Diego Jaguaco1
Josué Turpo-Chaparro
Salomon Vásquez-Villanueva- 1Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima, Peru
- 2Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Educación, Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima, Peru
The quality of life at work has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, generating labor overload, higher levels of stress, and a reduction in workers’ productivity. In the education sector, thousands of teachers were affected by the change to a new online work modality and the acquisition of new work tools. The aim of this study was to determine whether social support and general self-efficacy (GSE) significantly predict the quality of life at work in a group of Ecuadorian teachers. A total of 300 teachers of both genders, whose ages ranged between 21 and 64 years, participated in the study. For measurements, the Duke-UNK-11 General Sale Scale and the Scale of Quality of Life in the CVT-Gohisalo Work were used. The predictive analysis was performed through linear regression. The results show a moderately significant relationship between social support, GSE, and quality of life at work. Similarly, the multiple regression analysis confirms that social support and self-efficacy are variables that significantly predict the quality of life at work. The findings of this research also confirm that teachers with higher levels of GSE report higher levels of quality of life at work. In conclusion, the prediction of the variables social support and GSE in the quality of life at work of Ecuadorian teachers is confirmed. The implications of the predictive model mediating quality of life at work are discussed.
Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO), on 11 March 2020, declared the disease caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic (World Health Organization, 2020). In this sense, COVID-19 affected people of all dimensions and its repercussions have been observed worldwide (Khanna and Kareem, 2021), affecting companies, consortiums, and educational organizations. In response to COVID-19, educational institutions coordinated the closure of their school buildings worldwide for the purpose of safeguarding the health of students and teachers (Sokal et al., 2020); face-to-face education changed to online teaching, and educators quickly adapted to remote teaching, supported by existing technological systems (Kumpikaitė-Valiūnienė et al., 2021), requiring that the teachers adapt to the new environment in a very little time, regardless of its preparation and domination (Scherer et al., 2021).
The teachers are considered the first-line workers in the Educa-Party Reform (Tai and Abdull Kareem, 2019). The teaching career is a profession exposed to high levels of stress and exhaustion (Sokal et al., 2020), which affect the perception of social support, teachers’ self-efficacy, and, consequently, their quality of work life. The quality of life at work is conceptualized as the extent to which workers can meet their important personal needs, whose experiences are observed in their workplace (Igbaria et al., 1994). The quality of work life is an aspect of job satisfaction and is related to personal happiness (Thomas et al., 2020).
Recent investigations highlighted social support as a component that improves mental health and individual wellbeing (Bazzano et al., 2018). The self-determination theory explains that psychological processes promote optimal functioning and health (Ryan and Deci, 2011). In this sense, the quality of life of workers requires the support of the social environment to function effectively (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Also, organizations today depend on the effective use of their workers (Hakim et al., 2021). The quality of work life of employees can be high, thanks to their physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing (Brennan and Barnett, 1998). Among the bad conditions of the quality of life at work is the low support from employers, for instance, labor overload (Akar, 2018).
Factors affecting the quality of life at work
Studies on the quality of life at work focused mostly on the health area (Parra-Giordano et al., 2020; Howie-Esquivel et al., 2022). In the educational field, instruments that evaluate the quality of life such as AQ@workt (Brondino et al., 2022) have been created. Studies showed that teachers still maintain gaps between what they expect from their work environment and what is indeed their reality (Fakhri et al., 2021). Some investigations reported the effects of yoga and mindfulness intervention programs in improving the quality of life of primary school teachers (Bazzano et al., 2018); similarly, research confirmed that perceptions about the quality of work life have a negative effect on burnout and school alienation in public school teachers (Akar, 2018).
Recent reports also showed that the more teachers rated themselves as self-compassionate, the greater their need for satisfaction and personal fulfillment (Moè and Katz, 2020), in addition, that when teachers are allowed to regulate their psychological emotions, these are related to a higher level of motivating teaching and therefore with their experience of satisfaction (Moè and Katz, 2021). Recent reports showed that the quality of working life is influenced by spiritual intelligence mediated by psychological capital (Singla et al., 2021). Another example given in a study involving 345 Pakistani teachers reported that communication is an influential factor in the quality of work life (Malik et al., 2019). Similarly, it is the individual factors that affect the quality of work life of teachers when considering motivation, adaptation, communication, and experience, among others (Ghashghaeizadeh, 2020).
