Exploring the Psychological Well-Being of Flight Cadets through a Comprehensive Survey Analysis of Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance
1
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
2
Tianmushan Laboratory, Hangzhou 311115, China
3
Flying College, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
4
Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Quality Evaluation and Control, Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aerospace 2024, 11(6), 441; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11060441
Submission received: 21 April 2024
/
Revised: 25 May 2024
/
Accepted: 28 May 2024
/
Published: 30 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aerospace Human–Machine and Environmental Control Engineering)
Abstract
:A robust level of self-awareness and self-acceptance is crucial for flight cadets. In this study, a total of 106 flight cadets from various grades and flight training sites were assessed using the self-awareness and self-acceptance scale. The scales were optimized through item analysis, reliability, and validity assessments. The finalized scales demonstrated an acceptable level of reliability and validity. Upon analyzing the collected data, it was observed that the overall self-awareness and -acceptance levels among the evaluated pilot students fell within the normal range. However, identifying positive symptoms directly proved challenging. The tested flight cadets exhibited moderate symptoms across each factor, with instances of severe symptoms in academic self-awareness. Notably, flight cadets trained abroad exhibited a lower level of self-awareness and -acceptance compared to those trained in China. But this phenomenon was not reflected in grade difference. Regression analysis revealed that physical and emotional self-awareness dimensions accounted for 62% of the variations in the psychological dimension, while passive self-acceptance explained 72% of the changes in active self-acceptance. Finally, in view of the issues found in the research, corresponding management measures and recommendations are presented to enhance the self-awareness and -acceptance levels of flight cadets.
1. Introduction
With the advancement of globalization and technology, the civil aviation industry has experienced robust growth. Previous studies have indicated a gradual decrease in the flight accident rate attributed to equipment failure, with human factors emerging as the primary contributors to civil aviation accidents [1,2]. Pilots, as crucial members of the civil aviation industry, encounter substantial psychological pressure due to the demands of their work environment and responsibilities [3,4]. Consequently, research has increasingly focused on the mental health of pilots.
Several studies have focused on evaluating the mental health of pilots. Wu et al. [5] utilized an anonymous online survey to explore pilots’ mental health, particularly depression and suicidal thoughts. They found that 12.6% of pilots met the depression threshold, with 4.1% reporting suicidal thoughts. Stadler et al. [6]. examined the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and well-being of pilots. They found no statistically significant relationship between quarantine context or duration and pilots’ mental health. Nevertheless, when the quarantine extended beyond 10 weeks, a relatively high percentage of participants reported moderate depression (10.9%) and moderately severe to severe depression (8.8%). Some researchers have sought to explore and analyze the factors influencing pilots’ mental health. Yu et al. [7] analyzed the effects of demographic data, personality traits, social support, and resilience on pilots’ mental health. The findings revealed the mediating effect of personality factors between social support and the mental health of pilots. A survey conducted by Xu et al. [8] involving 285 Chinese commercial airline pilots after the COVID-19 pandemic found that proactive coping exerted a direct and positive effect on pilots’ mental health, while social support was found to weaken the relationship between perceived stress and mental health. Pilots’ psychological health not only influences their work performance but also plays a critical role in ensuring flight safety [7,8,9,10,11]. Proficient pilots adeptly handle unforeseen flight scenarios, ensuring safe flights, while poor mental health impairs judgment and operational capabilities, directly threatening flight safety. In the tragic event of Germanwings Flight 9525 in 2015, the co-pilot’s deliberate actions resulted in the deaths of 150 passengers and crew. The subsequent investigation revealed that the co-pilot experienced a psychotic depressive episode that started in 2014 [12,13]. Analogous incidents, such as the 1999 EgyptAir crash, highlight that pilots’ mental health significantly affects flight safety.
In numerous studies on mental health, self-awareness and self-acceptance emerge as pivotal factors. Self-awareness encompasses an individual’s awareness, perception, and understanding of their own state and relationship with the external environment [14,15,16,17]. On the other hand, self-acceptance refers to the proactive or voluntary embrace of one’s own self [18], encompassing both active and passive aspects [19,20,21]. Existing studies have revealed that self-awareness can directly impact mental health status through surveys conducted on adolescents and college students [22,23,24]. Similarly, self-acceptance has been considered integral to mental health [25], with a significant correlation with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety [26,27,28]. It is evident that self-awareness and self-acceptance exert great influence on mental health. Nevertheless, research on these aspects among pilots remains limited. Effective self-awareness and self-acceptance aid individuals in developing a positive mental attitude and enhancing their resilience to pressure. For pilots, cultivating strong self-awareness and -acceptance can also contribute to the more effective navigation of various challenges encountered during flights. As prospective pilots, flight cadets exhibit considerable potential for growth in technology, experience, and psychological quality. However, they may be susceptible to challenges in self-awareness and self-acceptance. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected their training and learning in recent years, alongside their physiological conditions, personality traits, and other personal factors. Consequently, we selected flight cadets as the subjects of this study. This study aims to assess the levels of self-awareness and self-acceptance among flight cadets using original self-awareness and self-acceptance scales, test the reliability and validity of the scales, and investigate the factors affecting these levels. The research questions include the folowing: (1) What is the reliability and validity of the scales? (2) What are the levels of self-awareness and self-acceptance among flight cadets? (3) Which factors significantly influence flight cadets’ self-awareness and self-acceptance? How does enhancing self-awareness and self-acceptance impact flight cadets’ mental health and flight safety? Subsequently, effective management measures were proposed to address existing issues. Through this research, we aim to provide innovative perspectives and foundations for enhancing the quality of flight cadets, ultimately enhancing flight safety. By addressing challenges from internal and external environments, we hope to enhance cadets’ working conditions and promote the development of the civil aviation industry.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
The original self-awareness scale and self-acceptance scale were used to conduct a cross-sectional survey among flight cadets, with data being collected through questionnaires. Item analysis as well as reliability and validity assessments were performed to refine the scales and ascertain the final items. According to the finalized scales and the acquired data, the self-awareness and self-acceptance levels among flight cadets in this study were analyzed.
