European conference on educational research

By: Girum Tareke
Dr. habil. Mária Hercz
The adaptation and validation of the copying with Stress
Questionnaire (CWS-Q) and its relationship with
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) and Teacher well-Being
(TWB)
European Conference on
Educational Research
From 06 - 10 September 2021
European Conference on Educational Research (EERA 2021)

Outline
Theoretical Foundations
The goals and Hypotheses
Methods
Results
Conclusion and Future Steps

Introduction
1/7
"if teachers are to teach well they must be well” (Sammons, and
Kington, 2006)
• In developed world, 1/3rd of teachers are stressed and leave the profession
within the first five years (Collie, Shapka, Perry, & Martin, 2015; McCallum, Price,
Graham, & Morrison, 2017)
• In Africa & Asia many teachers do not report a sense of positive well-
being (2015), and 25% - 40% of beginners leaving teaching (Collie, Shapka,
Perry, & Martin, 2015)
• Sub-Saharan African countries (Abebe & Woldehanna, 2013):
• poor teacher motivation,
• low salaries;
• Poor teacher well-being;
• lack of opportunities for professional development

Theoretical Foundation
Dimensions of Teacher Well-Being (TWB)

Dimension of Psychological Capital (PsyCap)

Dimensions of Copying Strategies

The main goal of this study was to examine:
o the psychometric properties of Copying with Stress Questionnaire (CWS-
Q), and;
o the relationship of copying with stress dimensions with psychological
capital and teacher well-being constructs.
o the copying strategies as a mediator variable between Psychological
Capital and Teacher Well-Being.
Goals and Hypotheses of the present study

H1: Reliability. Copying with Stress constructs will be expected to be reliable.
H2: Factorial validity. The three-factor (acceptance, change, and withdrawal)
model of Copying with stress was expected to fit the data.
H3: Correlation. Psychological Capital and TWB constructs will be positively
related to acceptance and change and negatively with withdrawal.
H4: Mediation. Copying with stress (CWS) would be a mediator of the
psychological capital – teacher well-being relationship.
Cont.……

Research Model

Method
3/7
o Data Collection Method: Paper and Pencil Test
o Participants: 836
• For EFA=240 Samples
• CFA & SEM= 596 Samples
o It is advisable to use different samples for EFA and CFA (Phakiti, 2018).
o Sex: Male (74, 8%) & female (25, 2%)
o Age of respondents: Mean= 34.00 & SD =6.55.
o Universities: Research Universities (36.9%),
Applied Universities (23.5%),
General Universities(39.6)
o Statistical Analysis: SPSS version 25 and AMOS version 25.

Instruments
1. Psychological Capital Questionnaire(PCQ_12; Luthans; Youssef &
Avolio, 2007).
o It was measured by 12 items with four sub-dimensions: self-efficacy,
hope, resilience and optimism on a 6 Likert scale
o It has a good reliability (above 0.70) and construct validity in our
Previous study
2. Teacher Well-Being Scale (TWBS; Collie, Shapka, Perry, & Martin,
2015): 10 items with 7 lickert scale. Three subscales:
• Workload Well-being (WLW) with 4 items;
• Organizational Well-Being (OWB) with 3 items and
• Student Interaction well-Being (SIWB) with 3 items.

Instruments
o TWB sub scales have a good reliability (above 0.70) and better
construct validity in our previous study.
3. Coping With Stress Questionnaire (CWS-Q; Rabenu & Yaniv, 2017)
o 10 items on a 6 Likert scale
o It has three sub-dimensions:
o Accept: 3 items (α = .53, e.g.,” During stressful situations at work I: Re-
evaluate the situation as positive”)
o Change: 3 items (α = .71, e.g., “During stressful situations at work I:
work to reduce stress”), and;
o Withdrawal:4 items (α = .76, e.g,. “During stressful situations at work I:
feel comfortable to look for another job”).

Results and Analysis
5/7
o The Bartlett’s test of sphericity, Chi-Square= 1213.755, df =45, p < 0.001
o Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) =.843 with 61.00
% of variance explained.
o Factor analysis extraction method: maximum likelihood
o Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation,
o Data computation extracts 3 factors with 9 items.
o The eigenvalue-of all items was >1.00.

