中小学教师工作投入及影响因素的研究
|
摘要
工作投入是在世纪之交受积极心理学的影响而形成的一个新的研究领域。在国外,关于工作投入的研究依旧存在很大的争议,主要表现在工作投入的定义、测量及产生机制几个方面。在国内,大部分研究者停留在对工作投入理论进行介绍的阶段,个别研究者针对工作投入的测量也做了一些有益的尝试,但总体而言,大部分量表涉及的是企业员工,专门针对中小学教师编制的量表很少。针对以上不足,本研究拟定结合我国中小学教师工作的特点,编制一套信效度良好的测评工具,为继续深入研究我国教师工作投入奠定一定的基础。
本研究根据文献综述、访谈和开放式问卷调查的结果,编制了中小学教师工作投入的初始问卷;在预研究中,根据探索性因素分析的结果,抽取了四个因素,即工作价值、工作愉悦、工作进取和工作负责,结构清晰,符合理论构想;在正式研究中,用另外一批被试对问卷进行了验证性因素分析和正式问卷的信效度分析,研究结果显示本问卷的信效度良好,可以作为中小学教师工作投入的测评工具;在应用研究中,根据正式施测的数据,分析了不同人口学变量的中小学教师其工作投入的现状及差异情况;此外,还初步探讨了教学效能感、教师职业认同感与工作投入之间的关系;最后对本研究的结果进行了总结,指出了研究的价值和局限,提出今后研究的建议。
本研究的主要结论:⑴中小学教师工作投入的结构由四个维度组成,分别是工作价值、工作愉悦、工作进取和工作负责;⑵中小学教师工作投入问卷结构合理,信效度良好,不仅符合我国的社会文化背景,而且体现了中小学教师的职业特点,可以作为我国中小学教师工作投入的测评工具;⑶中小学教师工作投入在任课年级、年龄、教龄上存在显著性差异,而在性别、学校性质、学校级别上没有显著性差异。⑷教师职业认同感和教学效能感显著影响中小学教师的工作投入,教师职业认同感在教学效能感与工作投入之间发挥中介作用。
Work engagement is an emerging psychological study field, which came into being by the influence of active psychology at the end of last century. Work engagement is from the west, and its study is still in primary stage now. There are many disputations about how to measure the work engagement, up till now, nobody has developed the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire. In our country, only several researchers have introduced this theory, nobody has developed work engagement questionnaire according to the situation of our country, saying nothing of the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire. Therefore we hope that we can develope the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire, in order to offer a tool that has good reliability and validity for researchers to measure.
We had compiled the items of primary and secondary teachers’work engagement according to literature review, interview, and open questionnaire investigation, and then established the item store. After that, we had invited many Primary and Secondary teachers, Psychologists, graduate students of the psychology department , and students of The Art to evaluate each dimensionality and item, and then we had designed the original questionnaire according to their advice. In the prepared study, we had extracted four factors, namely work pleasure, work value, work ahead and work obligation according to the results of explore factor analysis. This structure is very clear and accord with our frame of reference. In the formal study, we had used the other sample to make the confirm factory analysis and analyze the reliability and validity. The results of analysis show that the reliability and validity of the primary and secondary teachers. Work engagement questionnaire are very good which can act as the measurement tool of the primary and wecondary teachers’work engagement. In the applied study, we had studied the actuality of primary and wecondary teachers’work engagement according to the formal study data, and analyzed the differences from different degree of work engagement in the main demographic variables. In addition, we had a preliminary study of the relationship between the teaching efficacy,vocational identity and job involvement. In the end, we had summaried the results of the study,pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of the study, and giving some advice for the future study.
The main conclusions of the study:⑴The structure of the Primary and Secondary teachers’work engagement is made up of four dimensionalities, namely work pleasure, work value, work ahead and work obligation.⑵The structure of teachers, work engagement is reasonable, and its reliability and validity are very good. It is a good tool to measure the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement, which incarnated the culture characteristics of our country and the particularity of the primary and secondary teacher.⑶The degree of the Primary and Secondary teachers’work engagement of has the significant differences among the grade of teaching, the age, the length of service. But there have not significant differences among the sex, the kind of school, school level and the monthly income.⑷Professional identity and teaching efficacy significantly affected primary and secondary school teachers, work engagement, professional identity in teaching efficacy and play an intermediary role between work engagement.
