Content uploaded by Juan Romeo Dávila-Ramírez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juan Romeo Dávila-Ramírez on Feb 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Draft copy
Psychological structure of teacher well-being: Justification of a situated model
Juan Romeo Dávila Ramírez1
Juan Antonio Huertas Martínez2
Francisco Antonio Leal Soto3
1University of Tarapacá, Chile. Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain.
jdavilar@academicos.uta.cl
2Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. juanantonio.huertas@uam.es
3University of Tarapacá, Chile. Research Center for Inclusive Education, Chile.
fleal@academicos.uta.cl
The correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to: Juan Romeo Dávila
Ramírez, jdavilar@academicos.uta.cl.
Funding:
His work was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) /
Scholarship Program / DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2019 – 72200107.
Acknowledgments:
Knowledge Generation Project: "Motivation, Evaluation, and Self-regulation V." PID2022-
138175NB-100. Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain.
Research Center for Inclusive Education, PIA-ANID CIE160009, Chile.
This text is a draft version. We recommend reviewing the final version published in:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2023.12.001
Recommended citation:
Dávila, J.R., Huertas, J.A., & Leal-Soto, F. (2024). Psychological structure of teacher well-
being: Justification of a situated model. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.), 29(1), 19-
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2023.12.001
2
Abstract
Teacher well-being is recognized as a crucial element in educational work. However, its
configuration remains unclear due to the heterogeneity with which its analysis has been
approached. This study has tested three measurement models that explain the configuration
of this construct based on six variables that have been identified as relevant: teacher self-
efficacy, psychological well-being, workload discomfort, well-being in the school
organization, well-being in the interaction with students, and collective teacher self-efficacy.
A cross-sectional investigation with self-report measures and structural equation models was
conducted. The analyses also considered an opposing variable: professional burnout at the
school. A total of 364 teachers from 13 schools in the Tarapacá Region, Chile, participated.
The results have shown the fit of a model that explains a latent variable called the
psychological structure of teacher well-being, which has a multidimensional, interactional
configuration situated within school organizations. The central elements of this model are
contextual variables that can be improved within each school through collective
development. This challenges national educational systems to promote teacher well-being
through school autonomy.
Keywords: teacher well-being, self-efficacy, burnout, teachers
Resumen
Se indica al bienestar docente como un elemento crucial para la labor educativa. Sin
embargo, su configuración permanece confusa debido a la heterogeneidad con que se ha
abordado su análisis. Este trabajo ha puesto a prueba tres modelos de medida que explican
la configuración de dicho constructo a partir de seis variables que han sido identificadas
como relevantes: autoeficacia docente, bienestar psicológico, malestar por carga laboral,
bienestar en la organización escolar, bienestar en la interacción con estudiantes y
autoeficacia docente colectiva. Se ha realizado una investigación transversal con medidas de
autorreporte y modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Los análisis también han considerado
una variable opuesta: desgaste profesional en la escuela. Han participado 364 docentes de
13 escuelas de la Región de Tarapacá, Chile. Los resultados han mostrado el ajuste de un
modelo que explica una variable latente denominada estructura psicológica del bienestar
docente y que posee una configuración multidimensional, interaccional y situada en
organizaciones escolares. Los elementos centrales de este modelo son variables
contextuales, susceptibles de ser mejoradas al interior de cada escuela mediante un desarrollo
colectivo. Esto desafía a los sistemas educativos nacionales a promover el bienestar docente
desde la autonomía escolar.
Palabras clave: bienestar docente, autoeficacia, desgaste profesional, profesores
3
Introduction
Well-being has been described as a conscious assessment of personal experience in which
positive or pleasant judgments (feeling good) predominate over negative or unpleasant
judgments, a product of the harmony between personal characteristics and contextual factors
that go beyond individual control (Hascher, 2010, 2012; Mead et al., 2021). The
understanding of human well-being has considered three psychological traditions: subjective
well-being (Diener, 1984), psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) and social well-being
(Keyes, 1998). In recent years, two integrative perspectives have been added. Tennant et al.
(2007) have defined well-being in terms of physical and mental health. While, Kemp and
Fisher (2022) have described the power of connection with oneself, with the community and
with nature as central elements of general well-being.
The evaluation of well-being has focused on specific groups. Such is the case of teacher well-
being. This targeting has become an important issue for educational systems (European
Commission, 2021; Education Support, 2022; McCallum et al., 2017; Viac & Fraser, 2020)
since the quality of teaching work constitutes one of the factors with greater impact on student
learning (Hattie, 2009; Nye et al., 2004) and, consequently, on the social development of a
nation (Chetty et al., 2014; Hanushek and Woessmann, 2012). Teacher well-being has
increased its interest due to the negative impact on the physical and mental health of teachers
as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic (Alves, et al., 2021; Beltman et al., 2022; López-
Orellana et al., 2021). A positive impact of teacher well-being has been identified on school
learning (Duckworth et al., 2009; Sutton and Wheatley, 2003), on classroom climates
(Hargreaves, 2001; Jennings and Greenberg, 2009), on socio-emotional development (Bilz
et al., 2022; Collie et al., 2012) and on student psychological well-being (Harding et al.,
2019).