The study employed a stratified sampling method to recruit flight cadets from Beihang University’s Flight School. To ensure the diversity of the flight cadet sample, the cadet population was divided into different groups based on grade (Class of 2018 and 2019) and aviation school location (in domestic and abroad). Grade reflects differences in training duration and experience among flight cadets, while aviation school location indicates variations in their training environments. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic is also a non-negligible factor, as it influenced the educational path of cadets in the Class of 2018. Participants were selected from each group proportionally to their representation in the total population. Given that the current pilot population is still predominantly male [29], the study focused exclusively on male flight cadets. The other inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) completed the business training and at least 200 flight hours; (2) age between 20 and 25. Participants were excluded if they were unable to accurately fill out fundamental information, complete the questionnaire items, or answer the questionnaire in a time less than or equal to 60 s. The data collected was conducted from August to September 2023.
2.2. Original Scales
The original self-awareness scale [30] and self-acceptance scale [31] selected in this study are both in Chinese and specifically designed for flight cadets, demonstrating their high level of pertinence and applicability. The construction of these scales involved a rigorous process, including literature review, Delphi method, and reliability and validity testing, ensuring their credibility. The self-awareness scale contains five dimensions: academic, physical, social, emotional, and psychological, with each dimension consisting of 6 items, totaling 30 items. The self-acceptance scale is composed of two dimensions: active and passive, each containing 12 items, for a total of 24 items. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale [32], with the following options and corresponding scores: completely inconsistent (1), basically inconsistent (2), uncertain (3), basically consistent (4), and completely consistent (5).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 and AMOS 26 software. Correlation analysis and independent sample t-test were employed to assess item differentiation, with differences considered statistically significant at p-value (p) < 0.05. The internal consistency of scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with values above 0.7 indicating satisfactory internal consistency [33]. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) encompasses the examination of convergent validity. Average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were used to evaluate the convergent validity of scales. Model fit was assessed using indices such as chi-square/degrees of freedom (CMIN/df), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
3. Results
3.1. Scale Optimization
3.1.1. Item Analysis
The total score of the scale was calculated and organized based on the participants’ responses. Item discrimination on the scale was assessed using the extreme value grouping method with a threshold of 27%. Table 1 presents the results of an independent sample t-test. It is evident that, except for Q5, Q6 and Q26 in the self-awareness scale, all items exhibited significant differences between the high-level and the low-level group (p < 0.01). Thus, questions 5, 6, and 26 should be deleted and the remaining questions retained. For the self-acceptance scale, significant differences were observed between the high and low levels of each item, leading to the retention of all items.
Furthermore, correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between each item, its respective dimension, and the total score of the scale, and the results are shown in Table 2. It can be observed that after the extreme value grouping method was employed, 27 items of the self-awareness scale and 24 items of the self-acceptance scale exhibited significant correlations with their corresponding dimensions. Notably, the correlation coefficients surpass 0.5, ranging from 0.501 to 0.911. Additionally, the correlation coefficients between the scores of each item in both scales and the total scores of their respective scales exceeded 0.3, ranging from 0.324 to 0.802. These findings indicate a significant correlation between the items of the scales and their total scores (p < 0.01). Consequently, the self-awareness scale retained 27 items, while the self-acceptance scale retained all 24 items. The finalized scales were described in Appendix A.
3.1.2. Reliability Analysis
As illustrated in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha values for the five dimensions of the self-awareness scale range from 0.753 to 0.892, while the whole scale had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.926. Regarding the self-acceptance scale, the values of Cronbach’s alpha for its two dimensions are 0.936 and 0.896, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the total scale is 0.954. Therefore, both scales exhibit satisfactory reliability.
3.1.3. Validity Analysis
Figure 1 illustrates the factor models generated for both scales. As shown in Table 4, the AVE values for the five dimensions of the self-awareness scale were 0.6720, 0.5876, 0.3465, 0.4016 and 0.4770, and the CR values were 0.8906, 0.8942, 0.7559, 0.7965, and 0.8101. The AVE values for the two dimensions of the self-acceptance scale were 0.5562 and 0.4390, and the CR values were 0.9373 and 0.9212. Generally, the convergent validity is considered satisfactory when the AVE value for each factor exceeds 0.5 and the CR value surpasses 0.7. According to Fornell and Larcker [34], an AVE between 0.36 and 0.5 is also acceptable. Consequently, both scales demonstrate acceptable performance in terms of convergent validity. Table 5 demonstrates the results of model fitting for two scales. According to the threshold requirements, the research data for both scales meet the evaluation criteria, demonstrating a satisfactory fitting effect. Therefore, both the self-awareness and self-acceptance scales exhibit acceptable validity.
3.2. Scale Survey Results
Based on the scales’ evaluation rules, the average factor score ranging from 4.5 to 5 was defined as being at an asymptomatic level. Factor scores falling between 3.5 and 4.5 indicated mild symptoms, while scores ranging from 2.5 to 3.5 indicated moderate symptoms. Factor scores of 1–2.5 was suggested severe symptoms. In addition, factor scores within the range of 1–3.5 were classified as positive samples, whereas scores exceeding this threshold were considered negative.
3.2.1. Characteristics of the Participants
A total of 106 flight cadets participated in the questionnaire survey, and 102 valid questionnaires were collected between August and September in 2023, see Table 6. Among all participants, there were 51 flight cadets from Class of 2018 and Class of 2019, respectively. The flight schools were evenly distributed between China (including 28 in Xinjiang, 16 in Sichuan, and 7 in Inner Mongolia) and abroad (including 19 in Australia and 32 in Canada).