本研究根据文献综述、访谈和开放式问卷调查的结果,编制了中小学教师工作投入的初始问卷;在预研究中,根据探索性因素分析的结果,抽取了四个因素,即工作价值、工作愉悦、工作进取和工作负责,结构清晰,符合理论构想;在正式研究中,用另外一批被试对问卷进行了验证性因素分析和正式问卷的信效度分析,研究结果显示本问卷的信效度良好,可以作为中小学教师工作投入的测评工具;在应用研究中,根据正式施测的数据,分析了不同人口学变量的中小学教师其工作投入的现状及差异情况;此外,还初步探讨了教学效能感、教师职业认同感与工作投入之间的关系;最后对本研究的结果进行了总结,指出了研究的价值和局限,提出今后研究的建议。
本研究的主要结论:⑴中小学教师工作投入的结构由四个维度组成,分别是工作价值、工作愉悦、工作进取和工作负责;⑵中小学教师工作投入问卷结构合理,信效度良好,不仅符合我国的社会文化背景,而且体现了中小学教师的职业特点,可以作为我国中小学教师工作投入的测评工具;⑶中小学教师工作投入在任课年级、年龄、教龄上存在显著性差异,而在性别、学校性质、学校级别上没有显著性差异。⑷教师职业认同感和教学效能感显著影响中小学教师的工作投入,教师职业认同感在教学效能感与工作投入之间发挥中介作用。
Work engagement is an emerging psychological study field, which came into being by the influence of active psychology at the end of last century. Work engagement is from the west, and its study is still in primary stage now. There are many disputations about how to measure the work engagement, up till now, nobody has developed the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire. In our country, only several researchers have introduced this theory, nobody has developed work engagement questionnaire according to the situation of our country, saying nothing of the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire. Therefore we hope that we can develope the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement questionnaire, in order to offer a tool that has good reliability and validity for researchers to measure.
We had compiled the items of primary and secondary teachers’work engagement according to literature review, interview, and open questionnaire investigation, and then established the item store. After that, we had invited many Primary and Secondary teachers, Psychologists, graduate students of the psychology department , and students of The Art to evaluate each dimensionality and item, and then we had designed the original questionnaire according to their advice. In the prepared study, we had extracted four factors, namely work pleasure, work value, work ahead and work obligation according to the results of explore factor analysis. This structure is very clear and accord with our frame of reference. In the formal study, we had used the other sample to make the confirm factory analysis and analyze the reliability and validity. The results of analysis show that the reliability and validity of the primary and secondary teachers. Work engagement questionnaire are very good which can act as the measurement tool of the primary and wecondary teachers’work engagement. In the applied study, we had studied the actuality of primary and wecondary teachers’work engagement according to the formal study data, and analyzed the differences from different degree of work engagement in the main demographic variables. In addition, we had a preliminary study of the relationship between the teaching efficacy,vocational identity and job involvement. In the end, we had summaried the results of the study,pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of the study, and giving some advice for the future study.
The main conclusions of the study:⑴The structure of the Primary and Secondary teachers’work engagement is made up of four dimensionalities, namely work pleasure, work value, work ahead and work obligation.⑵The structure of teachers, work engagement is reasonable, and its reliability and validity are very good. It is a good tool to measure the primary and secondary teachers’work engagement, which incarnated the culture characteristics of our country and the particularity of the primary and secondary teacher.⑶The degree of the Primary and Secondary teachers’work engagement of has the significant differences among the grade of teaching, the age, the length of service. But there have not significant differences among the sex, the kind of school, school level and the monthly income.⑷Professional identity and teaching efficacy significantly affected primary and secondary school teachers, work engagement, professional identity in teaching efficacy and play an intermediary role between work engagement.
引文
[1]李锐,凌文辁.工作投入研究的现状.心理科学进展,2007,15(2):366-372.
[2]林琳,时勘,萧爱铃.工作投入研究现状与展望.管理评论,2008,20(3):8-15.
[3]刘毅,吴宇驹,邢强.教师压力影响职业倦怠——教学效能感的调节作用.心理发展与教育,2009, 01-0108-113.
[4]徐艳.企业员工工作投入的问卷编制以及现状调查.苏州大学应用心理学专业硕士论文, 2005.
[5]张燕.工作不安全感及其与工作投入之间关系的研究.浙江大学应用心理学专业硕士论文,2006.
[6]段陆生.工作资源——个人资源与工作投入的关系研究.河南大学应用心理学专业硕士论文,2008.
[7]张林.企业员工工作投入结构维度及其相关研究.暨南大学应用心理学专业硕士论文, 2008.