Social support and quality of life
Social support has been defined as the availability of people in whom the individual trusts and also feels care and valuation (Verger et al., 2009). Different studies have been developed; for example, Lerman Ginzburg et al. (2021) analyzed the effects of social support in a population of Latin Americans and found that distress symptoms decrease when social support increases. Moradi et al. (2020) analyzed the effect of social support on depressive symptoms and found that social support predicts the severity of depressive symptoms. In the work environment, Park et al. (2020) reported that social support mitigates labor exhaustion. Recent research highlighted the relationship between social support and the quality of life at work and the consequent reduction of stress (Eisapareh et al., 2022). A previous study revealed that social support is a factor that influences the quality of work life of working women who are cancer survivors (Jin, 2022). Social support has been found among the most important health resources related to the work environment (Hämmig, 2017; Hämmig and Vetsch, 2021) as is the case in the health area, where it was reported that nurses who perceived better social support were less likely to develop negative consequences on their health (Labrague and de los Santos, 2021).
General self-efficacy and quality of work life
GSE is the ability of the person to execute behaviors that lead toward the achievement of goals and toward specific achievements or performances (Bandura, 1978). Although it is considered a specific task, some researchers used the concept of general self-efficacy (GSE) to refer to a broader and more stable sense of personal competition, especially when the context is less specific (Scherbaum et al., 2006). Khalid and Dawood (2020) found that self-efficacy measured the effect of social support on depression. In another study, Chinomona and Dhurup (2014) found that the quality of life at work influences job satisfaction. Studies pertaining to the quality of work life for hotel industry workers found that the quality of work life is related to self-efficacy (Putra et al., 2021). Different studies confirmed that workers with high self-efficacy show good job performance (Mensah and Lebbaeus, 2013) and showed that self-efficacy affects the quality of work life (Orgambídez et al., 2020).
As described and referred to, the present study is relevant because it allows us to know emotional aspects in the work context of a group of Ecuadorian teachers who are teleworking. The evidence of the study will strengthen and update the knowledge of social support, GSE, and the quality of life at work, which are significant contributors to the administrative educational discipline, as well as to the community of knowledge. Recent studies in Colombia and Ecuador showed that workers, mainly in the educational area, expressed greater stress, a reduction in the balance between working and personal life, and a reduction in their job satisfaction, indicating the need to develop studies that analyze the quality of work life of Ecuadorian teachers (Sandoval-Reyes et al., 2021). Similarly, different programs aimed at improving the quality of work life were based on helping workers to better endure the pressures and difficulties of daily work; therefore, aspects such as social support and self-efficacy were found to have a positive effect on the quality of work life (Coelho et al., 2016).
On the contrary, the present study analyzed the theoretical proposal of Bandura (1978), whose significant support is to test a theoretical model whose quality of life at work is explained by the variables (social support and GSE). It will also support and guide the provisions given by the administrative staff so that strategies and programs for the improvement of the educational community (teachers and students) are implemented.
Hypothesis
Since it has been found that the quality of work life is associated with constructs such as spiritual intelligence, psychological capital, communication, social support, and self-efficacy, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1. Perceived social support is related to higher levels of quality of life.
H2. The GSE of teachers is related to a higher quality of work life.
Objective
The aim of this study was to determine if social support and GSE predict the quality of life in the work life of Ecuadorian professors.
Materials and methods
Participants
The sample composed of 300 Ecuadorian professors of basic education of both genders; 210 were female and 90 male (70 and 30%, respectively). The sampling was non-probabilistic and intentional, and the recruitment of the participants was made through virtual school by the school, inviting teachers of private institutions. The age ranges of the subjects were from 21 to 36 years (43%) and from 37 to 64 years (57%); 37.7% had the level of teaching in general baccalaureate, 39% in basic general education, 8.7% in the initial level, and 14.7% in the preparatory level (Table 1). Table 1 specifically shows the teaching level by age-group, where there were 129 professors in the age range of 21–36 years, among whom 42 teach at the general high school level, 44 at the basic general education level, 20 at the kindergarten level, and 23 at the high school level. In the range of 37–64 years, there were 171 teachers, among whom 71 teach at the level of general baccalaureate, 73 at the general basic education level, six at the initial level, and 21 at the preparatory level (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
Instruments
For data collection, the Duke-UNK-11 Functional Social Support questionnaire was used; the instrument was validated for the Ecuadorian population by Aguilar-Sizer et al. (2021). It presents 10 items with five Likert-type response options (never, almost never, sometimes, almost always, and always). It has proven to be valid (CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.050) and reliable (α = 0.70). The General Self-Efficacy Scale (EAG) has been adopted by Moreta-Herrera et al. (2019) in the Ecuadorian population. It is composed of 10 items with Likert-type response options, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The GSD is valid (CFI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.06) and reliable (α = 0.80). Similarly, the quality of life at the work scale, validated in the Ecuadorian population by Pando et al. (2018), was used; it is composed of 31 items, with Likert-type response options: 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = moderately satisfied, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. The scale is valid (KMO = 0.93, Bartlett’s test of sphericity p < 0.01) and reliable (α = 0.91). The scales can be displayed in Appendix Tables A1–A3.