Factorial Loadings (N=240)
Statements Rotated Component
No. During stressful situations at work I:
Reliability Component
α
1 2 3
Accept Withdrawal change
1 Adapt to the requirements
.90
.811 .180 .309
2 Considering how to adapt .796 .220 .256
3 Re-evaluate the situation as positive .791 .258 .293
4
Feel comfortable to look for another
job
.81
.234 .758 .041
.094 .751 .174
5 Examining other job opportunities
6
Busy myself more with hobbies and
social activities
.254 .721 .142
7 Looking for another job .055 .307 .137
8 Work to reduce stress
.80
.289 .260 .849
9 Feel challenge to reduce stress .197 .076 .635
10 examine ways to reduce stress .316 .240 .608
Percentage of variance explained 42.572 7.651 10.907
Cont…..

Reliability and Validity
Table 2: Discriminant Validity (AVE > Squared Correlation)
Factors α/CR AVE
Squared Correlation
1 2 3
Accept 0,88/0,88
0,72 1
Change 0,86/0,87
0,70 0,19 1
Withdrawal 0,89/0,90
0,75 0,05 0,02 1
Overall the scale 0,87/0,88
Note. AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
CR= Composite Reliability
AVE= ∑ Қ2 / n CR ; CR = (∑Қ)2 / [(∑Қ)2 + (∑1- Қ2)]
Қ = Factor loading of every item
n = Number of items in a model
Cont…..

Confirmatory Factorial Analysis ( CFA)
Categories of Fit
of Indices
Fit of
Index
Fitting Values of
Model (see Fig 2)
(Hooper et al., 2008; Hair et al.,
2014)
Acceptable Ranges Best Fitting Ranges
1. Absolute
Fit Indices
CMIN/DF 3.33 ≤5 ≤3
RMSEA 0.063 0.05 – 0.08 ≤0.05
GFI 0.970 0.90 – 0.95 ≥0.95
2. Incremental
Fit Indices
NFI 0.976 0.90 – 0.95 ≥0.95
TLI 0.974 0.90 – 0.95 ≥0.95
CFI 0.983 0.90 – 0.95 ≥0.97
3. Parsimony
Fit of Indices
PGFI 0.517
Parsimony Fit Indices within the .50
region while other goodness of fit
indices achieve values over .90
(Hooper et al., 2008)
PNFI 0.650 Within the .50 region ( Hooper et al., 2008)
Fit indices of the current study and their acceptable thresholds
Cont…..

First order Construct: Strategies of Copying with Stress: Three
Factor model (Awang, 2012)
Cont…..

Second Order Construct of Strategies of Copying with Stress
(Awang, 2012)
Cont…..

Mediation Analysis Model (SEM)
o CWS=mediation role b/n
PsyCap &TWB=Beta =
.138, P = .009
Cont…..

The direct Effect of Psychological capital and Strategies of copying with
Stress on teachers' well-being (TWB)
Constructs Effect Predictors β P
Copying_with_Stress ← Psychological Capital .466 .002
Teacher well-being ← Psychological Capital .236 .002
Teacher well-being ←
Copying_with_Stress
.297 .008
Cont…..

Pearson Correlation among all constructs
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. PsyCap 1
2. Teacher WB .228** 1
3. Acceptance .174** .124** 1
4. Change .167** .196** .417** 1
5. Withdrawal -.085* -.143** -.241** -.145** 1
6. Copying with
Stress
.156** .119** .730** .768** .234** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Cont…..

Conclusions
6/7
o The Copying with Stress strategies construct have a good reliability and
validity.
o The construct has a good discriminant validity, and construct validity.
o EFA and CFA data support a theoretically hypothesized, copying with
stress model, was found to have an excellent fit to the data.
o Acceptance has a significant positive relationship with all PsyCap
constructs, OWB and Total TWB but not with WWB and SIWB.
o Change also has a significant relationship with all constructs of PsyCap
(except Self Efficacy), and with all constructs of TWB (except WWB).

References
7/7
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: IBM SPSS. 1–702.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital
on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016998
Collie, R. J. (2014). Understanding Teacher Well-Being and Motivation: Measurement, Theory, and
Change over Time (Issue February). THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Collie, R., Shapka, J., Perry, N. &, & Martin, A. (2015). Teacher Well-Being: Exploring Its
Components and a Practice-Oriented Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 744–
756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Cronbach, L. (2004). My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404266386
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher
effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157232
Luthans; Youssef & Avolio. (2007). Psychological Capital : Developing the Human
Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195187526.001.0001

Email: girumtareke27@gmail.com

European conference on educational research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to European conference on educational research

Similar to European conference on educational research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

European conference on educational research