Despite its relevance, the understanding of teacher well-being remains confused due to the
heterogeneity with which its analysis has been approached. In this regard, Hascher and Waber
(2021) have carried out a systematic review of 98 articles on teacher well-being between the
years 2000 and 2019. Their conclusions have emphasized the need to have a
multidimensional vision of teacher well-being that integrates the affective, cognitive,
positive, negative, psychological, and physiological. Also, they have pointed out the
importance of defining which elements are central in its configuration. The purpose of this
work is to respond to these challenges. Aelterman et al. have defined teacher well-being as
"a positive emotional state resulting from the harmony between the sum of specific
environmental factors and the needs and expectations of teachers" (2007, p. 286). Following
them, five models that have an interactional and multidimensional vision have been selected
for this purpose.
First, Huberman and Vandenberghe (1999) have carried out a theoretical systematization of
satisfaction and stress in school teachers. They have pointed out that the variables that explain
its origin can be divided into three factors: related to the person; related to the profession and
the workplace; and related to society. A second model is the one proposed by Aelterman et
al. (2007) who have studied teacher well-being using mixed methods including interviews
4
and psychometric evaluations with 1,116 Belgian school teachers. These authors have
pointed out that teacher well-being is defined by ten elements that range from the most
personal to the most contextual. Third, Van Horn et al. (2010), based on the use of
psychometric methodologies with 1,252 Dutch school teachers, has identified five
dimensions: affective, social, professional, cognitive, and psychosomatic. Fourth, Collie et.
al (2015) have studied teacher well-being using mixed methods, with 603 Canadian school
teachers participated in their research. They proposed that teacher well-being is configured
from three dimensions: well-being related to workload, well-being related to the school
organization and well-being related to interaction with students. Finally, Viac and Fraser
(2020) have provided a theoretical organization of teacher well-being that considers four
dimensions: cognitive, subjective, physical, and mental, and social. Although these models
have understood teacher well-being from an interactional and multidimensional perspective,
they have not indicated which factors are central within their models.
Justification of the psychological structure of teacher well-being
Among the five models described, two are theoretical models based on previous evidence
(Huberman and Vandenberghe, 1999; Viac and Fraser, 2020) and three are empirical models
(Aelterman et al., 2007; Collie et al., 2015; Van Horn et al., 2010). Its theoretical foundations
come from a sociocognitive vision of educational processes in which different elements of
human development are integrated, both intrinsic and contextual (Bandura, 1977; Hadwin et
al., 2010; Schunk, 2001). In the present work, the various variables that make up these models
have been compared and a synthesis of individual and contextual variables has been obtained,
which has been called the psychological structure of teacher well-being (hereinafter PSTW).
This synthesis is presented in Chart 1. From this synthesis, two individual variables have
been identified: teacher self-efficacy and psychological well-being.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to a teacher's assessment of his or her own ability to favorably
impact student learning. Bentea (2017) has described it as positively related to psychological
well-being and negatively related to work stress in her research with 217 Romanian teachers,
same as Xiyun et al. (2022) who have pointed out that teacher self-efficacy and emotional
regulation predict the psychological well-being of 276 Iranian teachers.
Psychological well-being implies a conjunction of intra- and interpersonal capacities for the
development of full functioning: autonomy, personal development, purpose in life, positive
relationships with others, mastery of the environment and self-acceptance (Ryff, 1989). In
this regard, Leal-Soto et al. (2014) have found a positive and significant association between
psychological well-being and the motivational practices of 46 Chilean teachers.
In this synthesis, the following contextual variables have also been identified. Collie et al.
(2015) have pointed out three contextual dimensions that participate in teacher well-being.
Well-being in the workload refers to the perception of teachers regarding the negative impact
resulting from working under pressure, concern about the use of time, administrative work,
fatigue from working outside formal hours and work discomfort. To better reflect the content
of this dimension and integrate negative and positive elements in the PSTW, in the present
5
work its name has been replaced by workload discomfort. Well-being in the school
organization refers to the perception of the school as an organization, which includes valuing
communication, recognition from the management team, peer support, family commitment,
regulations or guidelines, communication between members of the school community and
participation in decision-making. These elements have also been related to teacher well-being
by Kouhsari et al. (2023). Finally, well-being in the interaction with students indicates the
assessment of the teachers' interactions with the students during classes, particularly with
respect to their behavior, motivation to learn and their configuration as a course group.
Although they distinguish these three dimensions, Collie et al. (2015) do not consider them
separately; however, due to their high individual explanatory value, in the PSTW each of
these three contextual factors have been considered separately.
Another contextual factor is collective teaching self-efficacy, which assesses the perception
of effectiveness of the group of teachers with whom one works in an educational center in
developing student learning. It includes the ability to promote significant learning, motivate,
persevere in the face of difficulties, and solve situations of indiscipline. It also weights the
ability of peers to develop learning considering the influence of factors outside their control,
such as: student predisposition, family support, probable delinquency, and alcohol and drug
consumption by students (Goddard et al., 2000). Collective teaching self-efficacy has been
related to teaching commitment, personal teaching self-efficacy, directive leadership, and
student achievement (Salas-Rodríguez & Lara, 2020).
