Descriptive Study on Well-being, Burnout, and Engagement Among Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools in Southern Chile

Bryan Salgado

doi:10.5334/glo.107

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Statistical tests applied and main outcomes.

TEST/ASSUMPTION	PURPOSE	APPLICATION IN THIS STUDY
Shapiro-Wilk/Kolmogorov-Smirnov	Normality of data distribution	Applied by variable (n < 30: Shapiro-Wilk; n > 30: K-S)
Levene’s Test	Homogeneity of variances (homoscedasticity)	Applied across categories (gender, age, contract type, etc.)
Pearson/Spearman Correlations	Association between continuous variables	Pearson when normality held; Spearman otherwise
Multiple Linear Regression (JASP)	Testing predictors of well-being, burnout, engagement	All main variables included (age, years of teaching, SVI, etc.)
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)	Multicollinearity check among predictors	Applied to regression models
Residuals Analysis	Homoscedasticity and linearity in regression models	Standardised residuals inspected

Table 2

Means of the dimensions of Well-being, Burnout and Engagement.

	MEAN	MIN	MAX	VARIANCE	S.D.
Burnout	1.77	.09	5.14	.624	.78
Emotional exhaustion	2.47	.00	6.00	1.36	1.16
Depersonalisation	.78	.00	4.20	.59	.77
Personal fulfilment	4.38	1.25	5.88	.78	.88
Engagement	4.31	.00	6.00	1.17	1.08
Vigour	3.79	.00	6.00	1.90	1.38
Dedication	4.86	.00	6.00	1.26	1.12
Absorption	4.29	.00	6.00	1.61	1,27
Well-being	3.52	1.14	3.79	.45	.67
Infrastructural aspect	3.26	1.00	5.00	.93	.96
Work activity aspect	3.45	1.00	5.00	.76	.87
Socioeconomic aspect	3.60	1.17	5.00	.50	.71
Relational aspect	3.56	1.25	5.00	.62	.78

Table 3

Main Burnout comparisons by category.

CATEGORY	TEST	p value	SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Gender	Mann-Whitney	.403	No
Parenthood	Mann-Whitney	.756	No
Age	ANOVA	.032	Yes (People over 55 years of age with less burnout)
Degree taught	Kruskal-Wallis	.005	Yes (Primary vs Both)
School size	Kruskal-Wallis	.033	Yes (small vs very large)
Grade taught at the school	Kruskal-Wallis	.008	Yes (only primary vs only secondary)

Table 4

Main comparisons of Emotional Exhaustion by category.

CATEGORY	TEST	p value	SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Gender	Mann-Whitney	.911	No
Parenthood	Mann-Whitney	.991	No
Age	Kruskal-Wallis	.003	Yes (People over 55 years with less EE)
Other variables	ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis	>.05	No

Table 5

Main comparisons of Depersonalization by category.

CATEGORY	TEST	p value	SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Gender	Mann-Whitney	<.001	Yes (women < men)
Degree taught	Kruskal-Wallis	.008	Yes (primary < secondary/both)
Grade taught at the school	Kruskal-Wallis	.012	Yes (primary < secondary)
Other variables	Kruskal-Wallis	>.05	No

Table 6

Main comparisons of Personal achievement by category.

CATEGORY	TEST	p value	SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Gender	Mann-Whitney	.479	No
Parenthood	Mann-Whitney	.855	No
Degree taught	Kruskal-Wallis	.042	Yes (primary > both)
Other variables	ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis	>.05	No

Table 7

Main Comparisons of Engagement by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST TYPE
Age	16.316	.003	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
Degree taught	6.449	.039	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
Years of experience	10.306	.006	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 8

Main Comparisons of Vigour by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST TYPE
Age	19.653	<.001	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
Years of experience	11.033	.004	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
Vulnerability Index (SVI)	5.993	.050	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 9

Main Comparisons of Vigour by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST TYPE
Years of experience	7.167	.028	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 10

Main Comparisons of Absorption by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST TYPE
Age	10.454	.033	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
Years of experience	6.632	.036	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	7.900	.048	Reject H0	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 11

