Ergonomic Factors That Impact Job Satisfaction and Occupational Health during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Based on a Structural Equation Model: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Analysis of University Workers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Dimensions of Ergonomics and Hypotheses Development
2.2. Structural Equation Model
2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis
2.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
3. Materials and Methods
4. Instrument Validation
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Goodness of Fit Results
5.2. Hypothesis Analysis
5.3. Impact on the Organizational Sustainability and Implications
5.4. Impact on the Occupational Health
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kumar, S.S. Job satisfaction-An overview. Int. J. Res. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2016, 6, 200–206. [Google Scholar]
- Van Saane, N.; Sluiter, J.K.; Verbeek, J.H.A.M.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—A systematic review. Occup. Med. 2003, 53, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wright, T.A. The emergence of job satisfaction in organizational behavior: A historical overview of the dawn of job attitude research. J. Manag. Hist. 2006, 12, 262–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, T. Job satisfaction and implications for organizational sustainability: A resource efficiency perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidescu, A.A.M.; Apostu, S.A.; Paul, A.; Casuneanu, I. Work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance among romanian employees-Implications for sustainable human resource management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jigjiddorj, S.; Zanabazar, A.; Jambal, T.; Semjid, B. Relationship Between Organizational Culture, Employee Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 90, 02004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchbinder, S.B.; Wilson, M.; Melick, C.F.; Powe, N.R. Primary care physician job satisfaction and turnover. Am. J. Manag. Care 2001, 7, 701–713. [Google Scholar]
- Lepold, A.; Tanzer, N.; Bregenzer, A.; Jiménez, P. The efficient measurement of job satisfaction: Facet-items versus facet scales. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepti, N.; Awaluddin, R. The Effect of Quality of Work Life, Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction on Employee Engagement. Bina Bangsa. Int. J. Buss. Manag. 2021, 1, 158–165. [Google Scholar]
- Ladebo, O.J. Effects of Work-related Attitudes on the Intention to Leave the Profession. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2005, 33, 355–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govea Andrade, K.; Zuñiga Briones, D. Clima Organizacional como Factor en la Satisfacción Laboral de una Empresa de Servicios. Investig. Neg. 2020, 13, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrabi, J. Application of Six-Sigma in Educational Quality Management. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 1358–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, T.K. High Performance Workplace Practices and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Europe. SSRN Electron. J. 2021, 55, 57–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolić, M.; Vukonjanski, J.; Nedeljković, M.; Hadžić, O.; Terek, E. The impact of internal communication satisfaction dimensions on job satisfaction dimensions and the moderating role of LMX. Public Relat. Rev. 2013, 39, 563–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakar, N.A.; Radzali, N.A. Factors and job satisfaction dimension among academic staffs of public universities. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavalitsakulchai, P.; Ohkubo, T.; Shahnavaz, H. A Model of Ergonomics Intervention in Industry: Case Study in Japan. J. Hum. Ergol. 1994, 23, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleiner, B.M. Macroergonomic Analysis and Design for Improved Safety and Quality Performance. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 1999, 5, 217–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomathi, K.; Rajini, G. Organizational ergonomics: Human engineering leading to employee well-being. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol. 2019, 8, 3744–3749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carayon, P.; Hoonakker, P.; Haims, M.C. Participatory Ergonomics and Macroergonomic Organizational Questionnaire Surveys. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet 2002, 46, 1351–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haro, E.; Kleiner, B.M. Macroergonomics as an organizing process for systems safety. Appl. Ergon. 2008, 39, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalle Mura, M.; Dini, G. Optimizing ergonomics in assembly lines: A multi objective genetic algorithm. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2019, 27, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Noor, M.H.H.; Raja Ghazilla, R.A. Physical ergonomics awareness in an offshore processing platform among Malaysian oil and gas workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 26, 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kohli, A.; Sharma, A. The Critical Dimensions of Job Satisfaction of Academicians: An Empirical Analysis. IUP J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 17, 21–35. [Google Scholar]