3.2.2. Self-Awareness Level
Figure 2 presents the average scores of the five dimensions and the positive proportion in the self-awareness scale. The mean value of the academic self-awareness factor, which was only slightly below 4 points, showed a significant decrease compared to the other four factors, whereas the average scores of the remaining four factors did not vary significantly. Furthermore, the positive proportion of academic self-awareness factors was the highest at 35.3%, while for the other four dimensions, it ranged from 2.9% to 14.7%. It indicated that the surveyed civil aviation flight cadets exhibited poor academic self-awareness while demonstrating relatively strong and consistent levels of physical, social, emotional, and psychological self-awareness.
The comparison of self-awareness dimensions among flight cadets in different grades and aviation school locations is shown in Figure 3. Based on the findings presented in Figure 3a, it was apparent that, except for the physical self-awareness factor, senior pilots (Class of 2018) scored lower in the remaining four dimensions. This indicated that overall self-awareness among senior pilots was inferior to that of junior pilots (Class of 2019). Across all five dimensions, fight cadets with aviation school located in China obtained higher scores, suggesting that flight cadets from aviation schools located abroad were more susceptible to self-awareness problems. However, it is worth noting that there were no statistically significant differences in different grades and aviation school locations. Figure 3d further reveals that positive symptoms of the social self-awareness factor exclusively manifested among flight cadets who trained abroad, while the distribution characteristics of the other four factors in the sample remained relatively stable. This finding underscores the heightened susceptibility of flight cadets trained abroad to social self-awareness problems, emphasizing the importance of timely identification and intervention to maintain a healthy psychological state.
Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of scores across the five dimensions of the self-awareness scale, which are divided into symptomless, mild, moderate, and severe. It was evident that among the five factors, academic self-awareness was the only factor displaying severe symptoms, with a proportion of 2.9%. The proportion of moderate symptoms varied from 2.9% to 32.4%, with the highest proportion observed for academic self-awareness problems, followed by emotional self-awareness. In general, a high proportion of factors exhibited mild and symptomless factors (scores ranging from 3.5 to 5), suggesting that the self-awareness of most flight cadets was predominantly favorable.
3.2.3. Self-Acceptance Level
As depicted in Figure 5, no significant differences were observed between the average scores of active self-acceptance factor and passive self-acceptance factor, as both exceeded four points. This proved the relatively favorable levels of both active and passive aspects of self-acceptance among the surveyed cadets. Nevertheless, the active aspect displayed a higher proportion of 11.8% compared to the passive aspect.
Figure 6 presents a comparison of the scores and positive proportions in the two dimensions of self-acceptance scale among flight cadets of different grades and aviation school locations. Notably, the scores for each factor were extremely close to each other from the perspective of grade or location of aviation school. Statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant difference. In addition, as shown in Figure 6c,d, it was evident that flight cadets in lower grade levels and trained abroad exhibited a higher proportion of positive test results. This observation suggested that junior flight cadets and those trained abroad were more inclined to encounter self-acceptance issues.
As shown in Figure 7, neither of the two dimensions of the self-acceptance scale reflected severe symptoms. Active and passive self-acceptance demonstrated comparable rates of moderate symptoms. Consistent with the results from the self-awareness scale, the self-acceptance scale revealed a significant prevalence of mild and symptomless factors, suggesting that a majority of the pilot students have a good self-acceptance status.
4. Discussion
4.1. Evaluation of Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance Status
The self-awareness scale involves five dimensions, with the psychological factor selected as the dependent variable and the others as independent variables. Conversely, the self-acceptance scale contains only two dimensions: active and passive self-acceptance. We have chosen the active self-acceptance factor, which is more likely to present challenges for flight cadets (see results in Section 3.2.3), as the dependent variable for further analysis. Regression results are shown in Table 7. The tolerance for each factor is >0.1 and the VIF is <10 [37], indicating the absence of multicollinearity among the independent variables. Furthermore, residuals for both models exhibit a normal distribution.
The analysis reveals that the scores in the physical and emotional dimensions exhibit a predictive effect on the psychological dimension scores, accounting for 62% of the variance. However, the academic and social dimension scores have no significant impact on the psychological dimension scores. Notably, the physical and emotional dimension scores significantly influence the psychological dimension scores, particularly the emotional dimension score, with a coefficient of 0.526. Regarding the self-acceptance scale, passive self-acceptance explained 72% of the variation in active self-acceptance. The strong linear correlation between the two variables is evident, with a coefficient of 0.938.
The self-awareness and self-acceptance of flight cadets are influenced by many complicated factors, with certain relationships existing. Based on the above analysis, several conclusions can be drawn:
- (1)
- The self-awareness and self-acceptance levels of the pilot students are typically normal and stable, presenting challenges in directly identifying positive symptoms. As illustrated in Figure 8, the mean and median scores for each factor are above 3.5, with the interquartile range (IQR) falling between 0.5 and 1. This indicates that the majority of flight cadets exhibit a strong level of self-awareness and -acceptance. However, some flight cadets display moderate symptoms for each factor, and in the case of academic self-awareness (see Figure 4 and Figure 7), even severe symptoms, which could potentially impact their daily life and training performance.
- (2)
- The self-awareness and self-acceptance statuses of flight cadets differ across various aviation school locations. Pilot students trained abroad demonstrated poorer overall self-awareness and -acceptance levels compared to domestically trained cadets, as evidenced by lower scores and a higher prevalence of positive symptoms. Currently, both domestic and foreign aviation schools’ training systems are relatively well-established, as inferred from the variations in national circumstances and cadets’ adaptability to foreign environments. Language barriers also play a significant role that cannot be overlooked. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the training of flight cadets. Interviews with pilot students revealed that most domestic aviation schools have paid more attention to students’ mental health during the pandemic, whereas most foreign aviation schools have not prioritized this aspect. Consequently, disparities in training environments may influence the mental health status of flight cadets, thereby affecting their self-awareness and -acceptance levels.
