FACTOR ANALYSIS OF OCCUPATIONAL WELL-BEING AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE BASIC EDUCATION COMMISSION IN NORTHEASTERN THAILAND
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to explorer the factor structure of occupational well-being among secondary school teachers under the Office of the Basic Education Commission in Northeastern Thailand. The population comprised secondary school teachers in the 2025 academic year. Participants were selected through multistage sampling: 1) cluster random sampling was used to select three of the five educational inspection areas 2) one secondary educational service area office was randomly selected from each selected inspection area and 3) 10 schools were randomly selected from each selected educational service area. Based on the general guideline suggested by Hair, J. F. et al., using a ratio of five participants per observed variable, the required sample size was 485 teachers. A total of 468 complete responses were retained for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), representing a response rate of 96.49%, while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with an independent sample of 324 teachers. Data were collected using a questionnaire measuring the occupational well-being components of teachers. Descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation, as well as EFA and CFA, were used for data analysis.The EFA results identified a five-factor structure of teachers’ occupational well-being: 1) Organizational and Executive Support 2) Financial and Work–Life Balance 3) Social Support and School Relationships 4) Psychological Resilience and Emotion Regulation and 5) Parental and Community Support. The data were suitable for factor analysis, as indicated by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.659 and a statistically significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity ( = 19777, p<.001). The 28 indicators jointly accounted for 76.11% of the total variance. CFA results demonstrated a good fit between the proposed model and the empirical data:
= 380.353, df = 345,
/ df = 1.102, p = 0.092, RMSEA = 0.01778, SRMR = 0.03882, GFI = 0.9257, CFI = 0.9928 และ TLI = 0.9921. Overall, all model-fit indices met the established criteria, supporting the construct validity of the five-factor model. The five-factor model may therefore serve as a useful framework for assessing and promoting occupational well-being among secondary school teachers in Northeastern Thailand.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
ธิติ ธาราสุข. (2566). รูปแบบการเสริมสร้างความฉลาดรู้ทางการเงินสำหรับครู. ใน วิทยานิพน์ครุศาสตรดุษฎีบัณฑิต สาขาวิชาการศึกษานอกระบบโรงเรียน. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
ภัทรชัย อ่อนน่วม และพัชราภรณ์ ทัพมาลี. (2568). ความฉลาดรู้ทางการเงินของครูรุ่นใหม่. วารสารครุศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, 53(2), 1-15.
วศมน ใจชื่น และพงษ์ลิขิต เพชรผล. (2566). ความต้องการจำเป็นของการพัฒนาครูโรงเรียนในสังกัดสำนักงานเขตพื้นที่การศึกษามัธยมศึกษากรุงเทพมหานคร เขต 1 กลุ่ม 6 ตามแนวคิดความฉลาดรู้ทางการเงิน. วารสารครุศาสตร์ปริทรรศน์ฯ, 10(2), 259-268.
วัชรพล ยงวณิชย์. (2566). เมื่อครูเป็นหนี้: การศึกษารูปแบบ โครงสร้าง และวงจรหนี้สินข้าราชการครูผ่านการวิเคราะห์กลไกระบบราชการ. ใน วิทยานิพนธ์รัฐศาสตรดุษฎีบัณฑิต สาขารัฐศาสตร์. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
Bagdžiūnienė, D. et al. (2023). Resources of emotional resilience and its mediating role in teachers’ well-being and intention to leave. Organizational Psychology, 14, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1305979
Blair E. E. et al. (2024). Teachers survive together: Teacher collegial relationships and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. School Psychology, 39(5), 499-509.
Chen, J. & Lee, J. C. (2022). Teacher resilience matters: a buffering and boosting effect between job driving factors and their well-being and job performance. Teachers and Teaching, 28(7), 890-907.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Gearhart, C. A. et al. (2022). Barriers to and Facilitators for Teachers’ Wellbeing. Organizational Psychology, 13, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867433
Hair, J. F. et al. (2018). Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Cengage Learning.
Hongsa, T. & Polyong, C. P. (2024). Risk factors affecting stress and burnout among teachers:
A cross-sectional study from Chonburi, Thailand. Journal of UOEH, 46(2), 203-214.
Kaihoi, C. A. et al. (2022). Teachers Supporting Teachers: A Social Network Perspective on Collegial Stress Support and Emotional Wellbeing among Elementary and Middle School Educators. School Mental Health, 14(4), 1070-1085.
Li, S. (2023). The effect of teacher self-efficacy, teacher resilience, and emotion regulation on teacher burnout: a mediation model. Educational Psychology, 14, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1185079
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for The Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of psychology, 22(140), 5-55.
Maas, J. et al. (2022). School principals’ social support and teachers’ basic need satisfaction: The mediating role of job demands and job resources. Soc Psychol Educ, 25(6), 1545-1562.
OECD. (2020). Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and analysis (OECD Education Working Papers No. 213). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Patrick, P. et al. (2024). Initiatives for promoting educator wellbeing: a Delphi study. BMC Psychol, 12(220), 1-13.
Ratanasiripong, P. et al. (2021). Mental health and burnout among teachers in Thailand. Journal of Health Research, 36(3), 404-416.