View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Well-Being and Turnover Intentions: Investigating the Roles of Job Resources and Job Demands

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Well-Being and Turnover Intentions: Investigating the Roles of Job Resources and Job Demands
Language: English
Authors: Collie, Rebecca J. (ORCID 0000-0001-9944-2703)
Source: British Journal of Educational Psychology. Sep 2023 93(3):712-726.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Teachers, Well Being, Faculty Mobility, Intention, Faculty Workload, Work Environment, Professional Autonomy, Teacher Student Relationship, Interprofessional Relationship, Student Behavior, Leadership, Teaching Conditions
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12587
ISSN: 0007-0998
2044-8279
Abstract: Background: Identifying factors implicated in teachers' well-being and turnover intentions is important for driving research, policy, and practice to better support teachers in their work. Aims: This study examined the role of three job resources (autonomy-supportive leadership, relatedness with colleagues and students) and three job demands (autonomy-thwarting leadership, time pressure, disruptive student behaviour) in relation to teacher well-being (subjective vitality, behavioural engagement, professional growth) and turnover intentions. Sample: Participants were 426 Australian school teachers. Methods: Structural equation modelling was used to examine main associations and interactions among factors. Teachers' characteristics (gender, teaching experience and educational qualification) and personality factors served as controls in all analyses. Results: The job resources were generally positively associated with the well-being factors, whereas time pressure was negatively associated with vitality, but positively associated with behavioural engagement. In addition, relatedness with colleagues and subjective vitality were negatively associated with turnover intentions, whereas the reverse was true for autonomy-thwarting leadership and time pressure. There were no interaction terms retained in the final model. Conclusion: Taken together, findings yield understanding about the salient resources and demands in relation to teachers' well-being and turnover intentions (beyond the role of background characteristics and personality factors).
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1387848
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE70zwWIEAD92CR5LNQMKjeAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFeyLQLC-1tgTvpc6gIBEICBmyc1482Y4ycCQCQaLTiQexK7iHa6x3EYa5v7f-yb-rXh8YPE0kcDhxYR8eezerVmOOPxs_r-HCefPvfhzOWZXidC59eOd3-DpsdXN1UNBHsLMzMt_JzBlqyxvwvFO3bYFhm92ZSWE2FAxTaQtIWaHe_6nsfl9fIiIcwzbIPWjHBAukXJXsEzn3DZhfhGb8v6An1ZHbicsyaeTxLT
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0169828157;6kx01sep.23;2023Aug10.05:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0169828157-1">Teacher well‐being and turnover intentions: Investigating the roles of job resources and job demands </title> <p>Background: Identifying factors implicated in teachers' well‐being and turnover intentions is important for driving research, policy, and practice to better support teachers in their work. Aims: This study examined the role of three job resources (autonomy‐supportive leadership, relatedness with colleagues and students) and three job demands (autonomy‐thwarting leadership, time pressure, disruptive student behaviour) in relation to teacher well‐being (subjective vitality, behavioural engagement, professional growth) and turnover intentions. Sample: Participants were 426 Australian school teachers. Methods: Structural equation modelling was used to examine main associations and interactions among factors. Teachers' characteristics (gender, teaching experience and educational qualification) and personality factors served as controls in all analyses. Results: The job resources were generally positively associated with the well‐being factors, whereas time pressure was negatively associated with vitality, but positively associated with behavioural engagement. In addition, relatedness with colleagues and subjective vitality were negatively associated with turnover intentions, whereas the reverse was true for autonomy‐thwarting leadership and time pressure. There were no interaction terms retained in the final model. Conclusion: Taken together, findings yield understanding about the salient resources and demands in relation to teachers' well‐being and turnover intentions (beyond the role of background characteristics and personality factors).</p> <p>Keywords: behavioural engagement; job demands; job resources; personality; professional growth; subjective vitality; teacher well‐being</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Prior research has highlighted that different aspects of teachers' work—that is, job resources and demands—can help or hinder teachers' psychological functioning at work, including their well‐being and turnover intentions (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]). Although prior work has highlighted several resources and demands that are salient for teachers, research that considers these factors simultaneously is now needed. Researchers have identified social support from school leaders, colleagues, and students as important job resources, along with pressure from school leadership, workload, and student behaviour as common job demands (Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]). However, these factors have been identified in separate studies. Thus, the extent to which these factors remain salient when examined together is unknown. Considering these resources and demands concurrently is important for isolating which factors remain significant beyond the role of other factors (Hakanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). The most prominent factors can then form a focus in research, policy, and practice aimed at improving teachers' experiences at work and reducing attrition.</p> <p>The present study, therefore, examined three job resources (autonomy‐supportive leadership, relatedness with colleagues, relatedness with students) and three job demands (autonomy‐thwarting leadership, time pressure, disruptive student behaviour) simultaneously in relation to teacher well‐being (subjective vitality, behavioural engagement, professional growth) and, in turn, teachers' turnover intentions—all while controlling for teacher characteristics and personality. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized model. Interactions between the resources and demands were also examined, as were indirect associations.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01sep23/bjep12587-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12587-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesized model" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169828157-4">Conceptual framework: job demands‐resources theory</hd> <p>Job demands‐resources (JD‐R) theory (Bakker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]; Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]) emphasizes that job resources and demands influence functioning among employees. Job resources and demands can take many different forms including physical, social, psychological or organizational factors at work (Hakanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; Lesener et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]). Within JD‐R theory, two central processes are posited. In the first of these processes, <emph>the motivational process</emph>, job resources (e.g., collegial support) promote positive employee outcomes (e.g., motivation). In the second process, <emph>the health impairment process</emph>, job demands (e.g., high workload) lead to negative employee outcomes (e.g., turnover intentions; Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). The two main processes of JD‐R theory align with a dual process hypothesis, such that within‐process associations are strong and positive in nature (i.e., between resources and positive outcomes, or between demands and negative outcomes), whereas between‐process associations are weaker and negative (or even non‐significant) in nature (i.e., between job resources and negative outcomes and vice versa; Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]). JD‐R theory also stipulates two interaction processes. In the <emph>boosting process</emph>, job demands enhance the positive effect of job resources on employee's positive outcomes, whereas job resources reduce the detrimental effect of job demands on negative outcomes in the <emph>buffering process</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-5">Job resources and demands salient in teaching work</hd> <p>Job resources and demands are known to be associated with teachers' well‐being and retention‐related outcomes (Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]; Prieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref12">48</reflink>]). In the present study, six resources and demands were examined that have been shown to be important for teachers (Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>]; Prieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>]), but have yet to be investigated simultaneously. Examining the factors together is important for determining what factors play a unique role in relation to the outcomes (given controls for shared variance are incorporated). Such knowledge is important for guiding understanding about the factors on which intervention should best focus (Hakanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]). Moreover, this knowledge will extend prior research examining higher‐order factors of job demands and job resources among general employees (Hakanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]; Lesener et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]) to pinpoint specific factors relevant to teachers.