- (3)
- The self-awareness and -acceptance levels of flight cadets do not significantly differ based on their grades, a result contrary to initial expectations. Previous studies have shown that for flight cadets in training, the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and flight training hours can greatly enhance their personal development. Enhanced proficiency in their work can boost their enthusiasm and improve their mental health, ultimately positively influencing their self-awareness and -acceptance status. Based on interviews with several participants, it has been revealed that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the flight training schedules of Class of 2018 flight cadets. As a result, students were faced with the pressure of training delay, theory exam expiration, graduation delay, and so on. It can be inferred that these factors may impact the self-awareness and -acceptance level of flight cadets, potentially leading to a lower-than-expected level of performance among Class of 2018 flight cadets.
4.2. Management Measures for Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance
After analyzing and identifying the self-awareness and self-acceptance levels among flight cadets, it is imperative to shift focus towards practical and effective solutions. In this section, we explore management measures and recommendations aimed at enhancing self-awareness and -acceptance levels of flight cadets.
Theoretical ground teaching is an essential part of the curriculum for flight cadets. However, a prevalent tendency among flight cadets is to excessively concentrate on acquiring flight-specific knowledge, potentially leading to a deficiency in their academic self-awareness. Implementing flight training effectively depends not solely on knowledge acquisition but also on the cultivation of robust mental well-being. Enhanced self-awareness and -acceptance among flight cadets lead to the more adept application of theoretical knowledge, a more positive attitude towards flying, and increased enthusiasm for the field. Therefore, we advocate for pilot students to broaden their comprehension of the aviation profession through diverse mediums such as the internet, literary resources, and other educational avenues. Concurrently, it is imperative to heighten consideration of students’ mental health status, ensuring safe and effective flight training. Furthermore, the aviation school should judiciously allocate learning and training schedules to alleviate students’ academic burdens.
Flight training exerts considerable physical demands on pilot students, escalating as they progress from basic to intermediate and advanced training modules, including specialized scenarios and nocturnal flight operations. Neglecting physical conditioning not only undermines flight proficiency but also impairs flight cadets’ self-awareness and -acceptance, thereby jeopardizing flight safety. Regression analysis has revealed a positive impact of physical and emotional self-awareness dimensions on the mental health dimension. Thus, we encourage flight cadets to intensify their physical fitness and cultivate healthy lifestyle habits to optimize their physical and mental well-being, thereby ensuring robust levels of self-awareness and -acceptance essential for the secure and effective execution of flight training.
Considering the challenges in identifying positive symptoms, we propose that flight cadets meticulously prepare before each flight and continuously monitor their mental health status. Comprehensive pre-flight preparations are indispensable for safe flight operations, significantly reducing accident probabilities and mitigating potential consequences. These preparations extend beyond understanding meteorological conditions, flight missions, and airport logistics to include an introspective assessment of one’s physical and mental state. Flight cadets must ascertain the compatibility of their physical and mental conditions with the demands of each flight, identifying any factors that may jeopardize flight safety. Simultaneously, the aviation school should strengthen communication with students and regularly assess their self-awareness and -acceptance levels. It is essential for aviation schools to establish psychological counseling departments or collaborate with relevant mental health institutions to provide highly targeted psychological support for students. This proactive approach not only facilitates accurate monitoring and intervention but also cultivates students’ ability to identify and address self-awareness and -acceptance issues autonomously. The virtuous circle formed by individuals and aviation schools can support flight cadets in maintaining robust levels of self-awareness and -acceptance, thereby ensuring the secure and effective execution of flight training.
Furthermore, we have identified that the training location significantly influenced the self-awareness and -acceptance abilities of pilot students. Linguistic, cultural, and environmental disparities constitute critical factors that cannot be overlooked, exacerbated by the profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on flight training. Accordingly, it is essential to strengthen the attention of flight cadets trained abroad, promptly identifying and addressing any challenges they encounter. Providing comprehensive care and support is imperative, requiring aviation schools to proactively organize collective activities, enriching students’ experiences and fostering a conducive training environment for their psychological well-being. These initiatives are instrumental in enhancing students’ self-awareness and -acceptance levels, thereby fortifying flight safety and efficacy.
4.3. Limitations and Future Research
Several imitations should be pointed out when interpreting the findings of this study and proposing future research. First, although the participants in the study come from various grades and training locations, it is notable that they all come from the same civil aviation flight college. As a result, the findings may not sufficiently represent diverse age groups and regions. Second, this study focuses solely on male flight cadets, which inevitably excludes female samples and thus lacks gender analysis. In addition, the limitations of cross-sectional survey hinder the exploration of long-term trends in flight cadets’ self-awareness and -acceptance levels. Therefore, future research endeavors can encompass more diverse samples of male and female flight cadets from various ages groups, regions, and aviation schools over an extended period. Such an approach would facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of flight cadets’ self-awareness and -acceptance levels, allowing for the formulation of more effective recommendations. Since the current study solely used subjective questionnaires to assess the psychological state of flight cadets, we hope to explore the combination of objective monitoring [38] and subjective questionnaires in future research to achieve a more comprehensive assessment.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the self-awareness scale and self-acceptance scale were used to evaluate flight cadets. The aim was to examine the reliability and validity of the scales and gain a comprehensive understanding of the self-awareness and self-acceptance levels among flight cadets. The main findings include the following.
- (1)
- The original scales underwent optimization, with three items removed from the original self-awareness scale, while the self-acceptance scale remained unchanged. Both obtained scales demonstrated an acceptable level of reliability and validity.
- (2)
- The overall self-awareness and -acceptance levels among flight cadets appeared to be within the normal range; however, the direct detection of positive symptoms proved challenging. The tested flight cadets exhibited moderate symptoms across each factor, with instances of severe symptoms in academic self-awareness.
