Examining the Relationships Among Self-Efficacy,Coping,and Job Satisfaction Using Social Career Cognitive Theory

Abstract

Using a social cognitive career theory perspective, the relationships among self-efficacy, coping styles, and job satisfaction were examined in a sample of 314 nurses employed in regional hospitals in Taiwan. Results indicated that self-efficacy was positively associated with problem-focused coping style and job satisfaction and negatively associated with emotion-focused coping. The influence of self-efficacy on job satisfaction was indirect and partially mediated by coping styles. Psychologists and health care managers may use these findings to design relevant intervention programs to enhance nurses’ coping effectiveness and self-efficacy.

Keywords

job satisfaction self-efficacy coping nurses SCCT

The high turnover rate and the worldwide shortage of nurses are threatening the quality of health care distribution and nursing allocation in many countries (Hsu & Kernohan, 2006; McNeely, 2005). Lu, Lin, Wu, Hsieh, and Chang (2002) reported that 30.4% of nurses indicated that job dissatisfaction was the key factor for leaving the nursing profession. Likewise, nurses with higher levels of job satisfaction are more likely to remain in their current health care position (Chang, Li, Wu, & Wang, 2010; Steel, 2002; ). Job satisfaction is not only a core concept used to understand retention and turnover but also a critical variable connected to organizational effectiveness, employee absenteeism, and commitment (Cowin, 2002; Irvine & Evans, 1995; Siu, 2002; Tourangeau & Cranley, 2006). Because of the profound implications for both individuals and organizations (Hurley, 2005; Yin & Yang, 2002), job satisfaction has been one of the most examined constructs in vocational behavior research over the past two decades.

Numerous factors influence the job satisfaction of nurses, including salary (Tzeng, 2002), relationships with coworkers (Nolan, Nolan, & Grant, 1995), organizational commitment (Yin & Yang, 2002), and job tasks themselves (Adams & Bond, 2000; Price, 2002). However, most of the research related to job satisfaction has not been based on a theoretical framework that might further explain interrelationships among factors linked with job satisfaction. Moreover, the majority of job satisfaction studies have been focused on relatively uncontrollable factors (e.g., salary), rather than on factors that individuals can take the initiative to change. In the current study, we used a social cognitive career theory (SCCT) framework to examine factors associated with nurses’ job satisfaction. We targeted personally modifiable factors related to nurses’ job satisfaction, including self-efficacy and coping style.

SCCT Model of Job Satisfaction

SCCT posits that links between social cognitive variables (e.g., self-efficacy), person input (e.g., personality), goal-related behaviors, and contextual factors all contribute to job outcomes (e.g., satisfaction; Lent, Brown, & Hackett 1994; Lent & Brown, 2006, 2008) and can be considered as integrative model of job satisfaction that consists of all theoretically relevant constructs. Among an array of constructs related to job satisfaction from the SCCT model, we mainly focused on the social cognitive and goal-related aspects of self-efficacy and coping in this study for two important reasons. First, self-efficacy and coping are two constructs that may be more amenable to change compared with personality and organizational work conditions. Further understanding about the specific relationships between self-efficacy, coping, and job satisfaction can be used to design feasible interventions and strategies for nurses. Moreover, self-efficacy and coping have been considered as important indicators that can be modified through relevant counseling and managerial interventions. Second, substantial research has investigated external or environmental factors (e.g., work conditions) contributing to job satisfaction, but research involving individual-level factors is relatively few. By focusing on intrapersonal factors, we will be able to better explain why individuals in similar work environments experience differing levels of satisfaction. Therefore, in this current study, we planned to use the SCCT as our theoretical foundation with focusing on these two important constructs related to job satisfaction.

Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction

According to SCCT theory (Lent & Brown, 2008), self-efficacy is a central concept describing an individual’s beliefs about his or her basic capacity to achieve and usually is assessed as one’s self-appraisal of competence to successfully deal with job demands. In the nursing profession, self-efficacy is regarded as a key factor directly affecting patient outcome and influencing job satisfaction (Aiken, Clarke, Sloane, Sochalski, & Silber, 2002). Individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to take an active approach when confronted with stressful work conditions and to implement solutions compared with individuals who have lower levels of self-efficacy (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Parker, 1994). Higher self-efficacy also has been associated with higher job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001) and lower turnover intentions (Zellars, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles, & Kiewitz, 2001). In other words, nurses who believe in their ability to handle job demands cope more effectively with stress (Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and are more content in their jobs. Therefore, given the fact that nursing is a highly demanding profession, self-efficacy is a particularly important construct related to nurses’ confidence in their work (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Judge & Bono, 2001).