</p> <p>The three job resources traverse different types of social support at work. <emph>Autonomy‐supportive leadership</emph> refers to teachers' sense that their school principal supports their sense of agency and self‐initiative at work (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref20">44</reflink>]). <emph>Relatedness with colleagues</emph> refers to teachers' sense that they are connected to, they care for and they are cared for by their colleagues (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref21">44</reflink>]). <emph>Relatedness with students</emph> refers to teachers' sense of connection and caring with their students (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>The three job demands capture common challenges for teachers (Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]; Stang‐Rabrig et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref24">51</reflink>]). <emph>Autonomy‐thwarting leadership</emph> reflects teachers' sense that their school principal controls or pressures them to think, act, and feel in particular ways (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref25">44</reflink>]). <emph>Time pressure</emph> involves the sense of having insufficient time to complete work tasks (Prieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]). <emph>Disruptive student behaviour</emph> involves perceptions that students engage in behaviours such as being noisy, disturbing other students and being distracted, that make it challenging for effective learning to occur.</p> <p>Together, the resources and demands tap into the basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) that are considered essential for optimal human functioning (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref27">44</reflink>]). Autonomy‐supportive leadership helps teachers feel autonomous in their work, which lays a foundation for positive psychological functioning at and commitment to one's work (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>]). Relatedness (with students and colleagues) boosts energy and investment in work (Jansen in de Wal et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref30">43</reflink>]) and, in turn, leads to deeper attachments to work (Jo, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]). In contrast, autonomy‐thwarting leadership, time pressure and disruptive student behaviour can make teachers feel less competent (because they are unable to meet their learning and teaching goals) and less autonomous at work (because there are undue pressures). In turn, these factors result in lower well‐being (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]) and weaker attachments to work (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref33">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-6">Teacher well‐being</hd> <p>In the present study, well‐being is defined as "a combination of feeling good and functioning effectively" (Huppert & So, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>], p. 838). Three well‐being factors were examined that feature in theorizing on employee well‐being (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; Ryan & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]; Spreitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref37">50</reflink>]). <emph>Subjective vitality</emph> involves feeling excited and energetic about one's job (Ryan & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>]). <emph>Behavioural engagement</emph> refers to individuals' efforts to be well‐prepared, productive and effective at work (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]). <emph>Professional growth</emph> involves investment in one's professional growth through reflection and planning for development of professional skills and knowledge (Spreitzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref40">50</reflink>]). Together, the three factors of well‐being traverse "feeling good" at work (i.e., subjective vitality), as well as "functioning effectively" in relation to one's job (i.e., behavioural engagement) and the profession (i.e., professional growth). These factors were selected above other well‐being constructs (e.g., positive affect, job satisfaction) because the aim was to capture active and invested evaluations of well‐being, rather than general contentment at work.</p> <p>As per the motivational process in JD‐R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]), the job resources were expected to be strongly and positively associated with the well‐being factors. In line with the dual process hypothesis (e.g., Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]), job demands were expected to be weakly and negatively associated with well‐being. Prior research provides preliminary support for these hypotheses. For example, autonomy‐supportive leadership is associated with greater job satisfaction (Nie et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]). Relatedness with colleagues is linked with greater subjective vitality (Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) and job satisfaction (Stang‐Rabrig et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref45">51</reflink>]). Relatedness with students is associated with greater work enjoyment and a broader work engagement construct (Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]). Turning to the job demands, autonomy‐thwarting leadership is associated with impaired well‐being (greater emotional exhaustion; Collie, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref47">11</reflink>]); however, no research has apparently examined the link with adaptive well‐being factors. Such examinations are important given growing concerns about declines in teacher well‐being (Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]) and the need to identify factors implicated in this that can then be targeted in practice. Time pressure is linked with greater emotional exhaustion (Fernet et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref49">18</reflink>]), lower subjective vitality (Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]) and lower work engagement (Mérida‐López & Extremera, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]). Disruptive student behaviour is also linked with lower job satisfaction (Klassen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]) and greater emotional exhaustion (Baeriswyl et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>]; Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite this growing body of work, researchers have yet to examine all six resources and demands simultaneously, which is important for determining the unique role played by each factor (Hakanen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]). Perhaps some factors are no longer relevant when examined simultaneously with the other factors (i.e., with controls for shared variance). Alternatively, it may be that particular resources are salient for subjective vitality, whereas other resources are relevant to behavioural engagement and professional growth. Such knowledge is needed for guiding the development of interventions to support teachers' psychological functioning. The present study involved examining whether the resources and demands are uniquely associated with each well‐being factor.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-7">Turnover intentions as a retention‐related outcome</hd> <p> <emph>Turnover intentions</emph> refer to teachers' plans to search for another job and leave their current employment (Michaels & Spector, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). In the present study, the resources, demands and well‐being factors were all examined as predictors of turnover intentions. Prior research provides some preliminary evidence for these predictors in relation to organizational commitment (another retention‐related outcome; Fernet et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref57">18</reflink>]); however, only limited research has considered turnover intentions. For example, relatedness with students, subjective vitality and work engagement are associated with lower turnover intentions (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref59">48</reflink>]). Conversely, time pressure and disruptive student behaviour are associated with higher turnover intentions (Räsänen et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref60">42</reflink>]). The extent to which autonomy‐supportive and ‐thwarting leadership, behavioural engagement and professional growth are associated with turnover intentions remains unexamined. Moreover, the extent to which the previously examined predictors remain significant when examined concurrently is important for pinpointing the most salient job resources and demands for turnover intentions.