Procedure
This study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic between June and October 2021. Given the social isolation measures for the prevention of COVID-19 infection and due to the online education modality developed by the educational institutions in Ecuador, the study participants answered a virtual questionnaire through the Google Forms platform. In addition, the link was shared through the social network WhatsApp and emails of teachers. In the first part of the link, the instructions, the purpose of the investigation, and the invite to accept the informed consent, emphasizing that the participation is voluntary and anonymous, were presented. In relation to the use of the data, a confidentiality agreement was obtained. This procedure followed the ethical and methodological recommendations for research through the Internet (Das et al., 2018), such as including an informed consent form through which the participants in the study received information about the purpose of this research, data use, and confidentiality agreement. In addition, no personal identification was requested. In all cases, the participation was voluntary, and only those people who completed the informed consent were accepted into the study. The study was approved by the ethics committee (CE-EPG-000031).
Data analysis
All the information collected through the virtual questionnaire was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then exported to the statistical program IBM SPSS for Windows version 25.0. First, descriptive statistics were analyzed with the purpose of analyzing the distribution of the data. Second, a correlation analysis and finally a linear regression analysis were performed to answer the research objectives.
Results
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the study variables regarding the coefficients of asymmetry and kurtosis of social support, GSE, and the quality of work life. The asymmetry and kurtosis values do not exceed the range of −/ + 1.5 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2019). Similarly, it shows the correlations between the study variables. A moderate and significant correlation was found between social support and quality of work life. The magnitude of the correlation between GSE and quality of work life was also moderate.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis and correlation of the variables.
Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine which variables best predict the quality of life at work; the multiple correlation coefficients R, R2, corrected R2, standard error of the estimate (SE), and the F-value of ANOVA (Table 3) were used. It can be seen that the coefficient of determination R2 = 0.332 indicates that social support and self-efficacy explain 33.2% of the total variance of quality of life at work. The corrected R2 explains 31.8%. The ANOVA F-value (F = 70.687, p = 0.000) indicates that there is a significant linear relationship between the predictor and criterion variables (Table 3).
Table 3. Multiple correlation coefficients R, R2, corrected R2, EE, and F.
Table 4 shows the non-standardized regression coefficients (B) and standardized regression coefficients (B). The B coefficients (0.214 and 0.446) indicate that social support and self-efficacy (predictive variables) significantly predict the quality of life at work (criterion variable) in Ecuadorian teachers (adjusted R2 = 0.33). The t-value of the beta regression coefficients of the predictor variables are highly significant (p < 0.01).
Table 4. Multiple regression coefficients B (non-standardized), β (standardized), and t-test.
Discussion
The quality of life at work is an important variable in achieving greater productivity (Rodríguez et al., 2021). It is also one of the most important factors for the motivation and improvement of human resources (Royuela et al., 2009). Similarly, work determines social status and gives meaning to life (Parra-Giordano et al., 2020) and is still under constant study (Tonon de Toscano, 2009). In this sense, the objective of this research was to determine whether social support and GSE predict the quality of life at work for Ecuadorian teachers.
The results found in this research confirm the hypothesis that teachers with a higher level of social support show a higher quality of life, which is in line with the results reported by Eisapareh et al. (2022), who state that social support is directly related to the quality of life at work, and many studies demonstrated this report (Arvind et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2017). The results indicate that social support plays a role that increases the level of quality of work life, and inadequate social support is associated with inverse health behaviors, deterioration of quality of life, and dissatisfaction with life (Strine et al., 2008). Under the theory of social support proposed by Cohen and Wills (1985), social support acts as a protector of people in times of crisis. Considering the different levels of teacher stress due to the changes caused by COVID-19, social support could provide a positive effect on the quality of work life of teachers.
