International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / lo cate / i jed u res

The social cognitive model of job satisfaction among teachers:Testing and validation

Masood A. Badri a,*, Jihad Mohaidat c,1, Vincent Ferrandino b,2, Tarek El Mourad c,3

a Abu Dhabi Education Council, Research and Planning, PO Box 36005, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emiratesb Abu Dhabi Education Council, Office of School Operations, PO Box 36005, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emiratesc Abu Dhabi Education Council, Office of Strategic Affairs, PO Box 36005, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 25 April 2012

Received in revised form 30 October 2012

Accepted 31 October 2012

Available online 5 December 2012

Keywords:

Teacher satisfaction

Social cognitive theory

Abu Dhabi

Structural equations model

A B S T R A C T

The study empirically tests an integrative model of work satisfaction (Lent & Brown, 2006;

Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008; Lent et al., 2011) in a sample of 5,022

teachers in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The study provided more support for the

Lent and Brown (2006) model. Results revealed that this model was a strong fit for the data

and accounted for 82% of the variance in work satisfaction. Of the five predictor classes, work

conditions, goal progress, and positive affect were each found to explain unique predictive

variance. This suggests that teachers who are most satisfied with their jobs see their work

environment as supportive, experience positive goal progress, and report high levels of trait

positive affect. Self-efficacy was related indirectly to work satisfaction (via work conditions

and via goal progress). Goal support was also related indirectly to work satisfaction (via work

conditions, and via self efficacy, but through goal progress. Implications of the findings for

future research and efforts to promote teachers’ job satisfaction in Abu Dhabi are discussed.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and review

A rich body of existing research examines the factors that may explain or predict teacher job satisfaction (Ilies & Judge,2003; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Lent et al., 2005). Most have developed models thatincorporate key predictors. However, the key components of these models vary, and may include combinations of person–environment fit (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990),personality and affect (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Judge, Erez, et al., 2002; Judge & Larsen, 2001), work characteristics (Brief &Weiss, 2002; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), expectations (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964), and various perceptions such asself-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control (Brown, Ryan, & McPartland, 1996; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge, Erez,et al., 2002).

Based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive framework, Lent and Brown (2006) proposed a theory of job satisfaction thatcombines many of these components into a unified, empirically testable model (Fig. 1). The Lent and Brown (2006) modelcomprises five classes of predictor variables:Personality/affective traits.Participation in/progress at goal-directedactivities.Self-efficacy expectations.Work conditions.Environmental supports and obstacles.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 50 6430434.

E-mail addresses: Masood.Badri@adec.ac.ae (M.A. Badri), Jihad.Mohaidat@adec.ac.ae (J. Mohaidat), vincent.ferrandino@adec.ac.ae (V. Ferrandino),

Tarek.Elmourad@adec.ac.ae (T. El Mourad).1 Tel.: +971 50 6148831.2 Tel.: +971 50 6149568.3 Tel.: +971 50 6294855.

0883-0355/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.007

Positive

Affect

Goal

Support

Self

Efficacy

Work

conditions

Goal

ProgressWork

Satisfaction

Fig. 1. Lent and Brown’s (2006) model of work satisfaction.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 13

The model is based on the assumption that people are likely to be generally satisfied with their jobs when 5 situations (orconditions) exist:they feel competent to perform their major work tasks or attain their work goals (self-efficacy),they areexposed to (or expect to receive) favorable work conditions,they perceive that they are making progress at personallyrelevant work goals,they receive support for their goals and self-efficacy, andthey possess traits that predispose them toexperience positive affect in most life situations.

Lent and Brown (2006) also note that job satisfaction is assumed to be reciprocally related to general life satisfaction. Inaddition to their direct links to job satisfaction, the model posits various paths among the precursors of job satisfaction.

The present study tests the validity of Lent and Brown’s (2006) model in a particular sample of teachers, determines theutility of each predictor variable, and, on the basis of those results, proposes suggestions. Specifically, this study examinesLent and Brown’s (2006; Lent et al., 2011; Lent, Taveira, & Lobo, in press) model using a sample of employed teachers in AbuDhabi schools. The pioneering work of Lent and Brown (2006) has received considerable attention in the West, but has neverbefore been tested in other environments such as Abu Dhabi.