Not all the variables in Chart 1 have been included in the proposed psychological structure.
The recognition of constructs that are related to school autonomy has been privileged to
contribute to educational improvement from the management of each educational center
(Marchesi & Martín, 2014). Consequently, the main objective of this research is to select an
empirical model that explains teacher well-being and increases the precision of its definition,
a need that has been highlighted by the work of Hascher and Waber (2021).
In contrast to teacher well-being, school burnout has been described as physical exhaustion
(agitation, poor sleep, and working in free time), loss of meaning (demotivation and lowered
expectations), and confusion (insecurity, confusion, and high concern about meeting goals)
as a result of participation in a school context (Salmela-Aro et al., 2009). An adaptation of
this construct to teaching work, which has been called professional burnout in school, is part
of the present work with the purpose of demonstrating the discriminant validity of the
proposed structure.
6
Chart 1
Synthesis of variables of the psychological structure of teacher well-being from the comparison of models
Huberman y
Vandenberghe
(1999)
Aelterman et
al. (2007)
Van Horn (2010)
Collie et al.
(2015)
Viac y Fraser (2020)
Synthesis of PSTW
variables
Person-related
factors
Self-efficacy
PW: Competence
Self-efficacy
Teacher Self-efficacy
PW: Autonomy
Satisfaction with life
Psychological well-
being
AW: Affective well-being
Positive affects
Purposes
Factors related
to the
profession and
the workplace
AW: Organizational commitment
Well-being in
the school
organization.
(Participation,
positive
interaction
with
managers,
teachers,
students, and
families).
well-being in the
school organization
AW: Work satisfaction
Work satisfaction
Director
support
Interpersonal relationships with
managers
Relationship
with parents
Peer support
SW: Socialization with peers
Interpersonal relationships with
peers
SW: Depersonalization towards
peers
PW: Professional aspiration
Collective teacher
self-efficacy
SW: Socialization with students
Well-being in
interaction
with students
Interpersonal relationships with
students
Well-being in
interaction with
students
SW: Depersonalization towards
students
AW: Emotional exhaustion
Workload
well-being
Psychosomatic symptoms
Workload discomfort
PW: Physical Health
CW: Concentration at work
Concentration at work
Infrastructure
Quality of working conditions
Sociopolitical
factors
Professional
development
Job resources, training, and
feedback
Policies
National educational policies
Note. PSTW = Psychological structure of teacher well-being; CW = Cognitive well-being; AW = Affective well-being; SW = Social Welfare, PW =
Professional Wellbeing; PW = Psychosomatic well-being; SW = Subjective well-being.
7
Method
Participants
Participants were 364 school teachers (242 women and 122 men) who work in the Tarapacá
Region, Chile. The group includes teachers from 1st grade to 12th grade (primary and
secondary), who teach various subjects, for example: mathematics, science, language, etc.
The average age of participants was 38 years. They belong to a total of 13 schools, 9 private
ones with public financing and 4 public schools, all for free for families. No data has been
obtained from paid private schools. A description of the participating schools is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1
Description of the participating schools according to the provinces of Tarapacá
Province
N° of
schools
N° of private
schools with public
financing
N° of
public
schools
N° of
teachers
N° of
students
Tamarugal
2
0
2
26
1.289
Iquique
11
9
2
338
11.152
Total
13
9
4
364
12.441
Instruments
In the scales of teaching self-efficacy, psychological well-being and collective teaching self-
efficacy, an item selection process has been carried out with the aim of reducing the time
allocated to self-report. In order for the instruments to maintain the original psychometric
properties, final consistency has been guaranteed with the reduced items and items have been
selected with theoretical criteria agreed upon by the authors of this work. Table 4 presents
the goodness-of-fit indicators for each of the instruments.
The evaluation of teaching self-efficacy has been carried out through an adaptation of the
General Self-Efficacy Scale, Spanish version by Baessler and Schwarzer (1996). Of the ten
original items, four have been selected as they are highly representative of the construct. In
addition, two specific items have been added that evaluate teacher self-efficacy regarding
learning achievement and to establish pedagogical links (e.g., “When having to face a
problem in my work as a teacher, I generally think of several alternatives to solve it.”). The
instrument has a 5-point scale with a range from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Psychological well-being has been evaluated using the Spanish Adaptation of the Ryff
Psychological Well-being Scales, carried out by Díaz et al. (2006). Of the 39 original items,
18 have been selected for their high theoretical representativeness of each dimension of the
construct, 3 items for each of the 6 subscales (e.g., “I have the feeling that I am developing a
lot as a person”). The instrument has a 6-point scale with a range from 1 (totally disagree) to
6 (totally agree).
8
To evaluate workload discomfort, well-being in the school organization and well-being in
interaction with students, an adaptation of the Teacher Well-being Scale by Collie et al.