The findings of this research also confirm that teachers with higher levels of GSE report higher levels of quality of work life. The background shows that self-efficacy leads to lower levels of emotional exhaustion (Salanova et al., 2002). Similarly, under the theory of self-determination (Deci and Ryan, 2000), self-efficacy improves workers’ needs for autonomy and is recognized as a motivational variable that leads to workers’ creativity (Ng and Feldman, 2012) and improves the quality of work life (Xu et al., 2022). Numerous studies confirmed the influence of self-efficacy on the quality of work life (Mensah and Lebbaeus, 2013; Orgambídez et al., 2020; Putra et al., 2021). Recent research showed that the quality of work life can also predict self-efficacy, which shows the relationship between both the constructs (Alibakhshi et al., 2021). In the case of self-efficacy, the theory suggests that job satisfaction is the result of a presence of high self-efficacy (Schaufeli, 2017), which is consistent with that reported in this study. In addition, previous reports showed significant positive relationships between self-efficacy and job satisfaction, which have become indicators of the quality of work life (Orgambídez et al., 2020).
The final model shows that social support and self-efficacy predict the quality of life at the work of Ecuadorian teachers. Similar results were reported in nurses (Chami-Malaeb, 2022), although different from the finding of Akter et al. (2018) who reported that salary, work climate, commitment, and work stress predict the quality of work life. This result is similar to that found by Bustamante et al. (2020) who revealed that support shows the greatest positive correlation with the employment, and the study of Rodríguez et al. (2021) which highlighted the highest scores correspond to social support factors in relation to the quality of working life. Also, this result is in accordance with the studies of Montero Vizcaíno et al. (2020), who exposed the evidence that the absence of support is among the main stressors in the work context. Also, Toscano-del Cairo et al. (2020) affirmed that a healthy organization is one that is characterized by an environment of social and organizational support. Several studies reported that the lack of support can lead teachers to abandon the educational institution (Kuehn, 2010; Parra-Giordano et al., 2020).
Multiple regression analyses indicate that social support and self-efficacy explain 33.2% of the quality of work life. This shows that the variables social support and self-efficacy significantly predict the quality of life at work. In relation to this, Moradi et al. (2020) commented that social support helps the person to avoid negative vital experiences and, therefore, has beneficial health effects. For Rodríguez et al. (2021), the social support experienced by workers is one of the main factors that influence the quality of life at work. For Orgambídez et al. (2020), self-efficacy is another important variable that influences the quality of life at work, although it is mediated by other variables—job satisfaction or affective commitment. In the study of Jin and Lee (2021), social support had a significantly direct effect on the quality of life, which implied that workers perceive their health positively (Park et al., 2018) and contributed to the organization by achieving stability (Torp et al., 2012). In a study with workers, it was reported that the high social support of co-workers and supervisors predicted a better quality of work life (Flores et al., 2011).
Practical implications
One of the difficulties in the development of effective interventions to improve the quality of working life in the educational environment is the lack of understanding of the constructs responsible for keeping at optimal levels the work environment (Bagtasos, 2011). We believe that this investigation can be used to provide a general look at this phenomenon. To help teachers and improve the quality of their life at work, we suggest that social support improvement programs should be established, as well as programs that stimulate self-efficacy skills. On the other hand, these results may have important implications for teachers who are in working in the teleworking mode and have an increase in their workload; therefore, educational organizations must ensure constant training that improves self-efficiency skills and provides greater support for social balancing work and family responsibilities. These programs could be structured in training before the start of the school year in various 1-h sessions for teachers on the organization and for the execution of plans that allow greater confidence in teachers, as well as programs that help employers and teachers improve the levels of perception of social support and an improvement in organizational communication.