</p> <p>In line with the health impairment process in JD‐R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]), job demands were expected to be strongly and positively associated with the outcome. Based on the dual process theory (Collie et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]), job resources were expected to be weakly and negatively associated with turnover intentions. Moreover, it was hypothesized that subjective vitality and behavioural engagement would be associated with lower turnover intentions because teachers who feel energized by and engaged in their current job are less likely to want to quit that job (Schaufeli & Taris, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref63">46</reflink>]). In contrast, a non‐significant association between professional growth and turnover intentions was expected because teachers who are developing their professional skills may be doing so with their present job or another job in mind. Alongside the main associations, interaction effects were also examined. For the interactions, it was hypothesized that the job demands would boost the strength of the association between the job resources and the well‐being factors (boosting process), whereas the job resources would buffer the association between the job demands and turnover intentions (buffering process; Bakker & Demerouti, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). The extent to which the resources/demands are indirectly associated with the outcome via well‐being was also tested.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-8">Teacher characteristics and personality factors</hd> <p>Three teacher characteristics (gender, teaching experience and educational qualification) and five personality factors (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional instability; Norman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref65">37</reflink>]) were examined in the present study as covariate controls given these factors have been associated with the substantive variables. For example, female and more experienced teachers have been shown to report lower well‐being (Baeriswyl et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref66">4</reflink>]). Further, personality is implicated in JD‐R theory processes (Bakker et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>]). For example, emotional instability is known to be relevant for well‐being (Perera et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref68">38</reflink>]), and thus, it is important to control for personality to identify unique associations among substantive factors.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-9">STUDY OVERVIEW</hd> <p>The aim of the present study is to investigate the unique role of job resources and demands in predicting teacher well‐being and turnover intentions. Figure 1 displays the hypothesized model. Alongside the main associations, interaction effects between the resources and demands were tested in relation to the well‐being factors and turnover intentions. In subsidiary analyses, indirect associations from the resources/demands to turnover intentions via the well‐being factors were also examined.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-10">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169828157-11">Sample and procedure</hd> <p>The sample comprised 426 teachers from across Australia who were working at primary (52%), secondary (40%) or both levels (7%). The majority of the sample identified as female (82%), and the remainder identified as male (18%). This gender breakdown generally aligns with the population of teachers in Australia, which is 82% female in primary schools and 60% in secondary schools (ABS, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>]). Teachers in the study were on average 36 (<emph>SD</emph> = 10) years of age and had 11 (<emph>SD</emph> = 9) years of teaching experience. Most of the sample spoke only English at home (92%). Participants held a bachelor's degree (62%) or a postgraduate degree (34%; the remainder held a certificate or diploma; 4%). Participants worked in government (68%), Catholic (16%), or independent schools (16%), and reported their school's socio‐economic status as low (19%), below average (18%), average (39%), above average (18%) or high (5%). Participants worked in inner city (10%), suburban (71%), rural (17%), or remote areas (1%).</p> <p>Data were collected in May, 2021, using an online questionnaire. This period of time was during the COVID‐19 pandemic; however, there were very few cases of COVID‐19 in Australia and schools were open as usual. Participant recruitment occurred through Qualtrics and their market research partners, who have contact details for a large sample of the Australian population. The study invitation was relayed via email or app notification to adults who had registered their interest in participating in studies for those working in education. Respondents opened the questionnaire website, provided consent and responded to screening questions about whether they were working in an Australian primary or secondary school. Individuals not working in schools were withdrawn from the survey. Respondents who were working in schools, but completed the questionnaire in <1/3 of the median time for completion (<emph>n</emph> = 5) or who responded the same across >80% of the questionnaire (<emph>n</emph> = 9), were excluded from the study (Dewitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref70">14</reflink>]). The response rate was 81%. The study received Institutional Review Board ethics approval.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-12">Measures</hd> <p>Unless otherwise stated, all scales were scored from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly). Scale scores for instruments have demonstrated evidence of validity in prior research (measurement invariance, expected correlations; Collie, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref71">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref72">13</reflink>]; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>]; Michaels & Spector, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref74">34</reflink>]) and/or in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-13">Job resources</hd> <p> <emph>Autonomy‐supportive leadership practices</emph> were assessed with the Leadership Approach to Autonomy Scale (LAAS; five items; e.g., "My principal listens to my perspective;" Collie, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]). <emph>Relatedness with teachers</emph> was assessed using items adapted from the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (four items; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>]). Adaptations involved adding the words "in my job" to items and changing "people" to "colleagues" (e.g., "I feel that the colleagues I care about in my job also care about me"). <emph>Relatedness with students</emph> was assessed with four items (e.g., "I feel connected to my students"; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref77">29</reflink>]). In the present study, reliability, calculated using McDonald's omega, was adequate for autonomy‐supportive leadership practices (<emph>ω</emph> = .89), relatedness with teachers (<emph>ω</emph> = .92), and relatedness with students (<emph>ω</emph> = .83).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-14">Job demands</hd> <p> <emph>Autonomy‐thwarting leadership practices</emph> were assessed using the LAAS (five items; e.g., "My principal expresses disappointment if I don't do things their way;" Collie, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref78">11</reflink>]). <emph>Time pressure</emph> was measured with the Time Pressure Scale (four items; e.g., "I feel pressed for time in my job"; Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref79">12</reflink>]). <emph>Disruptive student behaviour</emph> was assessed with the Disruptive Behaviour Scale (four items; e.g., "It is difficult to ensure my students concentrate on their schoolwork;" Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref80">12</reflink>]). Reliability was adequate for autonomy‐thwarting leadership practices (<emph>ω</emph> = .89), time pressure (<emph>ω</emph> = .90) and disruptive student behaviour (<emph>ω</emph> = .85).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-15">Well‐being</hd> <p>Well‐being was measured with Collie's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>]) items. Four items assessed <emph>subjective vitality</emph> (e.g., "I feel excited to start work each day"). Four items assessed <emph>behavioural engagement</emph> (e.g., "I complete my work tasks to a high standard"). Four items assessed <emph>professional growth</emph> (e.g., "In my job, I regularly reflect on how I can grow my professional skills"). Reliability was adequate for the three factors: <emph>ω</emph> = .90 for subjective vitality, <emph>ω</emph> = .83 for behavioural engagement, and <emph>ω</emph> = .85 for professional growth.