(2015) has been used, considering each variable as an independent factor. The adaptation
consisted of translating the 16 original items from the English language to the Spanish
language using the reverse translation method. Likewise, the response format has been
modified to a Likert-type one that has a 5-point scale with a range from 1 (totally disagree)
to 5 (totally agree). The workload discomfort scale contains 5 items (e.g., “Doing everything
that is asked of me in the time I have available is something that worries me”). The well-
being in the school organization scale contains 7 items (e.g., “Good communication between
everyone is something that makes me feel comfortable in my job as a teacher”). Finally, the
well-being in interaction with students’ scale contains 4 items (e.g., “The good behavior of
students in my classes increases my motivation to work”).
Collective teaching self-efficacy has been evaluated based on an adaptation of the Collective
Teaching Efficacy Scale by Goddard et al. (2000). Of the 21 original items, 12 have been
considered due to their high theoretical correspondence (e.g., “The teachers at this school do
not have the necessary skills to produce significant learning in the students”). The adaptation
consisted of translating the 12 items from the English language to the Spanish language using
the reverse translation method. The instrument has a 6-point scale with a range from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
Burnout at school has been assessed through an adaptation of the School Burnout Scale by
Salmela-Aro et al. (2009). The adaptation has consisted of translating the 9 items from the
English language to the Spanish language using the reverse translation method and
particularizing the choice of the items with the work at school (e.g., “I frequently sleep badly
due to issues related to my job"). The instrument has a 6-point scale with a range from 1
(totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
Procedures
Firstly, the school management teams have been contacted to inform them of the project and
request their participation. Subsequently, the teams that have agreed have invited the teaching
staff to participate voluntarily. This process has been approved by the Research Ethics
Committee of the Autonomous University of Madrid, report CEI-125-2566. Data collection
has been identical in each school. The participants have met in person, have approved an
informed consent, have answered the instruments individually on a virtual platform and have
been able to resolve their doubts thanks to the presence of a member of the research team in
each educational center.
Analysis of data
The mean, standard deviation and one-sample t test have been obtained. Subsequently, using
structural equation models (SEM), each instrument has been analyzed and three measurement
models have been evaluated: Model 1 (M1), Model 2 (M2), and Model 3 (M3). Previously,
it has been determined whether the data from the seven instruments and the data from the
three models met the fundamental requirements for SEM (Heck et al., 2014). To visualize
9
multicollinearity, Pearson's bivariate correlation coefficient has been calculated. The internal
consistency of each instrument has been analyzed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's
omega statistics. Univariate normality has been evaluated by calculating skewness, kurtosis,
and the Kolgomorov-Smirnov (KS) test statistic. The normality of each measurement model
has been evaluated using Mardía's multivariate asymmetry and kurtosis indicators,
considering their critical value and range. Given that normality has not been evident and that
this is an essential requirement for the use of the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation
method in confirmatory factor analyzes with SEM, 2000 Bootstrap resampling have been
carried out (Cheung & Lau, 2008; Fan, 2003) with confidence intervals corrected to 90%.
Furthermore, based on the p value of the Bollen-Stine (BS) index, the suitability of each
measurement model has been evaluated (Enders, 2009). For identification, the degrees of
freedom (df) have been obtained. To estimate the goodness of fit, the ML method has been
used, as proposed by Iacobucci (2010). The following reference criteria have been
considered: Chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio (χ2 /df), comparative fit (CFI) and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Subsequently, the three measurement models (M1,
M2 and M3) have been evaluated. The statistical package IBM SPSS and Amos version 28
have been used.
Results
Descriptive and reliability analyzes
The group of participating teachers have generally reported a high level of teacher well-
being, both in individual and contextual variables. The Student t test statistics have shown
that the means are significantly above the central value of the range of responses (See Table
2). The sample of participants exceeds 200 cases (N = 364) and has been considered suitable
for carrying out SEM (Kline, 2005). Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega statistics have
indicated acceptable or optimal levels of internal consistency since they exceed the value of
.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 2010) except for the workload discomfort scale (See Table 2).
Correlation analysis
The correlations between the individual and contextual variables are moderate but significant
and in the opposite direction when they measure professional burnout at school and workload
discomfort (See Table 3). The moderate magnitude of the correlations expresses that they are
not similar variables and that they do not evidence the presence of multicollinearity since
none exceeds the value .85 (Pérez et al., 2013).