Limitations
This research also presents some limitations. The sample size was 300 teachers. Therefore, it is important to develop studies with the participation of a larger sample size to increase the data and clarify the results found in this study. The participation was voluntary, some participants had some motivation to convey their own experiences, and there may be some differences between the method of obtaining data, in the virtual form and in the face-to-face interview (Utzet and Martin, 2020). On the contrary, being a cross-sectional study, the variables were evaluated in a single moment, so it is also important to develop longitudinal studies. This study is based on teachers’ self-report, which raises the concern of the bias in the reports, although the most used method to measure these constructs is the self-report (Bong and Skaalvik, 2003); therefore, methods should be considered experimental and monitoring so that the measurements of the variables are more objective and precise. Also, it is recommended for future studies to include information related to years in teaching and materials taught, among other relevant aspects.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, this study is relevant and extends the theoretical and practical understanding that social support and self-efficacy are factors that influence the quality of life at work, according to a representative sample of Ecuadorian teachers. Educational organizations must contribute by providing spaces of social support to their teachers, as well as activities that allow improving levels of self-efficacy, which influence the quality of life of teachers. We conclude that social support and self-efficacy are predictors of the quality of work life in Ecuadorian teachers.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee (CE-EPG-000031) Universidad Peruana Unión. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JT-C, DJ, SV-V, and AA-R conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. JT-C and DJ contributed to reagents, materials, and analysis tools and data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
Funding for open-access charge was provided by the Universidad Peruana Unión (UPeU).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aguilar-Sizer, M., Lima-Castro, S., Arias-Medina, P., Peña, E., Cabrera-Vélez, M., and Bueno-Pacheco, A. (2021). Propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario de apoyo social funcional duke-UNK-11 en una muestra de adultos ecuatorianos [Psychometric properties of the Duke-UNK-11 functional social support questionnaire in a sample of ecuadorian adults]. Eureka 18, 55–71.
Akar, H. (2018). The relationships between quality of work life, school alienation, burnout, affective commitment and organizational citizenship: A study on teachers. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 7, 169–180. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.169
Akter, N., Akkadechanunt, T., Chontawan, R., and Klunklin, A. (2018). Factors predicting quality of work life among nurses in tertiary-level hospitals. Bangladesh. Int. Nurs. Rev. 65, 182–189. doi: 10.1111/inr.12401
Alibakhshi, G., Abdollahi, H., and Nezakatgoo, B. (2021). Exploring the antecedents of English language teachers’ teaching self-efficacy: A qualitative study. Qual. Res. J. 21, 286–303. doi: 10.1108/QRJ-05-2020-0040
Arvind, H., Soofi Asra, M., Niraj, M., and Ameera Hamood, B. (2015). A study on occupational stress and quality of work life (QWL) in private colleges of Oman (Muscat). Glob. Bus. Manage. Res. Int. J. 7, 55–68.
Bagtasos, M. R. (2011). Quality of work life: A review of literature. DLSU Bus. Econ. Rev. 20, 1–18. doi: 10.3860/ber.v20i2.1909
Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1, 139–161. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4
Bazzano, A. N., Anderson, C. E., Hylton, C., and Gustat, J. (2018). Effect of mindfulness and yoga on quality of life for elementary school students and teachers: Results of a randomized controlled school-based study. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manage. 11, 81–89. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S157503
Bong, M., and Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15, 1–40. doi: 10.1023/A:1021302408382
Brennan, R. T., and Barnett, R. C. (1998). Negative affectivity: How serious a threat to self-report studies of psychological distress? Women’s Health (Hillsdale, N.J.) 4, 369–383.
Brondino, M., Signore, F., Zambelli, A., Ingusci, E., Pignata, S., Manuti, A., et al. (2022). A new academic quality at work tool (AQ@workT) to assess the quality of life at work in the Italian academic context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19:3724. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063724
Bustamante, M. A., Álvarez, A. J., Villalobos, M. E., and Lucero, M. I. (2020). Percepción de la calidad de vida laboral de los trabajadores de los centros de salud familiar de la zona central de Chile [Perception of the quality of work life of the workers at family health centers of the central zone of Chile]. Información Tecnológica 31, 65–74. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07642020000300065
Chami-Malaeb, R. (2022). Relationship of perceived supervisor support, self-efficacy and turnover intention, the mediating role of burnout. Pers. Rev. 51, 1003–1019. doi: 10.1108/PR-11-2019-0642
Chinomona, R., and Dhurup, M. (2014). The influence of the quality of working life on employee job satisfaction, job commitment and tenure intention in the SME sector in Zimbabwe. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manage. Sci. 17, 363–378. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.004
Coelho, E., Antloga, C., Maia, M., and Takaki, K. (2016). Autoeficácia e Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho: Um estudo com policiais militares [Self-efficacy and quality of work life: Study with military state police officers]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa 32:e32ne220. doi: 10.1590/0102-3772e32ne220
Cohen, S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 98, 310–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Das, M., Ester, P., and Kaczmirek, L. (2018). in Social and behavioral research and the internet 1st edition, eds M. Das, P. Ester, and L. Kaczmirek (Milton Park: Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9780203844922
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Eisapareh, K., Nazari, M., Kaveh, M. H., and Ghahremani, L. (2022). The relationship between job stress and health literacy with the quality of work life among Iranian industrial workers: The moderating role of social support. Curr. Psychol. 41, 2677–2685. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00782-5
Fakhri, M., Silvianita, A., and Yulias, D. (2021). Assessing quality of work life toward junior high school teacher during pandemic Covid-19. J. Manage. Inf. Decis. Sci. 24, 1–8.