Coping and Job Satisfaction

According to the SCCT model of job satisfaction, progress toward goals, which define a person’s pursuit of specific outcomes and performance levels (Lent et al., 1994), is directly linked to job satisfaction. Lent and Brown (2006) proposed that goal-directed behavior can consist of participation in goals, goal setting, being committed to one’s goal, as well as progress at goal-directed activity. In this study, we used the concept of coping to represent the construct of goal-directed behavior, with emphasis on progress at goal-directed behaviors. Coping can be viewed as an individual’s effort to control, avoid, or confront in a given situation (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987). Therefore, coping can be viewed as both effort and progress toward a given task (i.e., goal). Folkman and Lazarus (1988) described two main coping categories that serve as prototypes for research: problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.

Problem-focused coping involves active efforts to solve a problem or change a difficult situation, which is similar to goal-oriented behaviors. When using a problem-focused coping approach, individuals tend to examine causal relationships, make plans, take action, and adapt to stressful situations by acting directly on themselves or the environment (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Individuals engaged in active goal-oriented behavior demonstrate an adaptive response pattern where they persist and consistently engage in solution-finding behaviors (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Having a goal orientation that is active and focused on learning is associated with mastery and self-improvement (Vandewalle, 1997). From this perspective, problem-focused coping is parallel to active goal-directed behavior.

Emotion-focused coping, in contrast, does not directly change the problem or situation but is an effort to regulate emotions. When using an emotion-focused coping approach, individuals tend to have an emotional response (e.g., distress, denial, avoidance, or suppressions) with less emphasis on systematically evaluating alternative solutions. Individuals with maladaptive goal orientation behavior often demonstrate withdrawing behaviors and avoid threatening situations (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), which is parallel to the concept of emotion-focused coping.

For example, in a stressful work setting such as a hospital, nurses who use a problem-focused coping approach when facing a difficult task are more likely to search for solutions, becoming more resourceful for their patients and organizations. However, nurses who use an emotion-focused coping approach may avoid engaging in solution-exploration activities or procrastinate during the decision-making process by denying or suppressing their feelings. As a result, nurses who primarily rely on emotion-focused coping may experience more negative emotions and may have lower job satisfaction. In general, current research has indicated a strong relationship between coping styles and workplace well-being (e.g., job satisfaction). Active coping (i.e., problem-focused coping) is associated with positive outcomes related to work, including more positive interpretations and explanations for workplace stress (Welbourne, Eggerth, Hartley, Andrew, & Sanchez, 2007), better physical health and well-being (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1994; Park & Adler, 2003), and higher job satisfaction (Dewe, Cox, & Ferguson, 1993; Welbourne et al., 2007). Conversely, emotion-focused coping is negatively linked with job satisfaction and can result in higher levels of psychological disturbance (Healy & McKay, 2000).