1.1. Predicting satisfaction among teachers

Teacher job satisfaction has been the focus of considerable research (De Nobile, 2003; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005;Dinham & Scott, 1998, 2000; Luthans, 2002; Singh & Billingsley, 1996; Spector, 1997). Research indicates that schoolteachers experience burnout, decreased job satisfaction (e.g., Cano-Garcia, Padilla-Munoz, & Carrasco-Ortiz, 2005; Hakanen,Bakker, & Jokisaari, 2011; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Other studies focused on certain job resources such asworkload, students’ behavior, parent–teacher relationship, cooperation with colleagues, support from the school leadership,and autonomy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). In many empirical studies, teacher job satisfaction has been related to emotionalexhaustion, job demands, control over one’s work environment, school type, stress, tenure, competence, organizationalculture, demographic variables (age, sex, class grade taught, subject taught, type of school, nationality, pay related factors)and social support (Badri & El Mourad, 2011; Chan, 2002; McDonald, 1999; Van Houtte, 2006). Most of these studiesprovided linear, descriptive, and exploratory methods of analysis.

Several studies attempted to provide more structural models of teacher satisfaction in different contexts. Each such studyexamined a structural form of different constructs and predictors. These predictors included teacher experience, grade leveltaught, and teacher stress (Malik, Mueller, & Meinke, 1991); self-efficacy, gender, experience, and stress (Klassen & Chiu,2010); positive affect and self-efficacy (Moe, Pazzaglia, & Ronconi, 2010); school context and burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik,2009); motivation, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion (Skaalvik & Skalvik, 2011); self-efficacy beliefs andstudent academic achievement (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006); organizational values, teachers’ feelings,sense of community, and discipline (Pang, 1996); and commitment, intention to stay, race, sex, and training (Culver, Wolfle,& Cross, 1992).

Relating directly to the present study, several previous studies examined teacher satisfaction in the context of socialcognitive theory (Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent & Brown, 2006; Lent et al., 2011, in press).

1.2. Most recent studies of social cognitive model and job satisfaction

Lent (2008) focused on the development of integrative models on the basis of the assumption that job satisfaction wasprobably determined by the interplay among multiple factors.

The Lent, Nota, et al. (2011) study tested a social cognitive model of work and life satisfaction (Lent & Brown, 2006) in asample of 235 Italian school teachers. The model offered good overall fit to the data, though not all individual pathcoefficients were significant. Three of five predictors (favorable work conditions, efficacy-relevant supports, and positive

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2414

affectivity) produced significant, direct paths to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction, progress toward personal work goals, andpositive affectivity were predictive of teachers’ life satisfaction. Task self-efficacy was related indirectly to both jobsatisfaction (via work conditions) and life satisfaction (via goal progress). The study discussed findings’ implications forfuture research and efforts to promote teacher job satisfaction.

1.3. The social cognitive model and relationships

Previous research has found each of these five predictor classes related to satisfaction within the work domain, or otherclosely related domains. To assess personality/affect, Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) measure positive affect at a traitlevel, finding a moderate to strong relation between positive affect and job satisfaction, which suggests that individuals whogenerally experience more positive emotion are more likely to be satisfied at work. Many authors found positive andnegative affect to correlate with job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Ilies & Judge, 2003; Judge & Ilies, 2004;Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003).

Many authors focused on the work domain and suggested that having goals at work serves as a motivating force and thusincreases work performance and satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005;Lent, 2004; Locke & Latham, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2001). These authors concluded that work-related goal progress appears tomoderately to strongly correlate with job satisfaction and that progressing toward goals seems more important thansimply having them. The Lent and Brown (2006) model suggested that positively progressing toward work-related goalsleads to increased job satisfaction. Other studies supported this conclusion (Maier & Brunstein, 2001; Wiese & Freund,2005).

A central component of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and Lent, Brown, & Hackett’s (1994) social cognitivecareer theory is self-efficacy. Other studies have also found that generalized self-efficacy relates to job satisfaction (Judge &Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2005; Judge, Erez, et al., 2002; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Judge, Heller, et al., 2002). Lentand Brown (2006) proposed that the link between self-efficacy and job satisfaction is most pronounced when self-efficacy ismeasured in job or goal-specific terms. They also noted that very little empirical research had linked work-related goals ortask self-efficacy to job satisfaction. Several studies found that teachers’ beliefs in their abilities to successfully completeteaching-related work activities correlated positively with job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003;Chen, Goddard, & Casper, 2004). These few studies suggested a moderate to strong correlation between domain-specific taskand goal self-efficacy and domain satisfaction.