[8]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[9]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2):268-274.
[10]汪向东,王希林,马弘编著.心理卫生量表评定手册增订本.中国心理卫生杂志社,1999.
[11]陈润龙.组织支持影响工作投入的中介变量和调节变量.华南师范大学心理学专业硕士论文,2007.
[12]温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.潜变量交互效应分析方法.心理科学进展,2003,11(5):593-599.
[13]李金波,许百华,陈建明.影响员工工作投入的组织相关因素研究.应用心理学.2006,12(2):176-181.
[14]谢函融.工作投入对工作价值观与离职倾向间关系之研究.台湾中央大学人力资源管理研究所硕士论文,2005.
[15]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务一问卷分析与应用统计.北京:科学出版社,2007.
[16]陈维政,李金平等.组织气候对员工工作投入及组织承诺的影响作用研究.管理科学,2006,19(6):18-23.
[17]辛涛,申继亮,林崇德.教师教学效能感量表试用常模修订.心理发展与教育,1995(4).
[18]龙君伟.国外教师效能感研究:30年回顾和展望.比较教育研究,2004(10).
[19]徐富明,申继亮.教师职业压力应对策略与教学效能感的关系研究.心理科学,2003,26(4).
[20]李哗,刘华山.教师效能感对教学行为的影响.教育研究与实验,2000(1).
[21]王受荣.我国国民中小学教师效能感及其影响因素之研究.台湾师范大学教育研究所博士论文,1992.
[22]王振宏.国外教师效能研究述评.心理学动态,2001,9(2) .
[23]吴慎慎.教师专业认同与终身学习:生命史叙述研究.台湾师范大学博士学位论文,2003.
[24]于慧慧.中学青年教师职业认同现状研究——来自湖南省小城市中学的调查.湖南师范大学硕士学位论文,2006.
[25]魏淑华.教师职业认同感研究.西南大学博士学位论文,2008.
[26]周成海.导正教师认同:教师教育的重要使命.当代教育科学,2007(3-4):47-51.
[27]王霞霞,张进辅.国内外职业承诺研究述评.心理科学进展,2007,(15)3:488-497.
[28]龙立荣,方俐洛,凌文较等.职业承诺的理论与测量.心理学动态,2000,8(4):39-45.
[29]凌文牲,张治灿,方俐洛.中国职工组织承诺的结构模型研究.管理科学学报,2000,3(2):76-81.
[30]连榕.新手——熟手——专家型教师心理特征的比较.心理学报2004,36(1):44-52.
[31]凌文牲,张治灿,方俐洛.中国职工组织承诺的结构模型研究.管理科学学报,2000,3(2):76-81.
[32]潘义祥.国民小学健康与体育学习领域教师自我效能、教学承诺与教学实践及其线性结构关系模式之研究.台湾:国立体育学院博士论文,民国93年.
[33]江佳茹.国民小学教师专业承诺和教学效能相关之研究.台湾:国民教研所一中师范学院硕士论文,2003.
[34]罗俊峰等人.流动学校教师职业承诺、教学效能感与职业倦怠的关系研究.第十一届全国心理学大会学术会议论文摘要集,2007.