Coping Style and Self-Efficacy

Past research has supported a link between coping style and self-efficacy (Lefebvrea et al., 1999). For example, Stumpf, Brief, and Hartman (1987) reported that self-efficacy expectations had a significant negative effect on emotion-focused coping and a positive correlation with active coping. Similarly, Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, and Primeau (2001) reported that self-efficacy was positively associated with problem-focused coping but negatively associated with emotion-focused coping. In a most general sense, problem-focused coping was positively correlated with self-efficacy and emotion-focused coping was negatively correlated with self-efficacy. For example, individuals who believe they have the capacity to deal effectively in stressful situations are more likely to directly confront problems in an adaptive way, whereas individuals who are not confident when faced with stress are more likely to be overwhelmed by negative emotions that prevent them from taking steps toward problem resolution. In the current literature, the role of coping has been acknowledged as a mediator between encountered stress/perceived sense of control and life/work adjustment outcomes (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). For example, Healy and Mckay (2000) reported that coping served as a mediator between stress and experienced job satisfaction in a sample of nurses. Given the important function of coping in affecting work and life outcomes, we will examine the mediating effect of coping between efficacy and job satisfaction to further explore important theoretical connections and to offer managerial interventions accordingly.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine whether coping mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction in a sample of Taiwanese nurses using a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. Based on the SCCT framework presented previously, it was hypothesized that problem-focused and emotion-focused coping styles would function as mediators such that higher levels of self-efficacy and problem-focused coping would be related to higher job satisfaction. In contrast, higher levels of emotion-focused coping would be related to lower levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A convenience sample with sampling frame nurses from different medical units in two regional hospitals in northern Taiwan was used. Our sample included nurses from two regional hospitals who served community patients in the given northern area of Taiwan. The period of collecting data was from May 2009 to June 2009. The study was approved by the hospital ethical committees. All participants were informed that their involvement was vulnerary and they could withdraw from the study at any point in time without incurring a penalty. Permission was obtained from the directors of nursing to enter the hospitals for collecting data. Since participants were drawn from two hospitals, we conducted t-test among the examined constructs by these two hospital sites. We did not find significant differences between these two groups and decided to merge data for further analysis. Participants were 314 nurses who volunteered to participate (89% return rate). Thus, 99% of the sample was female (n = 312), with 54.5% (n = 171) aged between 21 and 30 years old, 37.9% (n = 119) aged between 31 and 40 years old, and 52.9% (n = 166) of the nurses were married. Years of work experiences ranged from 1 to 340 months, with an average of 104.52 months (8.71 years, standard deviation= 72.76 months).

Measures

Coping style

Coping style was measured using the Problem-Focused Style of Coping scale (PF-SOC; Heppner, Cook, Wright, & Johnson, 1995). The PF-SOC is an 18-item 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = almost never to 5 = almost all of the time) that assesses an individuals’ general style of coping. The PF-SOC consists of three subscales: the Reflective Style (7 items, score ranging from 7 to 35), the Suppressive Style (6 items, score ranging from 6 to 30), and the Reactive Style (5 items, score ranging from 5 to 25). The reflective style is considered a problem-focused approach in that an individual examines causal relationships and plans for action; the suppressive and reactive styles are both considered emotion-focused approaches in that suppressive style is a tendency to deny problems and avoid coping activities and the reactive style is a tendency to have strong emotional and distorted response. We used item parcel from the reflective scale to represent problem-focused coping and item parcels of the suppressive and reactive scales to represent emotion-focused coping in the hypothesized model (Little, Cunningham, Sharhar, & Widaman, 2002). In this study, we used the Chinese version of PF-SOC validated by Chang (2011). The PF-SOC’s reliability has been supported by coefficient αs ranging from .73 to .77. In this study, Cronbach’s αs of the PF-SOC three subscales were .79, .82, and .70, respectively.

Self-efficacy

The Chinese General Self-efficacy Scale (CGSS; Zhang & Schwarzer, 1995) was used to assess self-efficacy. The CGSS is aimed at measuring a broad and stable sense of personal competence to deal efficiently with a variety of stressful situations. The CGSS is a 10-item measure (total score ranging from 1 to 40) using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = agree a little to 4 = agree very much). Internal reliability coefficients ranged from .76 to .90 across 23 nations. In this study, the Cronbach’s α of the CGSS was .89.

Job satisfaction

The Job Satisfaction of Nurse Aides–Chinese version (JS-NA; Yeh, 2003) was used to assess the job satisfaction among nurses. It was developed on the job satisfaction survey (Spector, 1985) using nurse aides as a sampling population to initially establish its reliability and validity in Taiwan and has been used for studies with registered nurses. The JS-NA items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = almost never” to “5 = almost all of the time. It consists of six subscales: Money (5 items), People Interaction (4 items), Organization (4 items), Independence (3 items), Self-Assertiveness (3 items), and Job Task (4 items). Yeh (2003) reported an α of .88 for overall job satisfaction, with αs for the subscales ranging from .60 to .83. The score of total job satisfaction ranges from 23 to 115, with higher score indicating greater job satisfaction. In this study, the subscale α ranges from .74 to .90 and the overall job satisfaction Cronbach’s α was .92.

Data Analysis

Power analysis

Sample sizes were determined by estimating the statistical power necessary to assess 14 observed variables in structural modeling. Setting significance at α = .01 with a large effect size and power of .80, the required sample size was 243 (Cohen, 1988). The final sample was 314, which fulfilled this statistical requirement.