Flores, N., Jenaro, C., Begoña Orgaz, M., and Victoria Martín, M. (2011). Understanding quality of working life of workers with intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 24, 133–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2010.00576.x
Ghashghaeizadeh, N. (2020). Designing and development model for improving the quality of work life of faculty members. Iran Occup. Health 17:17.
Hakim, A. L., Faizah, E. N., and Mas’adah, N. (2021). Analysis of leadership style by using the model of Hersey and Blanchard. J. Leadersh. Organ. 3, 138–148. doi: 10.22146/jlo.64390
Hämmig, O. (2017). Health and well-being at work: the key role of supervisor support. SSM Popul. Health 3, 393–402. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.04.002
Hämmig, O., and Vetsch, A. (2021). Stress-buffering and health-protective effect of job autonomy, good working climate, and social support at work among health care workers in Switzerland. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 63, e918–e924. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002404
Howie-Esquivel, J., Byon, H. D., Lewis, C., Travis, A., and Cavanagh, C. (2022). Quality of work-life among advanced practice nurses who manage care for patients with heart failure: The effect of resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic. Heart Lung 55, 34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.04.005
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., and Badawy, M. K. (1994). Work experiences, job involvement, and quality of work life among information systems personnel. MIS Q. 18:175. doi: 10.2307/249764
Jin, J. (2022). Factors associated with the quality of work life among working breast cancer survivors. Asia Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 9, 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2021.11.005
Jin, J. H., and Lee, E. J. (2021). Structural equation model of the quality of working life among cancer survivors returning to work. Asian Nurs. Res. 15, 37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2020.10.002
Khalid, A., and Dawood, S. (2020). Social support, self-efficacy, cognitive coping and psychological distress in infertile women. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 302, 423–430. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05614-2
Khanna, R., and Kareem, D. J. (2021). Creating inclusive spaces in virtual classroom sessions during the COVID pandemic: An exploratory study of primary class teachers in India. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2:100038. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100038
Kuehn, M. B. (2010). Creating a healthy work environment for nursing faculty. Creat. Nurs. 16, 193–197. doi: 10.1891/1078-4535.16.4.193
Kumpikaitė-Valiūnienė, V., Aslan, I., Duobienė, J., Glińska, E., and Anandkumar, V. (2021). Influence of digital competence on perceived stress, burnout and well-being among students studying online during the COVID-19 Lockdown: A 4-country perspective. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manage. 14, 1483–1498. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S325092
Labrague, L. J., and de los Santos, J. A. A. (2021). Resilience as a mediator between compassion fatigue, nurses’ work outcomes, and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl. Nurs. Res. 61:151476. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2021.151476
Lerman Ginzburg, S., Lemon, S. C., Romo, E., and Rosal, M. (2021). Social support and strain and emotional distress among Latinos in the northeastern United States. BMC Psychol. 9:40. doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00544-3
Malik, M. I., Mehmood, H., and Umrani, W. A. (2019). Modeling teachers’ quality of work life: A partial least square approach. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manage. 69, 1861–1879. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2018-0376
Mensah, A., and Lebbaeus, A. (2013). The influence of employees ‘self-efficacy on their quality of work life: The influence of employees’ self-efficacy on their quality of work life: The case of cape coast, Ghana. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4, 195–205.