Model specification, identification, and estimation
The degrees of freedom (df) of the instruments and test models (See Tables 4 and 5) have
indicated their over-identification and therefore have been able to be estimated (Medrano &
Muñoz-Navarro, 2017). The indicators of normality, skewness, kurtosis, and KS have
indicated that the global scores of the PSTW scales have not been normally distributed since
they do not range between the values -1 and +1 and because the p values of KS are less than
.05 (Darlington & Hayes, 2017; Heck et al., 2014), except for the Collective Teaching Self-
10
Efficacy scale, which contains the values that demonstrate normality. Mardía's (1974)
multivariate normality indicators have shown that the distributions of the test models are not
normal. In the case of asymmetry, the value of the statistic has been greater than its critical
value in the three models. Regarding kurtosis, the value of the statistic has not been located
within the critical range established by Mardía (1974) according to the sample size in the
three models (Wulandari et al., 2021). For this reason, to correct the abnormality, the p values
of the BS Indices have been obtained as a result of the resampling or bootstrap (Cheung and
Lau, 2008) of the SEM corresponding to the seven instruments and the three test models (See
Tables 4 and 5). The p indicators of the BS index have corrected the abnormality by
exceeding the value of .05. Consequently, the formulation of SEM has been supported based
on new empirical distributions, which has allowed the requirements of ML to be met (Enders,
2009).
Table 2
Reliability statistics and descriptive statistics
Scale
α
ω
M
SD
t
p*
TS
.78
.77
4.38
.44
60.0
<.00
PW
.84
.84
5.02
.55
69.1
<.00
WD
.65
.65
3.80
.72
21.1
<.00
WSO
.75
.75
3.99
.64
29.3
<.00
WIE
.73
.73
4.49
.55
51.06
<.00
CTS
.78
.76
3.91
.68
25.79
<.00
SPB
.86
.86
3.25
1.10
4.36
<.00
Note. α = Cronbach's alpha; ω = McDonald's Omega; M = Medium; SD = Standard
Deviation; t = t value; p = Student's t test for one sample with test value = 3 and significance
level .05; TS = Teaching self-efficacy; PW = Psychological well-being; MCL = Workload
discomfort; WSO = Wellbeing in the school organization; WIE = Well-being in interaction
with students; CTS = Collective teaching self-efficacy; SPB = School professional burnout.
Table 3
Pearson bivariate correlation statistics of the scales of the psychological structure
of teacher well-being
Scale
TS
PW
WD
WSO
WIE
CTS
SPB
TS
PW
.34**
WD
.01
-.17**
WSO
.28**
.24**
-.19**
WIE
.29**
.16**
.02
.38**
CTS
.20**
.31**
-.21**
.33**
.17**
SPB
-.14**
-.50**
.46**
-.38**
-.17**
-.36**
Note. N = 364; **The correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-sided). TS = Teaching self-
efficacy; PW = Psychological well-being; WD = Workload discomfort; WSO = Wellbeing in the
school organization; WIE = Well-being in interaction with students; CTS = Collective teaching self-
efficacy; SPB = School professional burnout.
11
Table 4
Univariate normality indicators and goodness-of-fit indicators of the instruments
that make up the psychological structure of teacher well-being
Scale
Asymmetry
Kurtosis
KS
BS
df
χ2 /df
CFI
RMSEA
TS
-.47
-2.18
.00
.16*
8
1.76
.98
.04
PW
-.70
.33
.00
.17*
6
1.64
.99
.04
WD
-.59
.11
.00
.35*
3
1.27
.99
.02
WSO
-.98
1.34
.00
.20*
10
1.60
.98
.04
WIE
-1.59
3.32
.00
.74*
1
.250
1.00
.00
CTS
.00
.00
.18
21
1.77
.98
.04
SPB
.06
-6.69
.01
.13*
14
1.79
.99
.04
Note. PSTW = Psychological structure of teacher well-being; KS = Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p
value; BS = Bollen-Stine bootstrap p-value. *The confidence intervals of the regression weights
and the standardized regression weights have values significantly different from zero. TS =
Teaching self-efficacy; PW = Psychological well-being; WD = Workload discomfort; WSO =
Wellbeing in the school organization; WIE = Well-being in interaction with students; CTS =
Collective teaching self-efficacy; SPB = School professional burnout.
Table 5
Multivariate normality indicators and goodness-of-fit indicators per model
Model
MA
c.v.
MC
c.r.
BS
df
χ2 /df
CFI
RMSEA
M1:
(N = 364)
6.02
.14**
6.98
7.25/8.78
.17*
4
1.29
.99
.02
M2:
(N = 364)
9.06
7.70**
9.06
7.25/8.78
.07*
5
2.09
.98
.05
M3:
(N = 364)
6.02
.14**
6.98
7.25/8.78
1.78*
7
4.46
.90
.09
Note. PSTW = Psychological structure of teacher well-being; M1 = Model 1 (TS, PW, WD, WSO, WIE, CTS
= PSTW); M2 = Model 2 (SPB associated with PSTW = TS, BP, WD, WSO, WIE, CTS); M3 = Model 3
(ITW = WD, TS, PW and CTW = WSO, WIE, CTS plus PSTW); ITW = Personal teaching well-being; CTW
= Contextual teacher well-being; MA= Multivariate Mardia asymmetry; c.v. = Critical value; MC = Mardía’s
multivariate kurtosis; c.r. = Critical range; BS = Bollen-Stine p value.*The confidence intervals of the
regression weights and the standardized regression weights have values significantly different from zero.