Main Comparisons of Teacher Well-Being by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	p	DECISION	TEST USED
Gender	U = 4553.0	.403	Conserve H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Parenthood	U = 5373.5	.960	Conserve H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Age	F = 1.200	.312	Conserve H₀	ANOVA
Degree taught	H = 23.111	<.001	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	H = 19.546	<.001	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Grade taught at the school	H = 20.396	<.001	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Vulnerability Index (SVI)	H = 10.174	.006	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 12

Main Findings in the Infrastructural Aspect by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	p	DECISION	TEST USED
Gender	U = 5359.0	.285	Conserve H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Parenthood	U = 5739.5	.436	Conserve H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Degree taught	H = 6.890	.032	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Years of experience	H = 6.642	.036	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	H = 9.466	.024	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Grade taught at the school	H = 12.223	.002	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 13

Main Findings in the Work Activity Aspect by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	p	DECISION	TEST USED
Gender	U = 5728.0	.049	Reject H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Parenthood	U = 5086.0	.478	Conserve H₀	Mann-Whitney U
Age	H = 12.301	.015	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Degree taught	H = 14.488	<.001	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	H = 11.215	.011	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis
Grade taught at the school	H = 9.952	.007	Reject H₀	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 14

Main Findings in the Socioeconomic Aspect by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST USED
Degree taught	16.690	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	12.623	.006	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
Grade taught at the school	14.814	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
Vulnerability Index (SVI)	11.413	.003	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 15

Main Findings in the Relational Aspect by Category.

CATEGORY	STATISTIC	SIG.	DECISION	TEST USED
Gender	6131.0	.004	Reject null hypothesis	Mann-Whitney U
Degree taught	27.589	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
School size	24.270	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
Grade taught at the school	22.828	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis
Vulnerability Index (SVI)	18.807	<.001	Reject null hypothesis	Kruskal-Wallis

Table 16

Spearman Correlation Among the Different Variables.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Burnout	1.000
2	Emotional exhaustion	.884**	1.000
3	Depersonalisation	.664**	.476**	1.000
4	Personal fulfilment	–.743**	–.423**	–.404**	1.000
5	Engagement	–.682**	–.524**	–.367**	.681**	1.000
6	Vigour	–.739**	–.615**	–.392**	.687**	.886**	1.000
7	Dedication	–.657**	–.520**	–.413**	.608**	.880**	.752**	1.000
8	Absorption	–.368**	–.213**	–.180**	.464**	.800**	.505**	.589**	1.000
9	Well-being	–.581**	–.488**	–.386**	.487**	.564**	.578**	.484**	.372**
10	Infra-structural aspect	–.288**	–.277**	–.185**	.187**	.272**	.284**	.218**	.192**
11	Work activity aspect	–.576**	–.500**	–.337**	.500**	.537**	.574**	.475**	.325**
12	Socioeconomic aspect	–.548**	–.447**	–.363**	.475**	.535**	.530**	.473**	.369**
13	Relational aspect	–.494**	–.393**	–.357**	.424**	.513**	.507**	.435**	.352**

Table 17

Multiple Linear Regressions with Burnout and Engagement Constructs as Independent Variables.

DIMENSION	PREDICTOR VARIABLES	STANDARDISED BETA	p	ADJUSTED R²
Emotional exhaustion	Work activity aspect	–0.301	<.001
	Socioeconomic aspect	–0.301	<.001	0.317
	Age	–0.137	0.014
	Socioeconomic aspect	–0.220	0.004
Depersonalisation	Gender	–0.174	0.005	0.164
	Work activity aspect	–0.175	0.021
	Work activity aspect	0.305	<.001
Personal fulfilment	Socioeconomic aspect	0.259	<.001	0.277
	Years of experience	0.138	0.016
	Work activity aspect	0.355	<.001
Vigour	Socioeconomic aspect	0.299	<.001	0.428
	Age	0.240	<.001
	Socioeconomic aspect	0.355	<.001
Dedication	Work activity aspect	0.253	<.001	0.297
	Vulnerability Index (SVI)	–0.119	0.037
	Age	0.113	0.045
Absorption	Socioeconomic aspect	0.347	<.001	0.148
Absorption	Years of experience	0.149	0.017