Figure 1
Predictive model of psychological health at work (PHW)
Table 1
Composition of French and Canadian samples
| France | Quebec, Canada | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender Female Male | 61% 39% | 69% 31% |
| Age Less than 30 31-40 41-50 51and above | 18% 33% 27% 22% | 18% 32% 33% 17% |
| Teaching level Primary Secondary and above | 32% 68% | 40% 60% |
| Job status Permanent / full time Contract / full-time Contract / part-time | 66% 27% 7% | 77% 15% 8% |
| Teaching experience (years) | 16.75 (SD = 11.31) | 13.77 (SD = 8.87) |
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations between Study Latent Variables
| MF | SDF | MQC | SDQC | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Supportive climate | 4.25 | .93 | 4.33 | .86 | -- | .70 | .35 | -.49 | .40 | .35 | .60 | .47 | -.52 |
| 2. Procedural justice | 3.90 | 1.07 | 3.88 | .97 | .57 | -- | .32 | -.41 | .38 | .31 | .51 | .41 | -.47 |
| 3. Distributive justice | 3.24 | 1.11 | 3.10 | 1.04 | .47 | .40 | -- | -.26 | .09 | .18 | .19 | .15 | -.15 |
| 4. Job demands | 1.51 | .44 | 1.58 | .45 | -.34 | -.10 | -.18 | -- | -.24 | .32 | -.29 | -.42 | .45 |
| 5. Optimism | 4.19 | .90 | 4.71 | .73 | .31 | .10 | .12 | -.31 | -- | .68 | .58 | .73 | -.62 |
| 6. Resilience | 3.50 | .64 | 3.63 | .64 | .24 | .10 | .17 | -.16 | .65 | -- | .44 | .69 | -.54 |
| 7. Needs satisfaction | 4.77 | .62 | 4.92 | .59 | .63 | .49 | .32 | -.21 | .45 | .38 | -- | .68 | -.60 |
| 8. Well-Being | 3.82 | .51 | 3.95 | .53 | .43 | .20 | .19 | -.43 | .74 | .65 | .60 | -- | -.76 |
| 9. Distress | 1.69 | .64 | 1.76 | .64 | -.40 | -.19 | -.18 | .42 | -.54 | -.38 | -.46 | -.71 | -- |
[i] F = France, QC = Quebec, Canada; Latent correlations below diagonal are based on France data and correlations above the diagonal are based on Quebec, Canada data (r >|.12| are significant at .05).
Table 3
Latent Means Differences (κ) and Effect Size (d) across Quebec and France
| Factor | Quebec κ | France κ | d |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1-Supportive climate | 0 | -0.069 | -.0848 |
| F2-Procedural justice | 0 | 0.034 | .0333 |
| F3-Distributive justice | 0 | 0.118 | .1067 |
| F4-Job demands | 0 | -0.082* | -.1768 |
| F5-Optimism | 0 | -0.530** | -.6986 |
| F6-Resilience | 0 | -0.148** | -.2327 |
| F7-Needs satisfaction | 0 | -0.148** | -.2534 |
| F8-Well-being | 0 | -0.147** | -.2742 |
| F9-Distress | 0 | -0.053 | -.0949 |
[i] ** p < .01. * p < .01. Latent mean of Quebec fixed at 0; Latent mean of France freely estimated. A significant latent mean in the France sample denotes a significant between-group difference.
Table 4
Tests of Invariance across the French and Canadian samples
| Model | χ2 | df | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | RMSEA 90 CI | Contrast | Δdf | χ2 | ΔCFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement | |||||||||||
| 1. Configural | 1170.46** | 618 | .967 | .963 | .056 | .045 | .041 - .049 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2. Loadings | 1205.86** | 638 | .966 | .963 | .062 | .045 | .041 - .049 | 2 vs. 1 | 20 | 35.47* | < -.002 |
| 3. Uniqueness | 1254.01** | 665 | .965 | .963 | .064 | .045 | .041 - .049 | 3 vs. 2 | 27 | 48.87** | < -.002 |
| 4. Covariance | 1272.76** | 675 | .965 | .963 | .071 | .045 | .041 - .049 | 4 vs. 3 | 10 | 18.79* | < -.002 |
| Structural | |||||||||||
| 5. Configural | 1261.04** | 669 | .965 | .963 | .065 | .045 | .041 - .049 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6. Paths | 1273.12** | 677 | .965 | .963 | .071 | .045 | .041 - .049 | 6 vs.5 | 8 | 7.79 | < -.002 |
Figure 2
Standardized estimates associated with the predictive model of PHW in the Canadian (bold characters) and France (non-bold) samples. All parameters displayed in this figure are statistically significant (p<.01) and can be assumed to be invariant across samples.
Table 5
95% Confidence Intervals of the Bootstrapped Indirect Effects with 500 bootstrapped samples
| Effect | Total | 95% CI | Direct | 95% CI | Indirect total 95% CI | Indirect specific 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal resources → needs satisfaction | .626** | [0.521,0 .725] | .384** | [0.285, 0.484] | .242** | [0.176, 0.328] | ||
| Job demands | -.041** | [-0.081, -0.012] | ||||||
| Social resources | .212** | [0.146, 0.293] | ||||||
| Job demands → social resources | .072** | [0.043, 0.114] | ||||||
| Demands → needs satisfaction | -.107* | [-0.218, -0.004] | .145** | [0.041, 0.256] | -.252** | [-0.350, -0.168] | ||
| Social resources | -.252** | [-0.350, -0.168] | ||||||
| Personal resources → PHW | .825** | [0.735, 0.910] | .645* | [0.540, 0.751] | .180** | [0.139, 0.222] | ||
| Job demands | .058** | [0.037, 0.085] | ||||||
| Social resources | -.006 | [-0.043, 0.023] | ||||||
| Needs satisfaction | .080** | [0.050, 0.113] | ||||||
| Social resources → needs satisfaction | .040** | [0.023, 0.075] | ||||||
| Job demands → social resources | -.002 | [-0.012, 0.009] | ||||||
| Job demands → need satisfaction | -.009** | [-0.018, -0.003] | ||||||
| Job demands → social resources → needs satisf | .015** | [0.008, 0.024] | ||||||
| Job demands → PHW | -.217** | [-0.288, -0.137] | -.201** | [-0.275, -0.118] | -.016 | [-0.055, 0.021] | ||
| Social resources | .007 | [-0.032, 0.045] | ||||||
| Needs satisfaction | .030** | [0.008, 0.059] | ||||||
| Social resources → needs satisfaction | -.052** | [-0.087, -0.026] | ||||||
| Social resources → PHW | .082** | [0.025, 0.139] | -.012 | [-0.086, 0.055] | .094** | [0.047, 0.146] | ||
| Needs satisfaction | .094** | [0.047, 0.146] | ||||||
| Personal resources → social resources | .625** | [0.479, 0.786] | .467** | [0.312, 0.604] | .158** | [0.103, 0.242] | ||
| Job demands | .158** | [0.103, 0.242] | ||||||
[i] ** p < .01 * p < .05. PHW = psychological health at work.