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-16">Outcome</hd> <p>Michaels and Spector's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref82">34</reflink>]) three items were used to assess <emph>turnover intentions</emph>: "I often seriously consider leaving my current job," "I intend to quit my current job" and "I have started to look for other jobs." Coefficient omega was.88 in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-17">Background factors</hd> <p>Gender was scored 0 (male) or 1 (female). Teaching experience was measured in years. Qualification was scored 0 (bachelor's degree or less) or 1 (post‐graduate degree). For personality, Donnellan et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref83">16</reflink>]) 20‐item Mini‐IPIP (International Personality Item Pool) scale on the Big Five personality dimensions was used to measure openness (e.g., "I have a vivid imagination"), agreeableness ("I sympathize with others' feelings"), conscientiousness (e.g., "I get chores done right away"), extraversion (e.g., "I talk to a lot of different people at parties") and neuroticism (e.g., "I get upset easily"). Prior studies have yielded evidence of the validity of scores from this scale, including anticipated associations with other measures of personality (Donnellan et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref84">16</reflink>]; Perera et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-18">Data analysis</hd> <p>Analyses were conducted using M<emph>plus</emph> 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref86">35</reflink>]) using robust maximum likelihood (MLR). In confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM), the root‐mean‐square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to assess model fit. RMSEA values of ≤.08 and CFI values of ≥.90 indicate adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref87">24</reflink>]). Missing data (<1%) were handled using full information maximum likelihood (Enders, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref88">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Preliminary analyses involved calculating means and standard deviations. Multigroup CFA was used to test measurement invariance of all substantive factors in the model (see Supplementary Materials for details). A CFA was then run involving all factors. The substantive factors (job resources and demands, well‐being factors, turnover intentions) were entered as latent factors. This CFA also included the teacher characteristics (gender, teaching experience and qualification) and personality factors. Teacher characteristics were estimated with loading set to 1 and residual set to 0. Personality factors were entered as error‐adjusted mean scores to reduce the number of parameters relative to sample size. For the error‐adjusted mean scores, loading was set to 1 and the residual was set using the following equation: <emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> * (1 − <emph>ω</emph>), where <emph>σ</emph><sups>2</sups> is the estimated variance of a personality factor and <emph>ω</emph> is the reliability of the same factor (Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref89">7</reflink>]). Reliability and variance were calculated for each personality factor from a preliminary CFA involving only the personality items.</p> <p>Next, SEM was run to ascertain hypothesized associations from the resources and demands to the well‐being factors, along with latent interactions involving the resources and demands. The SEM involved the same specification as the CFA and included directional paths from the predictors to the well‐being factors. Controls for shared variance were included by intercorrelating the demands and resources, and intercorrelating the well‐being factors. In addition, the covariates served as controls for all factors (and were also intercorrelated). The latent interactions between the resources and demands were run using the "XWITH" option in M<emph>plus</emph> (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>]) and in three groups to ensure convergence. First, the interactions between autonomy‐supportive leadership and each demand were run together. Then, interactions between relatedness with colleagues and each demand were tested in a second model, and finally the same again for relatedness with students in a third model. Significant interactions were then examined in a combined model. A log‐likelihood ratio test provided evidence of whether adding the interactions improved model fit. Change in <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> for the outcomes was also consulted to ascertain whether additional variance in the outcomes was explained by the interaction terms (Maslowsky et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>]). Indirect associations were also tested (see Supplementary Materials for details).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-19">RESULTS</hd> <p>Table 1 displays the reliability estimate, mean, standard deviation, and factor loading mean and range for each substantive variable. Multigroup CFAs supported the complete invariance of the substantive factors (see Supplementary Materials). As expected from prior research (Laverdière et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]; Perera et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]), modification indices in the preliminary personality CFA suggested six correlated residuals. These were incorporated into the model, which had adequate fit: χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref94">154</reflink>) = 354.75, <emph>p</emph> = .001, RMSEA = .055, CFI = .90. Measurement invariance for the personality factors could not be tested because the multigroup CFA did not attain adequate fit (see Limitations).</p> <p>1 TABLE Reliability estimates (omega), descriptive statistics and standardized factor loadings</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Omega (<italic>ω</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">Standardized factor loadings <italic>M</italic> (range)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Job resources and demands</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy‐supportive leadership</td><td>.89</td><td>4.54</td><td>1.32</td><td>.79 (.69–.88)</td></tr><tr><td>Relatedness with teachers</td><td>.92</td><td>5.63</td><td>1.13</td><td>.87 (.82–.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Relatedness with students</td><td>.83</td><td>6.35</td><td>.70</td><td>.73 (.62–.81)</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy‐thwarting leadership</td><td>.89</td><td>3.38</td><td>1.39</td><td>.79 (.71–.84)</td></tr><tr><td>Time pressure</td><td>.90</td><td>5.65</td><td>1.28</td><td>.82 (.67–.93)</td></tr><tr><td>Disruptive student behaviour</td><td>.85</td><td>3.96</td><td>1.42</td><td>.76 (.65–.85)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Well‐being factors</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective vitality</td><td>.90</td><td>4.45</td><td>1.29</td><td>.83 (.80–.85)</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural engagement</td><td>.83</td><td>5.89</td><td>.81</td><td>.74 (.65–.81)</td></tr><tr><td>Professional growth</td><td>.85</td><td>5.28</td><td>.99</td><td>.77 (.71–.82)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcome</td></tr><tr><td>Turnover intentions</td><td>.88</td><td>3.06</td><td>1.74</td><td>.85 (.81–.89)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The CFA involving all covariates and substantive factors yielded adequate fit: χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib982" id="ref95">982</reflink>) = 1373.00, <emph>p</emph> = .001, RMSEA = .031, CFI = .96. Correlations are shown in Table 2 (for a description of results involving covariates, see Supplementary Materials). The job resources were positively intercorrelated, as were the job demands. The resources and demands were generally negatively correlated with two exceptions: relatedness with colleagues was unassociated with time pressure, and relatedness with students was positively associated with time pressure. The well‐being factors were positively interrelated, and positively associated with the resources. The well‐being factors were also generally negatively associated with the job demands with two exceptions: time pressure was positively associated with behavioural engagement, and unassociated with professional growth. Finally, the job resources and well‐being factors were negatively associated with turnover intentions, whereas the reverse was true for the job demands.</p> <p>2 TABLE Latent correlations among covariates, predictors, well‐being factors and strain correlates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">1.</th><th align="left">2.</th><th align="left">3.</th><th align="left">4.</th><th align="left">5.</th><th align="left">6.</th><th align="left">7.</th><th align="left">8.</th><th align="left">9.</th><th align="left">10.</th><th align="left">11.</th><th align="left">12.</th><th align="left">13.</th><th align="left">14.</th><th align="left">15.</th><th align="left">16.</th><th align="left">17.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td>1. Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Teaching exp.</td><td>−.06</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Qualification</td><td>−.07</td><td>.08</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Openness</td><td>−.16</td><td>−.03</td><td>.07</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. Extraversion</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.16</td><td>.03</td><td>.31</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Agreeableness</td><td>.16</td><td>.03</td><td>.15</td><td>.29</td><td>.29</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Conscientiousness</td><td>.06</td><td>.13</td><td>−.