- McKeown, C. A Guide to Human Factors and Ergonomics. Ergonomics 2008, 51, 949–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanjog, J.; Patel, T.; Karmakar, S. Occupational ergonomics research and applied contextual design implementation for an industrial shop-floor workstation. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 72, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarka, P. An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 313–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, T.G.; Morrison, M.A.; McCutcheon, J.M. Best Practice Recommendations for Using Structural Equation Modelling in Psychological Research. Psychology 2017, 08, 1326–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, T.; Banerjee, A.; Paul, E. A Conceptual Overview of Structural Equation Modeling. IIMA Working Paper; Indian Institute of Management: Indore, India, 2011; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Ballen, C.J.; Salehi, S. Mediation Analysis in Discipline-Based Education Research Using Structural Equation Modeling: Beyond “What Works” to Understand How It Works, and for Whom. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2021, 22, e00108-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leguina, A. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soelaiman, N.F.; Ahmad, S.S.S.; Mohd, O.; Al Hakim, R.R.; Hidayah, H.A. Modeling the civil servant discipline in Indonesia: Partial least square-structural equation modeling approach. Asean Int. J. Bus. 2022, 1, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afandi, M.; Zuleta, M.S.; Neolaka, A. Causative Correlation of Teacher’s Motivation and Discipline in Banyumanik, Semarang City. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 14, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, M.W. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. J. Black Psychol. 2018, 44, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yong, A.G.; Pearce, S. A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2013, 9, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, M.C. A Review of Exploratory Factor Analysis Decisions and Overview of Current Practices: What We Are Doing and How Can We Improve? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2016, 32, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, T.A. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. J. Psychoeduc. Assess 2011, 29, 304–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, H.W.; Guo, J.; Dicke, T.; Parker, P.D.; Craven, R.G. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), and Set-ESEM: Optimal Balance Between Goodness of Fit and Parsimony. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2020, 55, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shea, B.J.; Grimshaw, J.M.; Wells, G.A.; Boers, M.; Andersson, N.; Hamel, C.; Ashley, C.P.; Peter, T.; David, M.; Bouter, L.M. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2007, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Wu, Y. The Impact of Enforced Working from Home on Employee Job Satisfaction during COVID-19: An Event System Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Hu, C.; Xu, H.; Zhao, X.; Huang, J. Factors Associated with Job Satisfaction of Frontline Medical Staff Fighting Against COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study in China. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dymecka, J.; Filipkowski, J.; Machnik-Czerwik, A. Fear of COVID-19: Stress and job satisfaction among Polish doctors during the pandemic. Adv. Psychiatry Neurol. 2021, 30, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, J.M. Overview and illustration of Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment. Res. Eval. 2019, 24, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, K.A. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling by Rex B. Kline. Struct. Equ. Model. 2012, 19, 509–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, K.G. A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1969, 34, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faller, H.; Kohlmann, T.; Zwingmann, C.; Maurischat, C. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Rehabilitation 2006, 45, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, R.A. Meta-analysis of Alpha Cronbach’s Coefficient. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 21, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, A.K.; Perrewé, P.L. The Relationship Between Person-Environment Fit, Control, and Strain: The Role of Ergonomic Work Design and Training. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 729–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabungaidze, T.; Mahlatshana, N.; Ngirande, H. The Impact of Job Satisfaction and Some Demographic Variables on Employee Turnover Intentions. Int. J. Bus. Adm. 2013, 4, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izquierdo, I.; Olea, J.; Abad, F.J. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema 2014, 26, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurley, A.E.; Scandura, T.A.; Schriesheim, C.A.; Brannick, M.T.; Seers, A.; Vandenberg, R.J.; Williams, L.J. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Guidelines, Issues, and Alternatives. J. Organ. Behav. 1997, 18, 667–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Educational Level | Amount of People (Nh) |
---|---|
Primary (MX)/Elementary (US) | 14 |
Secondary (MX)/Middle (US) | 40 |