Item parceling

Item parceling (see Figures 1 and 2) was used to construct the measurement models for two reasons. First, because coping and self-efficacy were measured by Chinese versions developed for Western cultures, parceling could provide more stable factor solutions compared to item-level data (Little et al., 2002). Second, MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong (1999) suggest that parceled solutions can be expected to provide better fits to models than original unexamined subscale factors because they have fewer parameters to estimate and the chances for residuals to be correlated are therefore fewer. Eight parcels (i.e., three parcels for measuring self-efficacy, three parcels for measuring emotion-focused coping, and two parcels for measuring problem-focused coping) were created for the study constructs in this study to reduce inflated measurement errors. Parcels were created based on the rule of item-to-construct balance by adding highest and lowest factor loadings as a set (Little et al., 2002; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). The constructs for which item-parceling techniques were used in the hypothesized model were mostly unidimensional in nature; therefore, some commonly controversial pitfalls of item parceling that may misrepresent factor model were not a major concern in this study. In addition, we did not use item parcels for the construct of job satisfaction because it is a multidimensional construct that can be well represented by the original six subscales.

Figure 1.
Structural model (Model A) relating self-efficacy and job satisfaction: problem-focused coping as a mediator.

Figure 2.
Structural model (Model B) relating self-efficacy and job satisfaction: emotion-focused coping as a mediator.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 17.0, all variables of interest were examined for accuracy of data entry, missing values, normality of distributions, and multivariate outliers. The descriptive data and zero-order correlations for the 14 measured variables from the PF-SOC, JS-NA, and CGSS are presented in Table 1. In addition, we have conducted spearman’s correlation among the demographic variables, job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and coping and only years of working experiences showed a low correlation with self-efficacy (r = .168). Given that the influence of demographic variables has demonstrated minimal effect on the examined constructs, we decided not to include them as the exogenous variables in the SEM analyses.

Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Observed Variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. SE 1 10.27 1.53 – .65 .67 .12 .16 −.34 −.35 −.28 .15 .23 .22 .27 .33 .23

2. SE 2 9.93 1.55 – .82 .11 .11 −.21 −.23 −.25 .16 .26 .31 .25 .37 .27

3. SE 3 13.65 2.02 – .14 .14 −.27 −.35 −.34 .17 .29 .27 .30 .40 .28

4. PC1 7.37 1.74 – .67 −.16 −.09 −.22 .01 .11 .14 .21 .16 .11

5. PC2 7.78 1.56 – −.10 .01 −.03 −.04 .19 .14 .25 .22 .10

6. EC1 4.10 1.14 – .56 .52 −.14 −.24 −.15 −.31 −.28 −.18

7. EC2 3.75 1.17 – .61 −.19 −.27 −.18 −.32 −.30 −.11

8. EC3 3.60 1.12 – −.13 −.23 −.20 −.29 −.31 −.15

9. J1 10.72 2.58 – .44 .56 .31 .44 .29

10. J2 17.21 2.85 – .63 .64 .60 .44

11. J3 15.95 2.98 – .59 .64 .53

12. J4 13.74 2.07 – .66 .50

13. J5 17.13 3.06 – .64

14. J6 15.40 2.41 –

Note. N = 314. SD = standard deviation. SE1-3 = self-efficacy parcels 1 to 3; PC1-2 = problem-focused coping parcels 1 to 2; EC1-3=emotion-focused coping parcels 1 to 3; J1-J6 = job satisfaction subscales. Bivariate coefficients are statistically significant at p < .01.

SEM Analyses

SEM was used to test the hypothesized relationships among the latent variables of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and coping styles. We used the maximum likelihood estimation procedures of AMOS 5.0 to confirm the latent variable measurement models using the following indicators recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996), and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) to assess goodness-of-fit model : comparative fit index (CFI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90–.95 indicating an acceptable fit), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; .05 or below indicating excellent fit, .05–.08 indicating an acceptable fit), goodness-of-the-fit index (GFI; .95 or above indicating excellent fit, .90–.95 indicating an acceptable fit), χ² significance test as well as the ratio of χ² and degree of freedom (a value less than 3).