- (3)
- The self-awareness and -acceptance levels of flight cadets differed among various aviation school locations, with those trained abroad exhibiting inferior performance compared to their domestic counterparts. Interestingly, this phenomenon was not reflected in grade difference.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.M., X.C. and Y.S. (Yunze Shi); methodology, Y.S. (Yuan Shi), and X.C.; software, D.M.; validation, B.Z. and Y.S. (Yunze Shi); formal analysis, D.M.; investigation, Y.S. (Yuan Shi); resources, X.C.; data curation, D.M. and B.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, D.M. and Y.S. (Yuan Shi); writing—review and editing, D.M., X.C. and B.Z.; visualization, D.M.; supervision, X.C.; project administration, X.C. and Y.S. (Yunze Shi); funding acquisition, X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number YWF-23-SDHK-L-013).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the participants involved in the questionnaire survey.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, including “Completely Inconsistent” (1), “Basically Inconsistent” (2), “Uncertain” (3), “Basically Consistent” (4), and “Completely Consistent” (5). Please select the corresponding rating for each item.
Table A1.
The finalized items of the self-awareness scale and self-acceptance scale.
| Scales | Items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 1. Self-awareness | Q1. I have a clear understanding of my learning status. | |||||
| Q2. I readily accept new theoretical knowledge. | ||||||
| Q3. I excel at applying theoretical knowledge learned to practical flying. | ||||||
| Q4. I frequently review newly acquired theoretical knowledge. | ||||||
| Q5. My physical health is excellent. | ||||||
| Q6. I pay close attention to my physical health condition. | ||||||
| Q7. I can perceive the aircraft’s status during flight with my body. | ||||||
| Q8. I do not experience any discomforting physical reactions during flight. | ||||||
| Q9. I dare to confront health issues and never hide or evade them. | ||||||
| Q10. I believe my physical condition is suitable for flying. | ||||||
| Q11. I am not adept at handling interpersonal relationships, and my relationships with people around me (family, instructors, classmates) are poor. | ||||||
| Q12. People around me (family, instructors, classmates) are indifferent and show little concern towards me. | ||||||
| Q13. I do not derive any satisfaction from my group. | ||||||
| Q14. When facing difficulties, I do not seek help from anyone. | ||||||
| Q15. No one offers assistance when I encounter issues during my flight. | ||||||
| Q16. I play no role in the team and am dispensable. | ||||||
| Q17. I have good emotional management. | ||||||
| Q18. I remain calm during flights, without feeling nervous or excited. | ||||||
| Q19. I feel anxious if the progress of the flight is slowed down by certain factors. | ||||||
| Q20. I humbly accept criticism from teachers and instructors without feeling irritated. | ||||||
| Q21. I remain calm when facing problems during flight that I cannot solve on my own and never lose control. | ||||||
| Q22. I am sensitive to changes in my emotions. | ||||||
| Q23. My psychological resilience is strong. | ||||||
| Q24. I have confidence in my flying skills and do not doubt myself. | ||||||
| Q25. I feel afraid and powerless when flying. | ||||||
| Q26. I do not dwell on my mistakes and can move forward. | ||||||
| Q27. I believe I can determine my own destiny. | ||||||
| 2. Self-acceptance | Q1. I have a clear understanding of my role as a flight cadet. | |||||
| Q2. I am clear about my goals and responsibilities. | ||||||
| Q3. I am very confident in my flying skills. | ||||||
| Q4. I feel satisfied when playing my role in the team. | ||||||
| Q5. I appreciate the various characteristics I possess. | ||||||
| Q6. I am satisfied with myself when I make progress compared to the previous stage. | ||||||
| Q7. I am satisfied that I can always overcome various difficulties. | ||||||
| Q8. When praised or appreciated by others, I am satisfied with myself. | ||||||
| Q9. I feel satisfied with my body and appearance. | ||||||
| Q10. I can see my own worth in life. | ||||||
| Q11. I am satisfied with my learning ability. | ||||||
| Q12. I feel that my communication skills are strong. | ||||||
| Q13. I acknowledge that I have some flaws and shortcomings. | ||||||
| Q14. I acknowledge the mistakes I make in flying and never hide them. | ||||||
| Q15. I do not give up on myself when I feel inadequate. | ||||||
| Q16. I appreciate it when others give me advice and point out my weaknesses. | ||||||
| Q17. I acknowledge that I sometimes have unhealthy thoughts. | ||||||
| Q18. I am not worried that others will reject me because of my flaws. | ||||||
| Q19. I accept that sometimes my low efficiency at work may affect others. | ||||||
| Q20. I am willing to show my flaws to others. | ||||||
| Q21. I am willing to admit to the mistakes I have made. | ||||||
| Q22. I accept that my body and appearance are not perfect. | ||||||
| Q23. I am never worried about receiving criticism or correction from others. | ||||||
| Q24. I do not deny myself because of some failures and mistakes. |
References
- Shappell, S.; Detwiler, C.; Holcomb, K.; Hackworth, C.; Boquet, A.; Wiegmann, D.A. Human Error and Commercial Aviation Accidents: An Analysis Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Hum. Factors 2007, 49, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kharoufah, H.; Murray, J.; Baxter, G.; Wild, G. A Review of Human Factors Causations in Commercial Air Transport Accidents and Incidents: From to 2000–2016. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2018, 99, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cahill, J.; Cullen, P.; Anwer, S.; Wilson, S.; Gaynor, K. Pilot Work Related Stress (WRS), Effects on Wellbeing and Mental Health, and Coping Methods. Int. J. Aerosp. Psychol. 2021, 31, 87–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cahill, J.; Cullen, P.; Gaynor, K. Interventions to Support the Management of Work-Related Stress (WRS) and Wellbeing/Mental Health Issues for Commercial Pilots. Cogn. Technol. Work. 2020, 22, 517–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, A.C.; Donnelly-McLay, D.; Weisskopf, M.G.; McNeely, E.; Betancourt, T.S.; Allen, J.G. Airplane Pilot Mental Health and Suicidal Thoughts: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study via Anonymous Web-Based Survey. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadler, K. The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 on Pilot Mental Health and Wellbeing–Quarantine Experiences. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 66, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, F.; Li, X.; Yang, J. Investigation of Pilots’ Mental Health and Analysis of Influencing Factors in China: Based on Structural Equation Model. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Q.; Wu, Y.; Ji, M.; Wang, M.; Pan, C.; Ma, J.; You, X. Proactive Coping and Mental Health Among Airline Pilots During China’s Regular Prevention and Control of COVID-19: The Role of Perceived Stress and Social Support. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 890145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, Y.; Ji, M.; You, X.; Huang, J. Protective Effects of Emotional Intelligence and Proactive Coping on Civil Pilots’ Mental Health. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2017, 88, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, S.; Wang, L. Effects of Mental Workload and Risk Perception on Pilots’ Safety Performance in Adverse Weather Contexts. In Proceedings of the Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Cognition and Design; Harris, D., Li, W.-C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 278–291. [Google Scholar]