Moè, A., and Katz, I. (2020). Self-compassionate teachers are more autonomy supportive and structuring whereas self-derogating teachers are more controlling and chaotic: The mediating role of need satisfaction and burnout. Teach. Teach. Educ. 96:103173. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103173
Moè, A., and Katz, I. (2021). Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style. Teach. Teach. 27, 370–387. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2020.1777960
Montero Vizcaíno, Y. Y., Vizcaíno Alonso, M., del, C., and Montero Vizcaíno, Y. (2020). Factores involucrados en la calidad de vida laboral para el ejercicio de la enfermería [Factors involved in the quality of work life for nursing practice]. Rev. Cuba. Med. Mil. 49, 364–374.
Moradi, S., Lotfei, M., Asgharnejad Farid, A., and Pirmoradi, M. (2020). The role of perceived stress, social support and body image in predicting the severity of depressive symptoms in ostomy patients. Iran. J. Psychiatry Clin. Psychol. 26, 32–43. doi: 10.32598/ijpcp.26.1.3020.1
Moreta-Herrera, R. Lara-Salazar, M. Camacho-Bonilla, P.Sánchez-Guevera, S. (2019). Análisis factorial, fiabilidad y validez de la escala de autoeficacia general (EAG) en estudiantes ecuatorianos. Psychol. Soc. Educ. 11:193. doi: 10.25115/psye.v11i2.2024
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures of employee creativity. Hum. Relat. 65, 1021–1047. doi: 10.1177/0018726712446015
Orgambídez, A., Borrego, Y., and Vázquez-Aguado, O. (2020). Linking self-efficacy to quality of working life: The role of work engagement. West. J. Nurs. Res. 42, 821–828. doi: 10.1177/0193945919897637
Pando, M. M., González Baltazar, R., Aranda Beltrán, C., and Elizalde Núñez, F. (2018). Fiabilidad y validez factorial del instrumento para medir calidad de vida en el trabajo “CVT-Gohisalo” (versión breve) [Reliability and the factorial validity of the instrument for measuring quality of work life “CVT-GOHISALO” (brief)]. Salud Uninorte 34, 68–75.
Park, J.-C., Kim, S., and Lee, H. (2020). Effect of work-related smartphone use after work on job burnout: Moderating effect of social support and organizational politics. Comput. Hum. Behav. 105:106194. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106194
Park, J.-H., Cho, Y.-S., and Lim, S.-R. (2018). Analysis of factors affecting the quality of work life of dental hygienists based on the culture-work-health model. J. Dent. Hyg. Sci. 18, 32–41. doi: 10.17135/jdhs.2018.18.1.32
Parra-Giordano, D., Felli, V. A., Saldías Fernández, M. A., Pinto-Galleguillos, D., and Soto Malabrigo, P. (2020). Calidad de vida laboral y estrategias de mejora del trabajo de la enfermería docente [Quality of working life and strategies for improving the work of nurse educators]. Cienc. Enferm. 26, 1–10. doi: 10.29393/CE26-9CVDV50009
Putra, I. N. T. D., Ardika, I. W., Antara, M., Idrus, S., and Hulfa, I. (2021). The effects of quality of work life on job performance, work motivation, work ethics, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy of hotel employees in Lombok. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Hosp. Tour. 10, 19–37.