Measurement model

The indices for the measurement models (A and B) indicated a good fit: Model A, χ²(41, N = 314) = 115.48; CFI = .96; GFI = .94; RMSEA = .07, p < .01, and Model B, χ²(62, N = 314) = 164.60; CFI = .95; GFI = .92; RMSEA = .07, p < .01. It is noted that although the χ² statistics reported the null hypothesis in the measurement model was rejected (showing significant), χ² statistics are known to be sensitive to sample size and have been reported as a general problem in SEM (Kline, 2005). In other words, the χ² statistic may be significant even though differences between observed and model-implied covariance are slight. Therefore, we adapted other fit indices that are not affected by sample size including of GFI, CFI, and RMSEA to further evaluate the model fit. Moreover, all the factor loadings of the measured variables were significant (p < .01), indicating that the latent variables were adequately represented by the observed variables. Therefore, we considered our measurement models present a good fit and used the proposed measurement models to examine the theoretical structural models.

Structural model

For model A (see Table 2; the problem-focused mediation model), the fit indices indicated a good fit: χ²(41, N = 314) = 115.48, p < .01; CFI = .96; GFI = .94; RMSEA = .08. Also, self-efficacy positively predicted problem-focused coping style (β = .17, p < .01) and job satisfaction (β = .41, p < .001). Problem-focused coping style positively predicted job satisfaction (β = .18, p < .01; see Figure 1). In addition, 23.8% of the variance was accounted for by this model. For Model B (the emotion-focused mediation model), the fit indices indicated a good fit as well: χ²(62, N = 314) = 168.77, p < .01; CFI = .95; GFI = .92; RMSEA = .07. Self-efficacy negatively predicted emotion-focused coping (β =−.42, p < .001), and positively predicted job satisfaction (β = .32, p < .001). Emotion-focused coping style negatively predicted job satisfaction (β = −.25, p < .001). In addition, 29.7% of the variance was accounted for by this model.

Table 2.
Summary of Data Model Fit Statistics for Structural Models.

Model/indexes χ² df Sig. χ²/df RMSEA CFI GFI

Model A 115.48 41 0.00 2.82 .08 .96 .94

Model A1 160.77 42 0.00 3.83 .09 .93 .92

Model B 168.77 62 0.00 2.72 .07 .95 .92

Model B1 193.21 63 0.00 3.07 .08 .94 .91

Note. N = 314. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index. Model A = problem-focused partially mediating model; Model A1 = problem-focused fully mediating model; Model B = emotion-focused partially mediating model; Model B1 = emotion-focused fully mediating model.

Mediation analysis

According to Holmbeck’s (1997) meditational testing procedure, in Models A and B, the paths among (a) self-efficacy to job satisfaction, (b) self-efficacy to coping, and (c) coping to job satisfaction were determined to be significant, which fulfilled the requirements for further testing of mediation effects. We next compared two models to determine whether the fully mediated or the partially mediated model offered a better fit to the data. There were significant differences between two models: Δχ²(1, N = 314) = 45.29/24.44, respectively, p < .01). Thus, in both Models A and B, the partially mediated model fits the data best, indicating that self-efficacy affected job satisfaction both directly and indirectly through problem-focused and emotion-focused coping.

Discussion

This study was conducted with the two purposes of (a) examining the relationships among self-efficacy, coping style, and job satisfaction from an SCCT perspective and (b) testing the mediating effect of both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping styles. Nurses with higher levels of self-efficacy and problem-focused coping had higher levels of job satisfaction. In contrast, nurses with lower levels of self-efficacy and greater levels of emotion-focused coping had lower levels of job satisfaction. In both models, self-efficacy affected job satisfaction both directly and indirectly through coping style. It is worth noting that although coping and job satisfaction have attracted considerable research attention in the past two decades, surprisingly, there is little consensus on the role of coping serving as a mediator or moderator. To our knowledge, the finding of this investigation has been one of the very few studies that soundly supported both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping served as mediators in relation to job satisfaction and expands the current understanding on this issue. In particular, the effect of self-efficacy on emotion-focused coping demonstrated stronger effect, indicating further intervention should be targeted. By confirming the role of coping, health care managers can design relevant management inventions to enhance job satisfaction on the basis of solid research findings with more confidence.