- Hubbard, T.; Bor, R. (Eds.) Aviation Mental Health: Psychological Implications for Air Transportation; Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.: Farnham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Pasha, T.; Stokes, P.R.A. Reflecting on the Germanwings Disaster: A Systematic Review of Depression and Suicide in Commercial Airline Pilots. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 9, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeHoff, M.C.; Cusick, S.K. Mental Health in Commercial Aviation-Depression & Anxiety of Pilots. Int. J. Aviat. Aeronaut. Aerosp. 2018, 5, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shavelson, R.J.; Hubner, J.J.; Stanton, G.C. Self-Concept: Validation of Construct Interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res. 1976, 46, 407–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harter, S. The Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Gift. Child Q. 1988, 1, 100–116. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, T.D.; Dunn, E.W. Self-Knowledge: Its Limits, Value, and Potential for Improvement. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2004, 55, 493–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, G.; Hu, B. The Development of Mental Health-Related Self Scale. Stud. Psychol. Behav. 2006, 4, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, J.C.; Lynn, S.J. Acceptance: An Historical and Conceptual Review. Imagin. Cogn. Personal. 2010, 30, 5–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, M.E. (Ed.) The Strength of Self-Acceptance: Theory, Practice and Research; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4614-6805-9. [Google Scholar]
- Aykut Ceyhan, A.; Ceyhan, E. Investigation of University Students’ Self-Acceptance and Learned Resourcefulness: A Longitudinal Study. High. Educ. 2011, 61, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, Q.-N.; Shen, G.-H.; Yang, J.-S.; Yan, W.-J. The Interplay of Self-Acceptance, Social Comparison and Attributional Style in Adolescent Mental Health: Cross-Sectional Study. BJPsych Open 2023, 9, e202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Liu, T.; Wei, G.; Chen, X. The Relationship between Self-Concept and Mental Health among Chinese College Students: The Mediating Effect of Social Adjusting. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 4, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilman, R.; Huebner, E.S. Characteristics of Adolescents Who Report Very High Life Satisfaction. J. Youth Adolesc. 2006, 35, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, Y.-G.; Lin, C.-D.; Pang, Y.-S.; Ding, L.; Gan, X.-Y. The Development Characteristic of Adolescents’ Social Adaptive Behavior. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2008, 40, 1013–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neff, K. Self-Compassion: An Alternative Conceptualization of a Healthy Attitude Toward Oneself. Self Identity 2003, 2, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowislo, J.F.; Orth, U. Does Low Self-Esteem Predict Depression and Anxiety? A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139, 213–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Wu, R.; Wu, J.; Yang, Q.; Zheng, S.; Wu, K. Psychological Resilience, Self-Acceptance, Perceived Social Support and Their Associations with Mental Health of Incarcerated Offenders in China. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 52, 102166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanghvi, D.E.; Zainal, N.H.; Newman, M.G. Trait Self-Acceptance Mediates Parental Childhood Abuse Predicting Depression and Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood. J. Anxiety Disord. 2023, 94, 102673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WAI. Current Statistics of Women in Aviation Careers in U.S. Available online: https://www.wai.org/industry-stats## (accessed on 24 May 2024).
- Luo, X.; Tian, M.; Tang, Y.; Zhan, Y. Compilation of Self-Cognition Scale for Civil Aviation Flight Students. Sci. Technol. Vis. 2021, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, X.; Zhan, Y.; Tang, Y.; Tian, M. Compilation of Self-Acceptance Scale for Civil Aviation Flight Students. Mod. Comput. 2021, 24–28+36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; Pal, D. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. BJAST 2015, 7, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Cronbach’s Alpha. BMJ 1997, 314, 572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Midi, H.; Sarkar, S.K.; Rana, S. Collinearity Diagnostics of Binary Logistic Regression Model. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2010, 13, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamantini, C.; Cordella, F.; Tagliamonte, N.L.; Pecoraro, I.; Pisotta, I.; Bigioni, A.; Tamburella, F.; Lorusso, M.; Molinari, M.; Zollo, L. A Data-Driven Fuzzy Logic Method for Psychophysiological Assessment: An Application to Exoskeleton-Assisted Walking. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2024, 6, 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Confirmative factor analysis results: (a) self-awareness scale; (b) self-acceptance scale.
Figure 1.
Confirmative factor analysis results: (a) self-awareness scale; (b) self-acceptance scale.
Figure 2.
Self-awareness factor scores and proportion of positive samples.
Figure 3.
Self-awareness factor scores and proportion of positive samples across different grades and training school locations: (a) average factor score of self-awareness for Class of 2018 and 2019; (b) average factor score of self-awareness in domestic and abroad; (c) average factor positive proportion of self-awareness for Class of 2018 and 2019; (d) average factor positive proportion of self-awareness in domestic and abroad.
Figure 3.
Self-awareness factor scores and proportion of positive samples across different grades and training school locations: (a) average factor score of self-awareness for Class of 2018 and 2019; (b) average factor score of self-awareness in domestic and abroad; (c) average factor positive proportion of self-awareness for Class of 2018 and 2019; (d) average factor positive proportion of self-awareness in domestic and abroad.