**Significance level .05, according to Mardía Index (1974).
Model formulation
The first model (M1) has reflected the theoretical position held in this work. This model
implies considering that the psychological structure of teacher well-being responds to a
conglomerate of individual and contextual variables, which have been identified from the
synthesis of five theoretical and empirical models previously presented in Chart 1. The
second model (M2) has analyzed the explanatory capacity of professional burnout in school
on the proposed psychological structure of teacher well-being. Model 3 (M3) has included a
theoretical alternative which is the differentiation between individual and contextual
variables. In this model the variable workload discomfort has been considered as an
individual variable.
12
Model evaluation
The seven instruments and the first two models (M1 and M2) have achieved the following
reference criteria for goodness of fit: χ2 /df < 3, CFI ≥ .95 and RMSEA ≤ .05 (See Tables 4
and 5), although M1 has presented a superior goodness of fit. M3 has shown goodness-of-fit
indicators below acceptable values (See Table 5).
Model selection
In M1, the PETW has explained 33% of the variance of well-being in the school organization
and 33% of collective teaching self-efficacy (See Figure 1). This allows us to identify the
centrality of these variables in the model, both of which are contextual in nature. In M2,
professional burnout at school has explained 68% of the variance of PETW, which has
explained 39% of psychological well-being and 29% of workload discomfort (See Figure 2).
In M3, the PETW has explained 79% of the variance in personal teacher well-being and 67%
of the variance in contextual teacher well-being (See Figure 3); however, this last model has
presented a goodness of fit below the values acceptable.
Figure 1
Unidimensional model of the psychological structure of teacher well-being
13
Figure 2
Impact of professional burnout at school on the psychological structure of
teacher well-being
Figure 3
Two-dimensional model of the psychological structure of teacher
well-being
14
Discussion
Hascher and Waber (2021) have highlighted the need to achieve an integrative model of
multidimensional teacher well-being in which the central components stand out. The
psychological structure of teacher well-being was tested in M1 and has been confirmed by
the results (See Figure 1). In it, the central constructs are contextual variables: well-being in
the school organization and collective teaching self-efficacy. This is consistent with the work
of Kouhsari et al. (2023) who have highlighted the value of organizational variables in
promoting teacher well-being. Well-being in the school organization evaluates the work
environment regarding interactions with managers, teaching peers, and families. This
construct highlights the perception of organizational leadership offered by management
teams, school guidelines and regulations, collaboration between teachers and the
participation of families in educational processes (Collie et al., 2015). For its part, collective
teaching self-efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000) assesses the ability of peer teachers to facilitate
student learning. In this way, the fact that teachers perceive that their peers are effective in
their work can be a precedent for collaboration between teachers and a consequence of
adequate managerial leadership (Salas-Rodríguez and Lara, 2020). Although both variables
are outside individual control and are conditioned by the regulations of national educational
systems (Viac & Fraser, 2020), they can be improved within each educational center through
collective development. Given this, the role of management teams is a key aspect since they
could foster organizations that promote good interpersonal treatment and facilitate teaching
collaboration. Consequently, there may be a challenge here for educational systems which is
to promote teacher well-being considering the autonomy of each school (Marchesi & Martín,
2014). In an interactional construct, individual variables also have a relevant role. This has
happened with psychological well-being and teaching self-efficacy. Previous research has
indicated that psychological well-being is related to the implementation of teaching practices
with motivational effects in classes (Leal-Soto et al., 2014). Similarly, teacher self-efficacy
has been related to better emotional regulation and well-being of teachers (Bentea, 2017;
Xiyun et al., 2022).
M2 seeks to know the discriminant validity of the first model (See Figure 2). For this purpose,
the impact of professional burnout at school (Goddard et al., 2000) on the proposed
psychological structure has been analyzed. The results have shown that this impact is high
and in the opposite direction (See Figure 2). In this model, the centrality of the components
has changed. Here the variables that are explained to a greater extent are psychological well-
being (Ryff, 1989) and workload discomfort (Collie et al., 2015). This result highlights the
damage that school contexts that lead to professional burnout can produce, both in
psychological and physical aspects. For its part, in M2 it has been found that the explanatory
incidence of PETW in the well-being in interaction with students (Collie et al., 2015) and
teaching self-efficacy (Baessler & Schwarzer, 1996) scales is lower than in M1. In other
words, these scales are not so influenced by including the variable burnout at school in the
model. It seems that professional discomfort does not have as much impact on the concept
that teachers have of their own competences and on their interaction with students. The latter
should be explored in greater detail in future research, since as psychological well-being is
15
affected and discomfort increases, it is likely that teachers' emotional regulation and, with it
pedagogical interaction, will also be negatively affected.
In M3, individual variables are clearly differentiated from contextual variables and have
shown unacceptable goodness-of-fit indicators (See Figure 3). This allows us to confirm the
one factor structure of psychological teacher well-being that is verified in M1. In this model,
the variable discomfort due to workload has been treated as an individual variable.