Preparatory (MX)/High School (US) | 19 |
Undergraduate (MX)/College (US) | 19 |
Total | 92 |
Stratum Number | Schooling Level | Subgroup Total | Sample | Sample |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Primary (MX)/Elementary (US) | 14 | (0.815) (14) | 11 |
2 | Secondary (MX)/Middle (US) | 40 | (0.815) (40) | 33 |
3 | Preparatory (MX)/High School (US) | 19 | (0.815) (19) | 16 |
4 | Undergraduate (MX)/College (US) | 19 | (0.815) (19) | 16 |
Total | 92 | 75 |
Rank | Magnitude |
---|---|
0.81–1.00 | Very high |
0.61–0.80 | High |
0.41–0.60 | Moderate |
0.21–0.40 | Low |
0.001–0.20 | Very low |
Gender | Frequency | % | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Women | 24 | 32 | 32% |
Men | 51 | 68 | 100% |
Total | 75 | 100 |
Contract | Frequency | % | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Base | 66 | 88 | 88% |
Eventual | 9 | 12 | 100% |
Total | 75 | 100 |
Schooling Level | Frequency | % | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Primary (MX)/Elementary (US) | 12 | 16 | 16% |
Secondary (MX)/Middle (US) | 32 | 43 | 58.67% |
Preparatory (MX)/High School (US) | 15 | 20 | 78.67% |
Undergraduate (MX)/College (US) | 16 | 21 | 100% |
Total | 75 | 100 |
Dimension | Items |
---|---|
Job Satisfaction | Q1_JS: Relationship between boss and worker. Q2_JS: Relationship between workers. Q3_JS: The supervision and guidance of the boss. Q4_JS: Recognition at work. Q5_JS: Freedom in choosing the working method. Q6_JS: Perceived work environment. Q7_JS: Labor condition at work. Q8_JS: The position you hold, you consider. Q9_JS: Salary. Q10_JS: Benefits. |
Dimension | Items |
---|---|
Physical Ergonomic | Q11_PE: Safety in your workplace. Q12_PE: Hygiene in your workplace. Q13_PE: Repetitive movements in your workplace. Q14_PE: Carry or move objects. Q15_PE: Physical loads in terms of strength, neck, shoulder, and back. Q16_PE: Workplace design. Q17_PE: Workloads are well distributed. Q18_PE: In general, how satisfied are you with the physical demands in your workplace? |
Dimension | Items |
---|---|
Organizational Ergonomic | Q19_OE: The communication with bosses. Q20_OE: The communication with colleagues. Q21_OE: Teamwork. Q22_OE: Your work Schedule. Q23_OE: My roles and responsibilities are well defined. Q24_OE: The new paradigms in my work. Q25_OE: Suggestions and ideas are taken into account in my work team. Q26_OE: Quality improvement initiatives. Q27_OE: The way in which the institution is managed. Q28_OE: Resource management. Q29_OE: In my job, I can develop my skills. Q30_OE: I receive information on how I perform my work.Q31_OE: Medical Services. |
Variable | OE | JS | PE |
---|---|---|---|
Organizational ergonomic (OE) | 1 | 0.707 * | 0.552 * |
Job satisfaction (JS) | 0.707 * | 1 | 0.628 * |
Physical ergonomic (PE) | 0.552 * | 0.628 * | 1 |
Items | JS | PE | OE |
---|---|---|---|
Q6_JS | 0.807 | ||
Q3_JS | 0.783 | ||
Q1_JS | 0.765 | ||
Q4_JS | 0.731 | ||
Q7_JS | 0.643 | ||
Q5_JS | 0.565 | ||
Q17_PE | 0.809 | ||
Q18_PE | 0.791 | ||
Q15_PE | 0.741 | ||
Q14_PE | 0.699 | ||
Q13_PE | 0.691 | ||
Q24_OE | 0.750 | ||
Q26_OE | 0.747 | ||
Q28_OE | 0.729 | ||
Q19_OE | 0.689 | ||
Q23_OE | 0.671 | ||
Q27_OE | 0.669 | ||
Q25_OE | 0.667 |
Absolute Fit Index | Good Fit | Acceptable Fit |
---|---|---|
0 ≤ x2 ≤ 2df | 2df ≤ x2 ≤ 3df | |
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | 0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.08 |
Goodness of fit index (GFI) | 0.95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1.00 | 0.90 ≤ GFI ≤ 0.95 |
Standardized (SRMR) | 0 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.10 |
Model Regression Coefficients | β | p |
---|---|---|
Job Satisfaction ← Organizational Ergonomic | 0.53 | 0.000 |
Job Satisfaction ← Physical Ergonomic | 0.37 | 0.016 |
Physical Ergonomic ← Organizational Ergonomic | 0.53 | 0.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ramos-García, V.M.; López-Leyva, J.A.; Ramos-García, R.I.; García-Ochoa, J.J.; Ochoa-Vázquez, I.; Guerrero-Ortega, P.; Verdugo-Miranda, R.; Verdugo-Miranda, S. Ergonomic Factors That Impact Job Satisfaction and Occupational Health during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Based on a Structural Equation Model: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Analysis of University Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710714
Ramos-García VM, López-Leyva JA, Ramos-García RI, García-Ochoa JJ, Ochoa-Vázquez I, Guerrero-Ortega P, Verdugo-Miranda R, Verdugo-Miranda S. Ergonomic Factors That Impact Job Satisfaction and Occupational Health during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Based on a Structural Equation Model: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Analysis of University Workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(17):10714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710714
Chicago/Turabian StyleRamos-García, Víctor Manuel, Josué Aarón López-Leyva, Raúl Ignacio Ramos-García, Juan José García-Ochoa, Iván Ochoa-Vázquez, Paulina Guerrero-Ortega, Rafael Verdugo-Miranda, and Saúl Verdugo-Miranda. 2022. "Ergonomic Factors That Impact Job Satisfaction and Occupational Health during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Based on a Structural Equation Model: A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Analysis of University Workers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 17: 10714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710714