The positive relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction was soundly supported. That is, higher self-efficacy was associated with higher job satisfaction. It is probable that nurses with higher self-efficacy have more confidence that helps them handle problems more effectively (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Schwarzer, 1992). As a result, they may be more likely to achieve desirable goals that can lead to a greater sense of accomplishment and, thus, greater satisfaction with their jobs (Lent & Brown, 2008). In a stressful work environment, such as a hospital setting, having confidence in one’s ability to confront challenging situation appears to be paramount to workplace well-being.

Next, the relationship between coping and job satisfaction was supported as in previous studies (Welbourne et al., 2007). Problem-focused coping was positively associated with job satisfaction, and emotion-focused coping was negatively associated with job satisfaction among these nurses. Results suggest that those who use problem-focused coping are more likely to face problems directly and use available resources to solve problems. They are less likely to ruminate on feelings that may prevent them from taking practical action. By using adaptive coping, nurses have a greater chance of problem resolution and positive outcomes that could facilitate increased feelings of job satisfaction (Carmona, Buunk, Dijkstra, & Peiró, 2008; Gellis, 2002; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). On the other hand, nurses who utilize emotion-focused coping may spend most of their time focusing on negative emotions or avoid solving problems directly. Consequently, stressful situations are not resolved, which could lead to greater frustration in the workplace and feelings of lower job satisfaction.

With regard to the relationship between self-efficacy and coping, the results of this study suggest that nurses with higher self-efficacy are less likely to use emotion-focused coping and more likely to use problem-focused coping. Moreover, the values of Chinese culture may play an important role when making interpretation of results on self-efficacy and coping in our findings. As compared to the Western culture, Chinese culture emphasizes collectivism, emotional restraint, and indirect help-seeking behaviors when faced with challenges (Sue & Sue, 2003). In the context of Chinese organizations, individuals who have experienced low sense of personal control (i.e., self-efficacy) may be more likely to use emotion-focused coping in that inhibition of emotion is considered as an acceptable cultural norm. Therefore, nurses need to be actively instructed and educated that this manner of coping can be problematic in association with dealing with stress and work demands with negative consequences in a long run.

Next, coping served as a mediator between self-efficacy and job satisfaction, which is supported by previous literature. Lefebvrea and his colleagues (1999) also reported that self-efficacy was significantly related to coping style, suggesting that nurses with greater self-affirming attitudes (i.e., higher self-efficacy) expect positive outcomes in stressful situations and are therefore more willing to explore and use active coping approaches when faced with difficulties. On the other hand, nurses with lower self-efficacy, who are not feeling confident about themselves, may become more passive in their coping. It is also possible that nurses perceive the hospital environment as unchangeable but utilize problem-focused coping to make a positive difference in their work environment (LeSergent & Haney, 2005).

Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for psychologists, counselors, and nurses. First and foremost, the findings add to the current understanding of the importance of the associations between self-efficacy, coping, and job satisfaction, affirming the use of SCCT as a theoretical foundation for examining variables related to job satisfaction. It is exciting that findings from the present study also advance the use of the SCCT model in occupational groups and can serve as a guide for identifying and examining relevant job satisfaction variables and interrelationships among variables. Another reason the present findings advance the use of the SSCT model is that we examined coping as a domain of goal-directed behavior that allows us to make more targeted recommendations for nurses. For example, psychologists are encouraged to conduct stress management programs for nurses in a hospital setting where nurses can learn more problem-focused coping strategies. Nurses who understand adaptive coping techniques will be able to better confront conflict and stress, which can enhance feelings of workplace well-being. Furthermore, we suggest incorporating programs and evaluative feedback designed to increase self-efficacy within the existing systems. For example, psychologists can collaborate with nurses to identify their areas of strength and performance goals, which will serve to boost confidence and enhance motivation.

Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations in the present study that should be kept in mind when trying to understand the findings. First, although it is an advantage to conduct research with sampling from the currently employed nurses as compared to a convenient sampling of college students, the participants were primarily Chinese in Southeastern Asia area. Therefore, future research should include diverse ethnic and occupational groups to improve the generalizability of the findings and more broadly understand the applications of the SCCT outside the nursing field. Second, we used of the construct of coping to represent goal-directed behaviors because coping is instrumental in making progress toward goals. Coping is traditionally viewed as a modifiable characteristic that can be improved through counseling and education. However, examining how other goal-directed measures are related to job satisfaction would be a fruitful area for further research. Finally, testing of mediation analyses may present biased estimates if variables that cause both the mediator and the outcome are not considered in the model (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). It is possible that the association between the mediator (i.e., coping) and the outcome (i.e., job satisfaction) is due to a third variable not identified in the present model. Also, we only examined self-efficacy and coping in this study and other variables contributing to job satisfaction need to be acknowledged in the future research. Despite these limitations, the findings contribute to understanding factors associated with nurse job satisfaction using a theoretical framework.

Conclusion

In summary, this study is an important step toward expanding understanding of personally modifiable factors related to job satisfaction, factors that individuals can take the initiative to change. Moreover, the findings further validate use of the SCCT model in the health care context and confirm the importance of one’s self-efficacy and coping in relation to job satisfaction. Relevant administrators and managers are advised to offer preventive stress management into the workplace so that nurses can learn effective problem-focused coping behaviors.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. SE 1	10.27	1.53	–	.65	.67	.12	.16	−.34	−.35	−.28	.15	.23	.22	.27	.33	.23
2. SE 2	9.93	1.55		–	.82	.11	.11	−.21	−.23	−.25	.16	.26	.31	.25	.37	.27
3. SE 3	13.65	2.02			–	.14	.14	−.27	−.35	−.34	.17	.29	.27	.30	.40	.28
4. PC1	7.37	1.74				–	.67	−.16	−.09	−.22	.01	.11	.14	.21	.16	.11
5. PC2	7.78	1.56					–	−.10	.01	−.03	−.04	.19	.14	.25	.22	.10
6. EC1	4.10	1.14						–	.56	.52	−.14	−.24	−.15	−.31	−.28	−.18
7. EC2	3.75	1.17							–	.61	−.19	−.27	−.18	−.32	−.30	−.11
8. EC3	3.60	1.12								–	−.13	−.23	−.20	−.29	−.31	−.15
9. J1	10.72	2.58									–	.44	.56	.31	.44	.29
10. J2	17.21	2.85										–	.63	.64	.60	.44
11. J3	15.95	2.98											–	.59	.64	.53
12. J4	13.74	2.07												–	.66	.50
13. J5	17.13	3.06													–	.64
14. J6	15.40	2.41														–

Model/indexes	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	GFI
Model A	115.48	41	2.82	.08	.96	.94
Model A1	160.77	42	3.83	.09	.93	.92
Model B	168.77	62	2.72	.07	.95	.92
Model B1	193.21	63	3.07	.08	.94	.91

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

Bond

(2000). Hospital nurses’ job satisfaction, individual and organizational characteristics. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 536–543.

Aiken

L. H.

Clarke

S. P.

Sloane

D. M.

Sochalski

Silber

J. H.

(2002). Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and job dissatisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1987–1993.

Aldwin

C. M.

Revenson

T. A.

(1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation of coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337–348.

Carmona

Buunk

A. P.

Dijkstra

Peiró

J. M.

(2008). The relationship between goal orientation, social comparison responses, self-efficacy, and performance. European Psychologist, 13, 188–196.

Chang

(2011). Psychometric validity of the Problem-Focused Style of Coping (PF-SOC) scale: In relation to self-efficacy and life satisfaction among nursing staff in Taiwan. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 1625–1631.

Chang

H-H.

C. M.

Wang

P. C.

(2010). The influence of personality traits on nurses’ job satisfaction in Taiwan. International Nursing Review, 57, 478–484.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cowin

(2002). The effects of nurses job satisfaction on retention: An Australian perspective. Journal of Nursing Administration, 32, 283–291.

Dewe

Cox

Ferguson

(1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: A review. Work & Stress, 7, 5–15.

10.

Elliott

E. S.

Dweck

C. S.

(1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

11.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170.

12.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466–475.

13.

Folkman

Moskowitz

(2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55, 647–654.

14.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barron

K. E.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.

15.

Frydenberg

Lewis

(1994). Coping with different concerns: Consistency and variations in coping strategies used by adolescents. Australian Psychologist, 29, 45–48.

16.

Gellis

Z. D.

(2002). Coping with occupational stress in healthcare: A comparison of social workers and nurses. Administration in Social Work, 26, 37–52.