Limitations and prospective
The main limitation of this study lies in its cross-sectional nature. It is suggested to evaluate
this model longitudinally and use multiple analysis techniques that include measurements
carried out with students (Harding et al., 2019). On the other hand, it would be convenient to
investigate the interaction of psychological structure of teacher well-being with other specific
variables, such as: emotional regulation, teacher commitment, teacher collaboration and
assessment of public educational policies. It is also suggested to study the impact of said
structure on variables specific to pedagogical work, such as didactic or evaluative strategies.
Taking into account the physical dimension, it would be relevant to analyze the impact of
school infrastructure on the well-being of school teachers. On the other hand, the results refer
to the Chilean professional environment. It may be relevant to study these relationships in
countries with educational conditions very different from those in Latin America, such as in
Asian or Middle Eastern countries.
Conclusions
According to the results of this research, teacher well-being is defined as the predominance
of positive or pleasant judgments regarding individual pedagogical work that arises from the
harmony between personal characteristics and the context of interactions that occur in a given
educational organization. Approach similar to the proposal of Kemp and Fisher (2022), who
have highlighted the value of the connection with oneself and the community in their
understanding of general well-being.
Consequently, to develop teacher well-being in educational centers it is necessary to attend
to both individual variables and contextual variables, emphasizing the development of the
latter. An educational organization that promotes collaboration and good treatment, that
includes families and that provides permanent technical pedagogical support can act as a
modulator of the individual variables of the teachers and facilitate their well-being (Collie et
al., 2012). This contextual role constitutes one of the traditional premises of the
sociocognitive vision of learning (Schunk, 2001). It is important to keep in mind that
contextual variables are subject to external determinations (rules, financing, administration,
etc.) so that educational systems should have public policies that allow the management of
teachers´ well-being in each educational center to be developed (Marchesi and Martin, 2014).
In conclusion, according to the results of this work, the well-being of the teaching community
should be a permanent and explicit concern both in educational centers and in national
educational systems and not be subject to isolated or circumstantial measures.
16
References
Aelterman, A., Engels, N., Van Petegem, K., y Verhaeghe, J. (2007). The well‐being of
teachers in Flanders: the importance of a supportive school culture. Educational
Studies, 33(3), 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701423085
Alves, R., Lopes, T., y Precioso, J. (2021). El bienestar de los docentes en tiempos de
pandemia Covid-19: factores que explican el bienestar profesional. International
Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 15, 203-217.
https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.5120
Baessler, J. y Schwarzer, R. (1996). Evaluación de la autoeficacia: Adaptación española de
la escala de autoeficacia general. Ansiedad y Estrés, 2(1), 1-8.
Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.191
Beltman, S., Mansfield, C., y Hascher, T. (2022). In the Midst of a Pandemic: Australian
Teachers Talk About Their Well-Being. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(3), 253-263.
10.1027/2151-2604/a000502
Bentea, C. (2017). Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Burnout and Psychological Well-Being.
En E. Soaere y C. Langa (Eds.), Education Facing Contemporary World Issues (pp.
1128-1135). European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.05.02.139
Bilz, L., Fischer, S. M., Hoppe-Herfurth, A.C., y John, N. (2022). A consequential
partnership: The association between teachers’ well-being and students’ well-being
and the role of teacher support as a mediator. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(3),
264–275. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000497
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., y Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II:
Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. The American Economic
Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43495328
Cheung, G. W., y Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent
Variables: Bootstrapping with Structural Equation Models. Organizational Research
Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., Perry, N. E., y Martin, A. J. (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
Collie, R., Shapka, J. y Perry, N. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189-1204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
Comisión Europea/EACEA/Eurydice. (2021). El profesorado en Europa: Carreras,
desarrollo y bienestar. Informe Eurydice. Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión
Europea. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/98926
Darlington, R. B., y Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression analysis and linear models. Concepts,
applications, and implementation. The Guilford Press.
Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gallardo, I., Valle, C., y
Van Dierendonck, D. (2006). Adaptación española de las escalas de bienestar
psicológico de Ryff. Psicothema, 18(3), 572–577.
17
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–
575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., y Seligman, M. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher
effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540-547.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157232
Education Support. (2022). Teacher wellbeing index. Education Support.
https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/media/zoga2r13/teacher-wellbeing-index-
2022.pdf
Enders, C. K. (2009). An SAS Macro for Implementing The Modified Bollen-Stine
Bootstrap For Missing Data: Implementing The Bootstrap Using Existing Structural
Equation Modeling Software. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 12(4), 620-641. 10.1207/s15328007sem1204_6
Fan, X. (2003). Using Commonly Available Software For Bootstrapping In Both
Substantive And Measurement Analyses. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63(1), 24-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239315
Goddard, R., D., Hoy, W. K., y Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its
Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163531
Hadwin, A. F., Oshige, M., Gress, C., y Winne, P. H. (2010). Innovative ways for using
gStudy to orchestrate and research social aspects of self-regulated learning.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 794-805.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.007
Hanushek, E., y Woessmann, L. (2012). Schooling, Educational Achievement, and the Latin
American Growth Puzzle. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 497-512.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.06.004
Harding, S., Morris, R., Gunnell, D., Ford, T., Hollingworth, W., Tilling, K., Evans, R.,
Bell, S., Grey, J., Brockman, R., Campbell, R., Araya, R., Murphy, S., y Kidger, J.