[35] Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52:397- 422
[36] Seligman, M. E. P. and M. Csikszentmihalyi. Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 2000, 55 (1): 5- 14
[37] Harter, J. K., F. L. Schmidt and C. L. Keyes. Well- being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well - lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2003: 205- 224
[38] Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, I. Vardakou and A. Kantas. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2003, 19 (1): 12- 23
[39] Kahn, W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.Academy of Management Journal,1990, 33 (4) : 692- 724
[40] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 1997
[41] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. Reversing burnout: How to rekindle your passion for your work. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2005, 3 (4): 42
[42] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. An organizational approach to healing burnout. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2005, 3 (4): 46
[43] Maslach, C. Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions IN Psychological Science, 2003, 12 (5): 189- 192
[44] Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti and W. B. Schaufeli. The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 2005, 58 (5): 661- 689
[45] Russell, J. A. and J. M. Carroll. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 1999, 125: 3- 10
[46] Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. Gonzalez- Roma and A. B. Bakker. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2002, 3: 71- 92
[47] Schaufeli, W. B., I. M. Martinez, A. Marques Pinto, M. Salanova and A. B. Bakker. Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross- national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 2002, 33 (5) : 464- 481
[48] Durán, A., N. Extremera and L. Rey. Engagement and burnout: Analyzing their association patterns. Psychological Reports, 2004,94: 1084- 1050
[49] Hallberg, U. E. and W. B. Schaufeli. " Same same" but different: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 2006, 11 (2) : 119- 127
[50] Leiter, M. P. and C. Maslach. Burnout and health. In Baum, A., T. A. Revenson, J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2001: 415- 42
[51] Schaufeli, W. B. and A. B. Bakker. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2004, 25 (3) : 293- 315
[52] Schaufeli, W. B. From burnout to engagement: Toward a true occupational health psychology, 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Athens, Greece,2006
[53] Sabine, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88 (3) : 518
[54] Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner and W. B. Schaufeli. The job demands - resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86 (3): 499- 512
[55] Hakanen, J. J., A. B. Bakker and W. B. Schaufeli. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,2006, 43:495- 513
[56] Watkins, C. E., Jr. and R. M. Tipton. Role relevance and role engagement in contemporary school psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1991, 22 (4) : 328- 332
[57] Britt, T. W., A. B. Adler and P. T. Bartone. Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2001, 6 (1): 53- 63
[58] Hallberg, U. E., W. B. Schaufeli and G. Johansson. Individual behaviour patterns, burnout and work engagement. Manuscript submitted for publication,2004
[59] Hallberg, U. E. A thesis on fire: Studies of work engagement, Type A behavior and burnout. Stockholm University, Stockholm,2005
[60] Langelaan, S., A. B. Bakker, L. J. P. Van Doornen and W. B. Schaufeli. Burnout and work engagement: do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 2006 (40): 521- 532
[61] Harter, J. K. Managerial talent, employee engagement, and business- unit performance. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 2000, 4(2) : 215- 224
[62] Britt, T. W. and P. D. Bliese. Testing the stress - buffering effects of self engagement among soldiers on a military operation. Journal of Personality, 2003, 71 (2) : 245- 265
[2]林琳,时勘,萧爱铃.工作投入研究现状与展望.管理评论,2008,20(3):8-15.
[3]刘毅,吴宇驹,邢强.教师压力影响职业倦怠——教学效能感的调节作用.心理发展与教育,2009, 01-0108-113.
[4]徐艳.企业员工工作投入的问卷编制以及现状调查.苏州大学应用心理学专业硕士论文, 2005.
[5]张燕.工作不安全感及其与工作投入之间关系的研究.浙江大学应用心理学专业硕士论文,2006.
[6]段陆生.工作资源——个人资源与工作投入的关系研究.河南大学应用心理学专业硕士论文,2008.
[7]张林.企业员工工作投入结构维度及其相关研究.暨南大学应用心理学专业硕士论文, 2008.
[8]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[9]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2):268-274.
[10]汪向东,王希林,马弘编著.心理卫生量表评定手册增订本.中国心理卫生杂志社,1999.
[11]陈润龙.组织支持影响工作投入的中介变量和调节变量.华南师范大学心理学专业硕士论文,2007.
[12]温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.潜变量交互效应分析方法.心理科学进展,2003,11(5):593-599.
[13]李金波,许百华,陈建明.影响员工工作投入的组织相关因素研究.应用心理学.2006,12(2):176-181.
[14]谢函融.工作投入对工作价值观与离职倾向间关系之研究.台湾中央大学人力资源管理研究所硕士论文,2005.
[15]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务一问卷分析与应用统计.北京:科学出版社,2007.
[16]陈维政,李金平等.组织气候对员工工作投入及组织承诺的影响作用研究.管理科学,2006,19(6):18-23.
[17]辛涛,申继亮,林崇德.教师教学效能感量表试用常模修订.心理发展与教育,1995(4).
[18]龙君伟.国外教师效能感研究:30年回顾和展望.比较教育研究,2004(10).
[19]徐富明,申继亮.教师职业压力应对策略与教学效能感的关系研究.心理科学,2003,26(4).
[20]李哗,刘华山.教师效能感对教学行为的影响.教育研究与实验,2000(1).
[21]王受荣.我国国民中小学教师效能感及其影响因素之研究.台湾师范大学教育研究所博士论文,1992.
[22]王振宏.国外教师效能研究述评.心理学动态,2001,9(2) .
[23]吴慎慎.教师专业认同与终身学习:生命史叙述研究.台湾师范大学博士学位论文,2003.
[24]于慧慧.中学青年教师职业认同现状研究——来自湖南省小城市中学的调查.湖南师范大学硕士学位论文,2006.
[25]魏淑华.教师职业认同感研究.西南大学博士学位论文,2008.