Figure 4.
Percentages of self-awareness factor symptom levels.
Figure 5.
Self-acceptance factor scores and proportion of positive samples.
Figure 6.
Self-acceptance factor scores and the proportion of positive samples across different grades and training school locations: (a) average factor score of self-acceptance for the Classes of 2018 and 2019; (b) average factor score of self-acceptance in domestic and abroad; (c) average factor positive proportion of self-acceptance for the Classes of 2018 and 2019; (d) average factor positive proportion of self-acceptance in domestic and abroad.
Figure 6.
Self-acceptance factor scores and the proportion of positive samples across different grades and training school locations: (a) average factor score of self-acceptance for the Classes of 2018 and 2019; (b) average factor score of self-acceptance in domestic and abroad; (c) average factor positive proportion of self-acceptance for the Classes of 2018 and 2019; (d) average factor positive proportion of self-acceptance in domestic and abroad.
Figure 7.
Percentages of self-acceptance factor symptom levels.
Figure 8.
Box plots of factor scores: (a) self-awareness; (b) self-acceptance.
Table 1.
The results of the independent samples t-test.
| Scales | Items | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-awareness | Q1 | 6.454 | 0.000 ** |
| Q2 | 6.494 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q3 | 8.714 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q4 | 6.278 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q5 | 1.542 | 0.129 | |
| Q6 | 1.121 | 0.267 | |
| Q7 | 6.069 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q8 | 5.381 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q9 | 5.135 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q10 | 6.022 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q11 | 8.187 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q12 | 8.448 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q13 | 6.424 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q14 | 3.249 | 0.002 ** | |
| Q15 | 6.228 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q16 | 3.251 | 0.002 ** | |
| Q17 | 3.200 | 0.002 ** | |
| Q18 | 5.461 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q19 | 9.042 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q20 | 7.139 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q21 | 5.178 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q22 | 7.036 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q23 | 9.264 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q24 | 5.552 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q25 | 11.703 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q26 | 0.658 | 0.513 | |
| Q27 | 12.561 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q28 | 3.833 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q29 | 9.999 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q30 | 9.205 | 0.000 ** | |
| 2. Self-acceptance | Q1 | 4.978 | 0.000 ** |
| Q2 | 5.925 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q3 | 7.128 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q4 | 8.322 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q5 | 6.935 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q6 | 8.079 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q7 | 9.554 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q8 | 4.727 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q9 | 5.464 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q10 | 8.397 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q11 | 9.965 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q12 | 10.386 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q13 | 5.093 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q14 | 5.461 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q15 | 6.786 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q16 | 5.487 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q17 | 3.643 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q18 | 6.975 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q19 | 7.238 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q20 | 8.072 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q21 | 8.889 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q22 | 7.731 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q23 | 7.601 | 0.000 ** | |
| Q24 | 6.278 | 0.000 ** |
** p < 0.01.
Table 2.
Item-total correlations and item–dimension correlations.
| Scales | Items | Item-Dimension Correlations | Item-Total Correlations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-awareness | Q1 | 0.857 ** | 0.582 ** |
| Q2 | 0.911 ** | 0.626 ** | |
| Q3 | 0.844 ** | 0.721 ** | |
| Q4 | 0.841 ** | 0.573 ** | |
| Q7 | 0.764 ** | 0.628 ** | |
| Q8 | 0.788 ** | 0.591 ** | |
| Q9 | 0.798 ** | 0.584 ** | |
| Q10 | 0.799 ** | 0.613 ** | |
| Q11 | 0.851 ** | 0.674 ** | |
| Q12 | 0.856 ** | 0.712 ** | |
| Q13 | 0.649 ** | 0.518 ** | |
| Q14 | 0.533 ** | 0.324 ** | |
| Q15 | 0.783 ** | 0.527 ** | |
| Q16 | 0.670 ** | 0.424 ** | |
| Q17 | 0.674 ** | 0.398 ** | |
| Q18 | 0.687 ** | 0.541 ** | |
| Q19 | 0.730 ** | 0.648 ** | |
| Q20 | 0.710 ** | 0.597 ** | |
| Q21 | 0.622 ** | 0.477 ** | |
| Q22 | 0.699 ** | 0.580 ** | |
| Q23 | 0.756 ** | 0.707 ** | |
| Q24 | 0.720 ** | 0.537 ** | |
| Q25 | 0.833 ** | 0.780 ** | |
| Q27 | 0.841 ** | 0.731 ** | |
| Q28 | 0.501 ** | 0.326 ** | |
| Q29 | 0.773 ** | 0.677 ** | |
| Q30 | 0.790 ** | 0.644 ** | |
| 2. Self-acceptance | Q1 | 0.770 ** | 0.720 ** |
| Q2 | 0.763 ** | 0.715 ** | |
| Q3 | 0.825 ** | 0.766 ** | |
| Q4 | 0.823 ** | 0.802 ** | |
| Q5 | 0.831 ** | 0.801 ** | |
| Q6 | 0.812 ** | 0.758 ** | |
| Q7 | 0.794 ** | 0.787 ** | |
| Q8 | 0.647 ** | 0.631 ** | |
| Q9 | 0.738 ** | 0.720 ** | |
| Q10 | 0.716 ** | 0.736 ** | |
| Q11 | 0.742 ** | 0.718 ** | |
| Q12 | 0.737 ** | 0.724 ** | |
| Q13 | 0.554 ** | 0.568 ** | |
| Q14 | 0.649 ** | 0.665 ** | |
| Q15 | 0.717 ** | 0.711 ** | |
| Q16 | 0.715 ** | 0.663 ** | |
| Q17 | 0.483 ** | 0.428 ** | |
| Q18 | 0.714 ** | 0.673 ** | |
| Q19 | 0.687 ** | 0.594 ** | |
| Q20 | 0.687 ** | 0.658 ** | |
| Q21 | 0.808 ** | 0.774 ** | |
| Q22 | 0.762 ** | 0.717 ** | |
| Q23 | 0.747 ** | 0.740 ** | |
| Q24 | 0.726 ** | 0.726 ** |
** p < 0.01.
Table 3.