(2019). Is teachers’ mental health and wellbeing associated with students’ mental
health and wellbeing? Journal of Affective Disorders, 253(15), 460-
466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.03.046
Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional Geographies of Teaching. Teachers College Record,
103(6), 1056-1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00142
Hascher, T. (2010). Wellbeing. En P., Peterson, E., Baker, y B. McGaw (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 732-738). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
08-044894-7.00633-3
Hascher, T. (2012). Well-Being and Learning in School. En N. M. Seel, (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 3456-3456). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4419-1428-6_1832
Hascher, T., y Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research
literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, 2-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to
Achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
Heck, R. H., Thomas, H. I., y Tabata, L. N. (2014). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling
with IBM SPSS (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Huberman, A., y Vandenberghe, R. (1999). Introduction: Burnout and the Teaching
Profession. En R. Vandenberghe y A. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and
18
Preventing Teacher Burnout: A Sourcebook of International Research and
Practice (pp. 1-12). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527784.002
Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced
topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
Jennings, P., y Greenberg, M. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional
competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational
Research, 79(1), 491-525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Kemp, A. H., y Fisher, Z. (2022). Wellbeing, Whole Health and Societal Transformation:
Theoretical Insights and Practical Applications. Global Advances in Health and
Medicine, 11, 1-16. 10.1177/21649561211073077
Keyes, C. L. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–
140. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787065
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2 ed.).
Guilford.
Kouhsari, M., Chen, J., y Baniasad, S. (2023). Multilevel analysis of teacher professional
well-being and its influential factors based on TALIS data. Research in Comparative
and International Education, 18(3), 395-
418. https://doi.org/10.1177/17454999221143847
Leal-Soto, F., Dávila, J. y Valdivia, Y. (2014). Bienestar psicológico y prácticas docentes
con efectos motivacionales orientadas al aprendizaje. Universitas Psychologica,
13(3), 1037-1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-3.bppd
López-Orellana, C., Varela, J., Guzmán, P., Piedra-Martínez, E., Freire, A., Baculima, J., y
Cordero, L. (2021). Bienestar docente durante la Pandemia COVID-19: La
Comparación entre Ecuador y Chile. Revista de Sociología de la Educación-RASE,
14(3), 325-347. http://dx.doi.org/10.7203/RASE.14.3.21472.
Marchesi, A. y Martín, E. (2014). Calidad de la enseñanza en tiempos de crisis. Alianza
Editorial.
Mardía, K.V. (1974). Applications of Some Measures of Multivariate Skewness and
Kurtosis in Testing Normality and Robustness Studies. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal
of Statistics, 36(2), 115-128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25051892
McCallum, F., Price, D., Graham, A., y Morrison., A. (2017). Teacher Wellbeing: A review
of the literature. Association of Independent Schools of NSW. apo-nid201816.pdf
Mead, J., Fisher, Z., y Kemp, A. H. (2021). Moving Beyond Disciplinary Silos Towards a
Transdisciplinary Model of Wellbeing: An Invited Review. Frontiers in Psychology
12, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642093
Medrano, L. A. y Muñoz-Navarro, R. (2017). Aproximación Conceptual y Práctica a los
Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales. Revista Digital de Investigación en Docencia
Universitaria, 11(1), 219-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.19083/ridu.11.486
Nunnally, J. C., y Bernstein, I. H. (2010). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill/Pearson.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S. y Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026003237
Pérez, E., Medrano, L. A., y Sánchez - Rosas, J. (2013). El Path Analysis: conceptos
básicos y ejemplos de aplicación. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del
Comportamiento, 5(1), 52-66.
19
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6),
1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Salas-Rodríguez, F., y Lara, S. (2020). Mapeo sistemático de la literatura sobre eficacia
colectiva docente. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 34(2),
11-36. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v34i2.77678
Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., y Nurmi, J. E. (2009). School Burnout Inventory
(SBI): Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment,
25(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. En B. J.
Zimmerman y D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125-151). Erlbaum.
Sutton, R. E., y Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the
literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4),
327–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026131715856
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J.,
y Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
(WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,
5(63), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Van Horn, J., Taris, T., Shaufeli, W., y Schreurs, W. (2010). The structure of occupational
well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 365–375.
https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179041752718
Viac, C., y Fraser, P. (2020). Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and
analysis (Education Working N° 213). OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c36fc9d3-en.
Wulandari, D., Sutrisno, S., y Nirwana, M. B. (2021). Mardia’s Skewness and Kurtosis for
Assessing Normality Assumption in Multivariate Regression. Enthusiastic:
International Journal of Applied Statistics and Data Science, 1(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.20885/enthusiastic.vol1.iss1.art1
Xiyun, S., Fathi, J., Shirbagi, N., y Mohammaddokht, F. (2022). A Structural Model of
Teacher Self-Efficacy, Emotion Regulation, and Psychological Wellbeing Among
English Teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904151