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.02</td><td>.17</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8. Emotional instability</td><td>.25</td><td>−.27</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.13</td><td>−.04</td><td>.10</td><td>−.32</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Job resources</td></tr><tr><td>9. Autonomy‐supportive lead.</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.04</td><td>.06</td><td>.14</td><td>.10</td><td>.10</td><td>−.18</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. Rel. with colleagues</td><td>.07</td><td>−.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.14</td><td>.33</td><td>.39</td><td>.17</td><td>−.10</td><td>.35</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11. Rel. with students</td><td>.29</td><td>.03</td><td>−.02</td><td>.12</td><td>.09</td><td>.49</td><td>.28</td><td>−.05</td><td>.15</td><td>.35</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Job demands</td></tr><tr><td>12. Autonomy‐thwarting lead.</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.18</td><td>.33</td><td>−.64</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.13</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13. Time pressure</td><td>.21</td><td>−.05</td><td>.08</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.12</td><td>.09</td><td>−.12</td><td>.34</td><td>−.28</td><td>−.02</td><td>.16</td><td>.35</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>14. Disruptive behaviour</td><td>.01</td><td>−.16</td><td>.01</td><td>−.08</td><td>−.15</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.29</td><td>.37</td><td>−.20</td><td>−.19</td><td>−.31</td><td>.35</td><td>.15</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Well‐being</td></tr><tr><td>15. Subjective vitality</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.09</td><td>.09</td><td>.17</td><td>.13</td><td>.17</td><td>−.38</td><td>.53</td><td>.33</td><td>.28</td><td>−.39</td><td>−.40</td><td>−.24</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>16. Behavioural engagement</td><td>.26</td><td>.17</td><td>.02</td><td>.12</td><td>.06</td><td>.44</td><td>.43</td><td>−.14</td><td>.25</td><td>.36</td><td>.62</td><td>−.19</td><td>.13</td><td>−.30</td><td>.33</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>17. Prof. growth</td><td>.15</td><td>−.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.18</td><td>.16</td><td>.31</td><td>.11</td><td>−.04</td><td>.42</td><td>.38</td><td>.39</td><td>−.21</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.14</td><td>.46</td><td>.54</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcome</td></tr><tr><td>18. Turnover intentions</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.04</td><td>.01</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.10</td><td>−.18</td><td>.36</td><td>−.42</td><td>−.37</td><td>−.28</td><td>.51</td><td>.37</td><td>.26</td><td>−.67</td><td>−.29</td><td>−.36</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. Gender was scored 0 (male) or 1 (female). Qualification was scored 0 (bachelor's degree or less) or 1 (post‐graduate degree). |<emph>r</emph>| ≤ .12 is non‐significant and |<emph>r</emph>| > .12 is significant at <emph>p</emph> < .05.</p> <p>2 Abbreviations: Exp. = experience; Lead. = leadership; Rel. = relatedness.</p> <p>The SEM without interactions showed adequate fit: χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib982" id="ref96">982</reflink>) = 1373.00, <emph>p</emph> = .001, RMSEA = .031, CFI = .96. When interactions were added to the SEM, these investigations revealed four significant paths. Despite demonstrating a significant improvement in fit over the model with no interaction terms (χ<sups>2</sups> [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref97">4</reflink>] = 47.44, <emph>p</emph> < .001), the interactions explained very little additional variance in the outcomes (Δ<emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 1.40%–2.60%). This modest change in <emph>R</emph>‐squared raises some questions about the utility of including the interactions. Importantly, no significant paths from the original SEM were rendered non‐significant in the model with the four significant interaction effects included. Thus, for reasons of parsimony and because the pattern of main associations was the same, results from the SEM without interactions are reported here. Simple slope analyses involving the four interactions are shown in Supplementary Materials.</p> <p>Figure 2 and Table 3 show the results from the final SEM, which included controls for shared variance and covariates. Autonomy‐supportive leadership and relatedness with students were associated with greater subjective vitality, and time pressure was associated with lower vitality. Autonomy‐supportive leadership and relatedness with students were positively associated with behavioural engagement; however, time pressure was also positively associated with engagement. All three job resources were associated with greater professional growth—none of the job demands were significantly associated with professional growth. Turning to the outcome, relatedness with colleagues was associated with lower turnover intentions, whereas autonomy‐thwarting leadership and time pressure were associated with greater turnover intentions. Of the well‐being factors, subjective vitality was associated with lower turnover intentions. For results involving covariates from the final model, see Supplementary Materials. For completeness, a model excluding all covariates is also reported in Supplementary Materials.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/6KX/01sep23/bjep12587-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjep12587-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Results from structural equation modelling" /> </p> <p></p> <p>3 TABLE Standardized beta estimates from the structural equation modelling</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Job resources and demands</th><th align="left">Well‐being factors</th><th align="left">Outcome</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Aut.‐support</th><th align="left">Rel. with colleagues</th><th align="left">Rel. with students</th><th align="left">Aut.‐thwarting</th><th align="left">Time pressure</th><th align="left">Disrupt. behaviour</th><th align="left">Subj. vitality</th><th align="left">Beh. Engage.</th><th align="left">Prof. growth</th><th align="left">Turnover intentions</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Covariates</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>−.05</td><td>.04</td><td>.24***</td><td>−.10</td><td>.13*</td><td>−.06</td><td>.01</td><td>.13**</td><td>.12*</td><td>−.12**</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching exp.</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.02</td><td>.01</td><td>.02</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.06</td><td>.12**</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Qualification</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.01</td><td>.08</td><td>.02</td><td>−.05</td><td>.01</td><td>.04</td><td>−.05</td></tr><tr><td>Openness</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.02</td><td>−.03</td><td>.01</td><td>−.04</td><td>.05</td><td>.12*</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Extraversion</td><td>.09</td><td>.23***</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.15*</td><td>.03</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.01</td><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td>Agreeableness</td><td>.11</td><td>.33***</td><td>.45***</td><td>−.05</td><td>.07</td><td>−.02</td><td>.02</td><td>.14*</td><td>.06</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Conscientiousness</td><td>.03</td><td>.07</td><td>.15**</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.18*</td><td>−.05</td><td>.24***</td><td>−.01</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional instability</td><td>−.19**</td><td>−.13*</td><td>−.11</td><td>.34***</td><td>.28***</td><td>.30***</td><td>−.27***</td><td>−.06</td><td>−.01</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Job resources</td></tr><tr><td>Aut.‐supportive lead.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.38***</td><td>.20*</td><td>.40***</td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>Rel. with colleagues</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.10</td><td>.08</td><td>.14*</td><td>−.18**</td></tr><tr><td>Rel. with students</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.24***</td><td>.35***</td><td>.22*</td><td>−.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Job demands</td></tr><tr><td>Aut.‐thwarting lead.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.06</td><td>.06</td><td>.11</td><td>.30***</td></tr><tr><td>Time pressure</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−.27***</td><td>.14*</td><td>.01</td><td>.13**</td></tr><tr><td>Disruptive behaviour</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.03</td><td>−.07</td><td>.01</td><td>−.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Well‐being</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective vitality</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−.49***</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural engagement</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Professional growth</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−.05</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup> (%)</td><td>6.7</td><td>22.7</td><td>33.5</td><td>12.7</td><td>15.6</td><td>19.7</td><td>48.0</td><td>55.6</td><td>34.2</td><td>58.8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: Gender was scored 0 (male) or 1 (female). Qualification was scored 0 (bachelor's degree or less) or 1 (post‐graduate degree).