17.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

18.

Healy

McKay

(2000). Nursing stress: The effects of coping strategies and job satisfaction in a sample of Australian nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 681–688.

19.

Heppner

P. P.

Cook

S. W.

Wright

D. M.

Johnson

C. J.

(1995). Progress in resolving problems: A problem-focused style of coping. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 279–293.

20.

Holmbeck

G. N.

(1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.

21.

Hsu

Kernohan

(2006). Dimensions of hospital nurses’ quality of working life. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 120–131.

22.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

23.

Hurley

(2005). A Rogerian exploration of nurse managers experience of job satisfaction, stress, and power. Visions, 13, 12–26.

24.

Irvine

Evans

(1995). Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: Integrating research findings across studies. Nursing Research, 44, 246–253.

25.

Jex

S. M.

Bliese

P. D.

Buzzell

Primeau

(2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain relations: Coping style as an exploratory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401–409.

26.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

27.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling [2nd ed.]. New York: Guilford Press.

28.

Landis

R. S.

Beal

D. J.

Tesluk

P. E.

(2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207.

29.

Lefebvrea

J. C.

Keefe

F. J.

Affleck

Raezerc

L. B.

Starr

Caldwell

D. S.

Tennen

(1999). The relationship of arthritis self-efficacy to daily pain, daily mood, and daily pain coping in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Pain, 80, 425–435.

30.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2006). Integrating person and situation perspetives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 236–247.

31.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2008). Social cognitive career theory and subjective well-being in the context of work. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 6–21.

32.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

33.

LeSergent

Haney

(2005). Rural hospital nurse's stressors and coping strategies: A survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 315–325.

34.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

35.

K. Y.

Lin

P. L.

C. M.

Hsieh

Y. L.

Chang

Y. Y.

(2002). The relationship among turnover intentions, professional commitment, and job satisfaction of hospital nurses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18, 214–219.

36.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

37.

MacCallum

R. C.

Widaman

K. F.

Zhang

Hong

(1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

38.

McNeely

(2005). The consequences of job stress for nurses’ health: Time for a check-up. Nursing Outlook, 53, 291–299.

39.

Nolan

Grant

(1995). Maintaining nurses’ job satisfaction and morale. British Journal of Nursing, 4, 1148–1154.

40.

Park

Adler

(2003). Coping style as a predictor of health and well-being across the first year of medical school. Health Psychology, 22, 627–631.

41.

Parker

(1994). Working together: Perceived self- and collective efficacy at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 47–59.

42.

Price

(2002). Job satisfaction of registered nurses working in an acute hospital. British Journal of Nursing 11, 275–280.

43.

Schwarzer

(1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In Schwarzer

(Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217–242). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

44.

Siu

O. L.

(2002). Predictors of job satisfaction and absenteeism in two samples of Hong Kong nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 218–229.

45.

Spector

P. E.

(1985). Measuring of human service staff satisfaction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713.

46.

Steel

R. P.

(2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of Management Review, 27, 346–360.

47.

Stumpf

S. A.

Brief

A. P.

Hartman

(1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91–108.

48.

Sue

D. W.

Sue

(2003). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

49.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

50.

Tourangeau

A. E.

Cranley

L. A.

(2006). Nurse intention to remain employed: Understanding and strengthening determinants. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55, 497–509.

51.

Tzeng

H. M.

(2002). The influence of nurses' working motivation and job satisfaction on intention to quit: An empirical investigation in Taiwan. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 867–878.

52.

Vandewalle

(1997). Developing and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.

53.

Welbourne

J. L.

Eggerth

Hartley

Andrew

M. E.

Sanchez

(2007). Coping strategies in the workplace: Relationships with attributional style and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 312–325.

54.

Yeh

S. C.

(2003). Nurse aides job satisfaction in long-term care facilities. Show Chwan Medical Journal, 4, 11–21.

55.

Yin

J. T.

Yang

K. A.

(2002). Nursing turnover in Taiwan: A meta-analysis of related factors. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 573–581.

56.

Zellars

K. L.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Perrewe

P. L.

Miles

A. K.

Kiewitz

(2001). Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 483–499.

57.

Zhang

J. X.

Schwarzer

(1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. Psychologia, 38, 174–181.