The reliability of the scales and each dimension.
| Scales | Dimensions | Number of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-awareness | Academic | 4 | 0.879 |
| Physical | 6 | 0.892 | |
| Social | 6 | 0.753 | |
| Emotional | 6 | 0.795 | |
| Psychological | 5 | 0.815 | |
| Total scale | 27 | 0.926 | |
| 2. Self-acceptance | Active | 12 | 0.936 |
| Passive | 12 | 0.896 | |
| Total scale | 24 | 0.954 |
Table 4.
Confirmative index of convergent validity for the two scales.
| Scales | Items | Dimensions | Estimate | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-awareness | Q1 | Academic | 0.802 | 0.6720 | 0.8906 |
| Q2 | Academic | 0.918 | |||
| Q3 | Academic | 0.818 | |||
| Q4 | Academic | 0.730 | |||
| Q7 | Physical | 0.680 | 0.5876 | 0.8942 | |
| Q8 | Physical | 0.690 | |||
| Q9 | Physical | 0.722 | |||
| Q10 | Physical | 0.737 | |||
| Q11 | Physical | 0.865 | |||
| Q12 | Physical | 0.880 | |||
| Q13 | Social | 0.610 | 0.3465 | 0.7559 | |
| Q14 | Social | 0.411 | |||
| Q15 | Social | 0.735 | |||
| Q16 | Social | 0.582 | |||
| Q17 | Social | 0.549 | |||
| Q18 | Social | 0.598 | |||
| Q19 | Emotional | 0.752 | 0.4016 | 0.7965 | |
| Q20 | Emotional | 0.636 | |||
| Q21 | Emotional | 0.457 | |||
| Q22 | Emotional | 0.573 | |||
| Q23 | Emotional | 0.757 | |||
| Q24 | Emotional | 0.574 | |||
| Q25 | Psychological | 0.851 | 0.4770 | 0.8101 | |
| Q27 | Psychological | 0.778 | |||
| Q28 | Psychological | 0.340 | |||
| Q29 | Psychological | 0.690 | |||
| Q30 | Psychological | 0.681 | |||
| 2. Self-acceptance | Q1 | Active | 0.754 | 0.5562 | 0.9373 |
| Q2 | Active | 0.742 | |||
| Q3 | Active | 0.799 | |||
| Q4 | Active | 0.814 | |||
| Q5 | Active | 0.816 | |||
| Q6 | Active | 0.788 | |||
| Q7 | Active | 0.793 | |||
| Q8 | Active | 0.616 | |||
| Q9 | Active | 0.693 | |||
| Q10 | Active | 0.708 | |||
| Q11 | Active | 0.697 | |||
| Q12 | Active | 0.701 | |||
| Q13 | Passive | 0.516 | 0.4390 | 0.9012 | |
| Q14 | Passive | 0.651 | |||
| Q15 | Passive | 0.707 | |||
| Q16 | Passive | 0.672 | |||
| Q17 | Passive | 0.367 | |||
| Q18 | Passive | 0.675 | |||
| Q19 | Passive | 0.584 | |||
| Q20 | Passive | 0.649 | |||
| Q21 | Passive | 0.798 | |||
| Q22 | Passive | 0.730 | |||
| Q23 | Passive | 0.742 | |||
| Q24 | Passive | 0.744 |
Table 5.
The results of model fitting for the two scales.
| Model/Threshold | CMIN/df | CFI | FII | TLI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-awareness model | 1.446 | 0.894 | 0.897 | 0.882 | 0.066 |
| Self-acceptance model | 1.866 | 0.857 | 0.860 | 0.843 | 0.093 |
| Threshold [35,36] | <3 good; <5 sometimes permissible | >0.95 great; >0.90 traditional; >0.80 sometimes permissible | >0.95 great; >0.90 traditional; >0.80 sometimes permissible | >0.95 great; >0.90 traditional; >0.80 sometimes permissible | <0.05 good; 0.05–0.10 moderate; >0.10 bad |
Table 6.
Personal characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Total number of subjects (valid) | 102 |
| Gender | Male (100%) |
| Class | Class of 2018 (50%); Class of 2019 (50%) |
| Flight training location | In domestic (50%); Abroad (50%) |
Table 7.
The results of multiple regression analysis (n = 102).
| Scales | Variable | Estimate | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-awareness | Constant | −0.003 | 0.993 |
| Academic | 0.113 | 0.060 | |
| Physical | 0.178 | 0.039 * | |
| Social | 0.191 | 0.066 | |
| Emotional | 0.526 | <0.001 ** | |
| 2. Self-acceptance | Constant | 0.246 | 0.179 |
| Passive | 0.059 | <0.001 ** |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
MDPI and ACS Style
Miao, D.; Cao, X.; Zhao, B.; Shi, Y.; Shi, Y. Exploring the Psychological Well-Being of Flight Cadets through a Comprehensive Survey Analysis of Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance. Aerospace 2024, 11, 441. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11060441
AMA Style
Miao D, Cao X, Zhao B, Shi Y, Shi Y. Exploring the Psychological Well-Being of Flight Cadets through a Comprehensive Survey Analysis of Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance. Aerospace. 2024; 11(6):441. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11060441
Chicago/Turabian StyleMiao, Dan, Xiaodong Cao, Bingxu Zhao, Yuan Shi, and Yunze Shi. 2024. "Exploring the Psychological Well-Being of Flight Cadets through a Comprehensive Survey Analysis of Self-Awareness and Self-Acceptance" Aerospace 11, no. 6: 441. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace11060441
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