</item> <item>4 Abbreviations: Aut. = autonomy; Beh. engage. = behavioural engagement; Exp. = experience; Lead. = leadership; Prof. growth. = professional growth; Rel. = relatedness; Subj. = subjective.</item> <item>5 *<emph>p</emph> < .05, **<emph>p</emph> < .01, ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169828157-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Autonomy‐supportive leadership and relatedness with students were associated with all well‐being factors, aligning with prior research about the important role of job resources for positive employee outcomes (Lesener et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref98">31</reflink>]). Notably, these associations occurred beyond controls for shared variance and covariates, suggesting these two factors may be salient for practice (discussed below). Principals who promote teachers' self‐initiative and self‐empowerment help teachers to feel supported, trusted, and agentic at work (Slemp et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref99">49</reflink>]), which are important for well‐being. When teachers feel close and connected to their students, they are likely to feel more energized at work (vitality), invested in their teaching (engagement), and committed to further improving their skills (professional growth; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref100">29</reflink>]; Vermote et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref101">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Relatedness with colleagues was associated with greater professional growth: feeling connected with colleagues fosters positive connections with the profession and, thus, teachers' investment in developing their skills (Jansen in de Wal et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref102">26</reflink>]). Relatedness with colleagues was unassociated with the other well‐being factors. This differs somewhat from prior research (Collie, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref103">12</reflink>]; Stang‐Rabrig et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref104">51</reflink>]). For example, Collie's ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref105">12</reflink>]) study showed a link between relatedness with colleagues and subjective vitality; however, it did not examine professional growth alongside vitality, did not control for personality, and was conducted during the first wave of COVID‐19 (when many teachers were working remotely). More research is needed among other samples to see if these associations replicate.</p> <p>Time pressure predicted lower subjective vitality, and the association was stronger than anticipated—adding weight to the notion that time pressure is a salient job demand (Prieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref106">40</reflink>]) and should be a focus in practice (see below). Because time pressure impacts all aspects of teachers' work (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref107">48</reflink>]) and requires substantial effort to ensure all tasks are completed (Baeriswyl et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref108">4</reflink>]), its link with reduced vitality is understandable. Contradicting expectations, time pressure was associated with greater behavioural engagement. Although unexpected, this finding aligns with some prior research (Prieto et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref109">40</reflink>]; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref110">48</reflink>]) and possibly occurred because time pressure can be motivating when work is viewed as important (Schmitt et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref111">47</reflink>]). However, there is likely a point at which time pressure stops being motivating and instead is detrimental for engagement. This finding highlights the need to ensure teachers are well‐supported so that behavioural engagement can be sustained. For a discussion of results involving interactions, see Supplementary Materials.</p> <p>Relatedness with colleagues negatively predicted lower turnover intentions. This was the only job resource directly associated with the outcome, and likely occurred because connectedness with colleagues builds stronger attachments to work (Fernet et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref112">18</reflink>]). Autonomy‐thwarting leadership and time pressure were associated with greater turnover intentions. Both of these job demands involve feeling pressured, which is not conducive to building a strong attachment to one's work (Jo, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref113">27</reflink>]; Räsänen et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref114">42</reflink>]). Together, the findings extend prior research by pinpointing the most salient factors for turnover intentions—and highlight these factors may warrant a focus in efforts to retain teachers (discussed below). Disruptive behaviour was unassociated with turnover intentions. It may be that when examined alongside the other resources/demands (and controlling for variance attributable to the personality factors), disruptive behaviour is no longer prominent for turnover intentions (Dicke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref115">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with other research (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref116">22</reflink>]), subjective vitality was associated with lower turnover intentions. This finding underscores the importance of promoting vitality among teachers—and the indirect associations reported in Supplementary Materials further support this. It was surprising that behavioural engagement was unassociated with turnover intentions. This may be because the present study controlled for personality factors (for a discussion of these, see Supplementary Materials). Conscientiousness was significantly associated with behavioural engagement—thus, teachers high in conscientiousness are more likely to be behaviorally engaged at work. After controlling for conscientiousness, however, perhaps teachers are engaged for other reasons: because they feel pressured to do so or because they have fun at work. These different reasons likely have different implications for behavioural engagement and so might explain its inconsistent association with turnover intentions in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-22">Implications for practice</hd> <p>Autonomy‐supportive leadership and relatedness with students were the most consistent predictors among the job resources. As such, schools may want to focus on promoting these two factors. For autonomy‐support, school leaders can provide choice and control over how teachers conduct their work, invite teachers' input in decisions and school policies, and provide rationales for work tasks (Ware & Kitsantas, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref117">53</reflink>]). To build positive relationships between teachers and students, school leaders may want to provide teachers with ongoing relational support, offer teachers feedback about how they might develop more positive interactions with students, and design goals for improving their interactions with students (Pianta et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref118">39</reflink>]). For relationships among teachers, providing common planning time, establishing professional learning communities, developing a shared mission and cultivating a supportive staffroom are relevant strategies (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref119">8</reflink>]; Ford & Youngs, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref120">20</reflink>]). Efforts to reduce time pressure also appear crucial, such as reducing the red tape burden in teachers' work (Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref121">3</reflink>]), and the workload associated with reforms (Putwain & von der Embse, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref122">41</reflink>]). To reduce autonomy‐thwarting practices, school leaders can avoid domineering behaviours, such as using guilt to ensure compliance, and demanding behaviours, such as being inflexible and dictating how things need to be done (Aelterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-23">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>Several limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting findings. First, all data in the present study are self‐reported. Given the aim was to examine teachers' intrapsychic perceptions, this is an appropriate approach. Nonetheless, it will be important to examine the links between the well‐being factors and other outcomes, such as number of days absent from work. Moreover, because our leadership variables were focused on teachers' individual perceptions, they may be impacted by common‐method bias. Multilevel research that captures agreement across the collective is important for ascertaining whether school‐average perceptions of leadership are relevant for school‐average well‐being. Second, data were collected at one time point. Future research that collects data over time is needed to reduce concerns about single‐source bias. Although the hypothesized model was derived from theory, longitudinal research is needed to ascertain the extent to which there are reciprocal associations among the variables (e.g., see Lesener et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>]). Third, it was not possible to provide evidence of measurement invariance for the personality factors. Despite this, the factors were retained because they were not substantive factors (but rather covariates), and other research has shown evidence of measurement invariance for the scale scores among Australian teachers (Perera et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref125">38</reflink>]). Fourth, participants' school of employment was not identified due to the recruitment method, which means it was not possible to account for hierarchical clustering of participants within schools. Given the participants were spread across the country, this is unlikely to be an issue. Nonetheless, future research that considers clustering is important.