Rodríguez, B., Marzo, J. C., Pérez-Jover, M. V., and Ramos, A. (2021). Quality of working life and job satisfaction in health and educational workers. > Are there differences? Rev. Psicol. La Salud 9. doi: 10.21134/pssa.v9i1.702
Royuela, V., López-Tamayo, J., and Suriñach, J. (2009). Results of a quality of work life index in Spain. A comparison of survey results and aggregate social indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 90, 225–241. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9254-3
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2011). “A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being,” in A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being, (Berlin: Springer), 45–64. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8_3
Salanova, M., Peiró, J. M., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Self-efficacy specificity and burnout among information technology workers: An extension of the job demand-control model. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 11, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000735
Sandoval-Reyes, J., Idrovo-Carlier, S., and Duque-Oliva, E. J. (2021). Remote work, work stress, and work–life during pandemic times: A Latin America situation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:7069. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18137069
Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Applying the job demands-resources model. Organ. Dyn. 46, 120–132. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008
Scherbaum, C. A., Cohen-Charash, Y., and Kern, M. J. (2006). Measuring general self-efficacy. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66, 1047–1063. doi: 10.1177/0013164406288171
Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., and Siddiq, F. (2021). Computers in human behavior profiling teachers ‘ readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready? Comput. Hum. Behav. 118:106675. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675
Singla, H., Mehta, M. D., and Mehta, P. (2021). Modeling spiritual intelligence on quality of work life of college teachers: A mediating role of psychological capital. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 13, 341–358. doi: 10.1108/IJQSS-07-2020-0108
Sokal, L., Trudel, L. E., and Babb, J. (2020). Canadian teachers’ attitudes toward change, efficacy, and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 1:100016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100016
Strine, T. W., Chapman, D. P., Balluz, L., and Mokdad, A. H. (2008). Health-related quality of life and health behaviors by social and emotional support. Their relevance to psychiatry and medicine. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 43, 151–159. doi: 10.1007/s00127-007-0277-x
Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics, 7th Edn. London: Pearson. Available online at: https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Tabachnick-Using-Multivariate-Statistics-7th-Edition/PGM2458367.html
Tai, M. K., and Abdull Kareem, O. (2019). The relationship between emotional intelligence of school principals in managing change and teacher attitudes towards change. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 22, 469–485. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1481535
Thomas, K. P., Kumar, S., and Parkash Singh, P. (2020). Psychological well-being and quality of worklife of the school teachers during the Covid-19 situation. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 07, 6309–6316.
Tonon de Toscano, G. (2009). Calidad de vida laboral en profesionales de la salud [Quality life of working health care professionals]. Vertex 20, 411re–417re.
Torp, S., Nielsen, R. A., Gudbergsson, S. B., and Dahl, A. A. (2012). Worksite adjustments and work ability among employed cancer survivors. Support. Care Cancer 20, 2149–2156. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1325-3
Toscano-del Cairo, C. A., Vesga-Rodríguez, J. J., and Avendaño-Prieto, B. L. (2020). Calidad de vida en el trabajo y su relación con el engagement [Quality of life at work and its relationship with engagement]. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 23, 128–137. doi: 10.14718/ACP.2020.23.1.7
Utzet, M., and Martin, U. (2020). Las encuestas online y la falsa ilusión de la n grande. A propósito de una encuesta sobre la eutanasia en profesionales médicos [Online surveys and the false illusion of the large n. On a survey on euthanasia among medical practitioners]. Gac. Sanit. 34, 518–520. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.07.009
Verger, P., Combes, J.-B., Kovess-Masfety, V., Choquet, M., Guagliardo, V., Rouillon, F., et al. (2009). Psychological distress in first year university students: Socioeconomic and academic stressors, mastery and social support in young men and women. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 44, 643–650. doi: 10.1007/s00127-008-0486-y
World Health Organization (2020). Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. Available online at: https://www.who.int
Xiao, J., Huang, B., Shen, H., Liu, X., Zhang, J., Zhong, Y., et al. (2017). Association between social support and health-related quality of life among Chinese seafarers: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One 12:e0187275. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187275
Xu, Y., Liu, D., and Tang, D. (2022). Decent work and innovative work behaviour: Mediating roles of work engagement, intrinsic motivation and job self-efficacy. Creat. Innov. Manage. 31, 49–63. doi: 10.1111/caim.12480
Appendix
Data collection instruments
Table A1. Duke social support questionnaire-UNK-11.
Table A2. Questionnaire general self-efficacy.
Table A3. Questionnaire 3 quality of life at work.
Keywords: social support, self-efficacy, quality of work life, teachers, Ecuadorian teachers
Citation: Jaguaco D, Turpo-Chaparro J, Vásquez-Villanueva S and Apaza-Romero A (2022) Social support and general self-efficacy: Two predictors of quality of life at work in Ecuadorian teachers. Front. Educ. 7:946723. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.946723
Received: 17 May 2022; Accepted: 09 August 2022;
Published: 02 September 2022.
Edited by:
Nicola Pitchford, University of Nottingham, United KingdomReviewed by:
Angelica Moè, University of Padua, ItalyAldo Bazán-Ramírez, César Vallejo University, Peru
Copyright © 2022 Jaguaco, Turpo-Chaparro, Vásquez-Villanueva and Apaza-Romero. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Josué Turpo-Chaparro, josuetc@upeu.edu.pe