[26]周成海.导正教师认同:教师教育的重要使命.当代教育科学,2007(3-4):47-51.
[27]王霞霞,张进辅.国内外职业承诺研究述评.心理科学进展,2007,(15)3:488-497.
[28]龙立荣,方俐洛,凌文较等.职业承诺的理论与测量.心理学动态,2000,8(4):39-45.
[29]凌文牲,张治灿,方俐洛.中国职工组织承诺的结构模型研究.管理科学学报,2000,3(2):76-81.
[30]连榕.新手——熟手——专家型教师心理特征的比较.心理学报2004,36(1):44-52.
[31]凌文牲,张治灿,方俐洛.中国职工组织承诺的结构模型研究.管理科学学报,2000,3(2):76-81.
[32]潘义祥.国民小学健康与体育学习领域教师自我效能、教学承诺与教学实践及其线性结构关系模式之研究.台湾:国立体育学院博士论文,民国93年.
[33]江佳茹.国民小学教师专业承诺和教学效能相关之研究.台湾:国民教研所一中师范学院硕士论文,2003.
[34]罗俊峰等人.流动学校教师职业承诺、教学效能感与职业倦怠的关系研究.第十一届全国心理学大会学术会议论文摘要集,2007.
[35] Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001, 52:397- 422
[36] Seligman, M. E. P. and M. Csikszentmihalyi. Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 2000, 55 (1): 5- 14
[37] Harter, J. K., F. L. Schmidt and C. L. Keyes. Well- being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well - lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2003: 205- 224
[38] Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, I. Vardakou and A. Kantas. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2003, 19 (1): 12- 23
[39] Kahn, W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.Academy of Management Journal,1990, 33 (4) : 692- 724
[40] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, 1997
[41] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. Reversing burnout: How to rekindle your passion for your work. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2005, 3 (4): 42
[42] Maslach, C. and M. P. Leiter. An organizational approach to healing burnout. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2005, 3 (4): 46
[43] Maslach, C. Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions IN Psychological Science, 2003, 12 (5): 189- 192
[44] Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti and W. B. Schaufeli. The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 2005, 58 (5): 661- 689
[45] Russell, J. A. and J. M. Carroll. On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 1999, 125: 3- 10
[46] Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. Gonzalez- Roma and A. B. Bakker. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2002, 3: 71- 92
[47] Schaufeli, W. B., I. M. Martinez, A. Marques Pinto, M. Salanova and A. B. Bakker. Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross- national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 2002, 33 (5) : 464- 481
[48] Durán, A., N. Extremera and L. Rey. Engagement and burnout: Analyzing their association patterns. Psychological Reports, 2004,94: 1084- 1050
[49] Hallberg, U. E. and W. B. Schaufeli. " Same same" but different: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 2006, 11 (2) : 119- 127
[50] Leiter, M. P. and C. Maslach. Burnout and health. In Baum, A., T. A. Revenson, J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2001: 415- 42
[51] Schaufeli, W. B. and A. B. Bakker. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2004, 25 (3) : 293- 315
[52] Schaufeli, W. B. From burnout to engagement: Toward a true occupational health psychology, 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Athens, Greece,2006
[53] Sabine, S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88 (3) : 518
[54] Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner and W. B. Schaufeli. The job demands - resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86 (3): 499- 512
[55] Hakanen, J. J., A. B. Bakker and W. B. Schaufeli. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology,2006, 43:495- 513
[56] Watkins, C. E., Jr. and R. M. Tipton. Role relevance and role engagement in contemporary school psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1991, 22 (4) : 328- 332
[57] Britt, T. W., A. B. Adler and P. T. Bartone. Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2001, 6 (1): 53- 63
[58] Hallberg, U. E., W. B. Schaufeli and G. Johansson. Individual behaviour patterns, burnout and work engagement. Manuscript submitted for publication,2004
[59] Hallberg, U. E. A thesis on fire: Studies of work engagement, Type A behavior and burnout. Stockholm University, Stockholm,2005
[60] Langelaan, S., A. B. Bakker, L. J. P. Van Doornen and W. B. Schaufeli. Burnout and work engagement: do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 2006 (40): 521- 532
[61] Harter, J. K. Managerial talent, employee engagement, and business- unit performance. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 2000, 4(2) : 215- 224
[62] Britt, T. W. and P. D. Bliese. Testing the stress - buffering effects of self engagement among soldiers on a military operation. Journal of Personality, 2003, 71 (2) : 245- 265