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-24">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Findings pinpoint the unique role of specific job resources and demands (beyond the variance explained by other factors, teacher characteristics and personality factors). In particular, social support (via autonomy‐supportive leadership, relatedness with colleagues and students) appears centrally linked with teacher well‐being, whereas time pressure and autonomy‐thwarting leadership are associated with greater turnover intentions.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-25">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>RJC thanks the Australian Research Council for funding this research (DE200100436).</p> <p>Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-26">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>All authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0169828157-27">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The Institutional Research Board ethics approval received for these data does not allow for data sharing.</p> <p>GRAPH: Appendix S1</p> <ref id="AN0169828157-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref69" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> For completeness, the main SEM described below was rerun with latent personality factors and the results showed a similar pattern to that described. Thus, error‐adjusted mean scores were retained to reduce number of parameters relative to sample size.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0169828157-29"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> ABS. (2020). Schools: Data on students, staff, schools, rates and ratios for government and non‐government schools, for all Australian states and territories. https://<ulink href="http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/2020">www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/2020</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref123" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Reeve, J. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine‐grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 497 – 521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref48" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. (2022). Next steps: Report of the quality initial teacher education review. https://<ulink href="http://www.dese.gov.au/quality‐initial‐teacher‐education‐review/resources/next‐steps‐report‐quality‐initial‐teacher‐education‐review">www.dese.gov.au/quality‐initial‐teacher‐education‐review/resources/next‐steps‐report‐quality‐initial‐teacher‐education‐review</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref53" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baeriswyl, S., Bratoljic, C., & Krause, A. (2021). How homeroom teachers cope with high demands: Effect of prolonging working hours on emotional exhaustion. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 125 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22 (3), 273 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz‐Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands‐resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 25 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐120920‐053933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref89" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref119" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Carroll, A., Flynn, L., O'Connor, E. S., Forrest, K., Bower, J., Fynes‐Clinton, S., York, A., & Ziaei, M. (2021). In their words: Listening to teachers' perceptions about stress in the workplace and how to address it. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (4), 420 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1789914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref76" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E., Van, D. K., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R., Sheldon, K., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39 (2), 216 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031‐014‐9450‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R., Guay, F., Martin, A. J., Caldecott‐Davis, K., & Granziera, H. (2020). Examining the unique roles of adaptability and buoyancy in teachers' work‐related outcomes. Teachers and Teaching, 26 (3–4), 350 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1832063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J. (2021). COVID‐19 and teachers' somatic complaints, stress, and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of principal leadership and workplace buoyancy. AERA Open, 7, 233285842098618. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J. (2022a). Job demands and resources, teacher well‐being, and turnover intentions: An examination during COVID‐19. Educational Psychology, 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2036323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collie, R. J. (2022b). The tripartite occupational well‐being scale. University of New South Wales. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M5YZH</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewitt, B., Fischhoff, B., Davis, A. L., Broomell, S. B., Roberts, M. S., & Hanmer, J. (2019). Exclusion criteria as measurements II: Effects on utility functions. Medical Decision Making, 39 (6), 704 – 716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19862542</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicke, T., Stebner, F., Linninger, C., Kunter, M., & Leutner, D. (2018). A longitudinal study of teachers' occupational well‐being: Applying the job demands‐resources model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 (2), 262 – 277. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini‐IPIP scales: Tiny‐yet‐effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18 (2), 192 – 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040‐3590.18.2.192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enders, C. (2022). Applied missing data analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernet, C., Trépanier, S.‐G., Austin, S., & Levesque‐Côté, J. (2016). Committed, inspiring, and healthy teachers: How do school environment and motivational factors facilitate optimal functioning at career start? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 481 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, T. G., Olsen, J., Khojasteh, J., Ware, J., & Urick, A. (2019). The effects of leader support for teacher psychological needs on teacher burnout, commitment, and intent to leave. Journal of Educational Administration, 57 (6), 615 – 634. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA‐09‐2018‐0185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford, T. G., & Youngs, P. A. (2018). Creating organizational structures to facilitate collegial interaction among teachers: Evidence from a high‐performing urban Midwestern US district. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46 (3), 424 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant, A. A., Jeon, L., & Buettner, C. K. (2019). Relating early childhood teachers' working conditions and well‐being to their turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 39 (3), 294 – 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Turunen, J. (2022). The relative importance of various job resources for work engagement: A concurrent and follow‐up dominance analysis. Business Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/234094442110124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huppert, F., & So, T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well‐being. Social Indicators Research, 110, 837 – 861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205‐011‐9966‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen in de Wal, J., van den Beemt, A., Martens, R. L., & den Brok, P. J. (2018). The relationship between job demands, job resources and teachers' professional learning: Is it explained by self‐determination theory? Studies in Continuing Education, 42 (1), 17 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1520697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jo, S. H. (2014). Teacher commitment: Exploring associations with relationships and emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 120 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M. (2010). Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Research, 103 (5), 342 – 350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers' relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers' basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (1), 150 – 165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laverdière, O., Morin, A. J. S., & St‐Hilaire, F. (2013). Factor structure and measurement invariance of a short measure of the big five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (7), 739 – 743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesener, T., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands‐resources model: A meta‐analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 33 (1), 76 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39 (1), 87 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414552301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mérida‐López, S., & Extremera, N. (2020). The interplay of emotional intelligence abilities and work engagement on job and life satisfaction: Which emotional abilities matter most for secondary‐school teachers? Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 563634. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.563634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth, hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (1), 53 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.67.1.53</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2021). Mplus user's guide. Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nie, Y., Chua, B. L., Yeung, A. S., Ryan, R. M., & Chan, W. Y. (2015). The importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well‐being: Testing self‐determination theory in a Chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology, 50 (4), 245 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 574 – 583. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perera, H. N., Granziera, H., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Profiles of teacher personality and relations with teacher self‐efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher‐student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365 – 386). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prieto, L. L., Soria, M. S., Martínez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. (2008). Extension of the job demands‐resources model in the prediction of burnout and engagement among teachers over time. Psicothema, 20 (3), 354 – 360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., & von der Embse, N. P. (2019). Teacher self‐efficacy moderates the relations between imposed pressure from imposed curriculum changes and teacher stress. Educational Psychology, 39 (1), 51 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Räsänen, K., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Väisänen, P. (2020). Why leave the teaching profession? A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. Social Psychology of Education, 23 (4), 837 – 859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐020‐09567‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 (2), 702 – 717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751‐9004.2008.00098.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self‐determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 529 – 565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐6494.1997.tb00326.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W., & Taris, T. (2014). A critical review of the job demands‐resources model. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Implications for improving work and health (pp. 43 – 68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐007‐5640‐3_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, A., Ohly, S., & Kleespies, N. (2015). Time pressure promotes work engagement: Test of illegitimate tasks as boundary condition. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14 (1), 28 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866‐5888/a000119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well‐being. Social Psychology of Education, 21 (5), 1251 – 1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐018‐9464‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta‐analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42 (5), 706 – 724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031‐018‐9698‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16 (5), 537 – 549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stang‐Rabrig, J., Brüggemann, T., Lorenz, R., & McElvany, N. (2022). Teachers' occupational well‐being during the COVID‐19 pandemic: The role of resources and demands. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermote, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., van der Kaap‐Deeder, J., & Beyers, W. (2022). Teachers' psychological needs link social pressure with personal adjustment and motivating teaching style. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2039584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ware, H. W., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment using principal and teacher efficacy variables: An HLM approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 104 (3), 183 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003638543</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rebecca J. Collie</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib982" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref122"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1387848
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Well-Being and Turnover Intentions: Investigating the Roles of Job Resources and Job Demands
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Collie%2C+Rebecca+J%2E%22">Collie, Rebecca J.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9944-2703">0000-0001-9944-2703</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Psychology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Psychology</i></searchLink>. Sep 2023 93(3):712-726.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teachers%22">Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Mobility%22">Faculty Mobility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intention%22">Intention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Workload%22">Faculty Workload</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Autonomy%22">Professional Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interprofessional+Relationship%22">Interprofessional Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Conditions%22">Teaching Conditions</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjep.12587
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-0998<br />2044-8279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Identifying factors implicated in teachers' well-being and turnover intentions is important for driving research, policy, and practice to better support teachers in their work. Aims: This study examined the role of three job resources (autonomy-supportive leadership, relatedness with colleagues and students) and three job demands (autonomy-thwarting leadership, time pressure, disruptive student behaviour) in relation to teacher well-being (subjective vitality, behavioural engagement, professional growth) and turnover intentions. Sample: Participants were 426 Australian school teachers. Methods: Structural equation modelling was used to examine main associations and interactions among factors. Teachers' characteristics (gender, teaching experience and educational qualification) and personality factors served as controls in all analyses. Results: The job resources were generally positively associated with the well-being factors, whereas time pressure was negatively associated with vitality, but positively associated with behavioural engagement. In addition, relatedness with colleagues and subjective vitality were negatively associated with turnover intentions, whereas the reverse was true for autonomy-thwarting leadership and time pressure. There were no interaction terms retained in the final model. Conclusion: Taken together, findings yield understanding about the salient resources and demands in relation to teachers' well-being and turnover intentions (beyond the role of background characteristics and personality factors).
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1387848
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1387848
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjep.12587
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 712
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Mobility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Workload
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interprofessional Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Conditions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Well-Being and Turnover Intentions: Investigating the Roles of Job Resources and Job Demands
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Collie, Rebecca J.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-0998
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2044-8279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 93
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1