better explanatory capacity than HRM. Some variables were not significant in HRM, but they were present in combination with other QCA model variables. The findings contribute to understanding how psychosocial risks affect workers' health and job satisfaction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信