Lent (2008) proposed that the degree to which employees feel supported by their work organization is an importantcomponent of the work environment. He proposed that work conditions include a variety of components, two of which areperceived work-related fit and perceived organizational support. Cable and DeRue (2002) have proposed two general typesof work-related fit: needs/supplies fit and person/occupation fit. The needs/supply fit pertains to congruence between anemployee’s needs and work rewards, and person/occupation fit pertains to the congruence between an employee’s valuesand the organizational culture (Cable & DeRue, 2002). They found that both these fit indices correlated with job satisfaction.Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) explored the relation of these fit indices to job satisfaction, finding that the needs/supply fitcorrelates with job satisfaction, which suggested that the fit of individuals’ needs and values to their work environment maycorrelate moderately to strongly with job satisfaction. In sum, work-related fit is hypothesized to be a latent factor ofperceived work conditions, where individuals who feel a fit with their work environment and feel supported by theirorganization report higher job satisfaction.

The final component of Lent and Brown’s (2006) job satisfaction model, environmental supports and obstacles, concernsthe degree to which one receives support versus barriers from others in relation to his/her work goals and self-efficacy. Theyhypothesized that support relates to these variables and increases job satisfaction. They added that this component of themodel is the most tentative, as no previous research has specifically examined work-related goal support and social cognitiveoutcomes. However, several studies (e.g., Babin & Boles, 1996; Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan, & Schwartz, 2002)have related general work support received from coworkers, supervisors, family members, and friends to job satisfaction.Others (Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Singley, Sheu, Schmidt, & Schmidt, 2007) have related goal support in non-work domains (e.g.,academic, social) to satisfaction.

In addition to the direct paths proposed between the predictors and job satisfaction, the Lent and Brown (2006) modelproposed a network of relationships among the predictor variables. In their review, Duffy and Lent (2009) provided detailsof all the links and references to studies that supported these links. Table 1 summarizes the studies that tested the variouslinks.

Duffy and Lent (2009) tested Lent and Brown’s (2006) model in a sample of 366 teachers in Italy, finding good overallmodel-data fit. Of the five predictor classes, work conditions, self-efficacy, and positive affect were each found to explainunique predictive variance. They noted that teachers who are most satisfied with their jobs see their work environment assupportive, are confident in their abilities to complete work-related tasks and goals, and report high levels of trait positiveaffect. Their findings also supported the contention that measures of subjective person–environment fit may not beempirically distinct from job satisfaction. They further noted that their study involved a sample of teachers from one schoolsystem, who were mostly White and female, experienced favorable working conditions, and tended to be highly satisfiedwith their jobs. They also recommended further validation of the model required because such sample characteristicsrendered the findings’ generalizability uncertain for other, more diverse samples of teachers.

Table 1

Links between model components and background.

From Toa References Nature of relationships

Positive affect Work related

self efficacy

Ilies and Judge (2003), Judge and Ilies (2004), Connolly and

Viswesvaran (2000), Watson et al. (1988), Judge and Ilies (2004),

Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent et al. (2005), Caprara and Steca (2006),

Judge and Ilies (2004), and Lent and Brown (2006)

Moderate to strong

relations

Positive affect Goad support Thoresen et al. (2003), Wong, Cheuk, and Rosen (2000),

Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent et al. (2005),

Lakey and Scoboria (2005), Swanson and Power (2001),

Wong et al. (2000), and Lent and Brown (2006)

Weak to moderate

relations

Work related

self efficacy

Goal progress Lent and Brown (2006), Judge et al. (2005), Maier and Brunstein (2001),

Locke and Latham (1990), Diener, Suh, Lucas, and Smith (1999),

Wiese and Freund (2005), Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt,

and Hooker (1994), Caprara and

Steca (2006), Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent et al. (2005), Lent et al. (2007),

Wiese and Freund (2005), and Lent and Brown (2006)

Strong relations

Goal support work-related

self-efficacy

Wiese and Freund (2005), Lubbers, Loughlin, and Zweig (2005),

Brunstein et al. (1996), Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent et al. (2001,

2003, 2005, 2007), and Lent and Brown (2006)

Moderate relations

Goal support Goal progress Lakey and Scoboria (2005), Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000), Judge,

Erez, et al. (2002), Judge, Heller, et al. (2002), Duffy and Lent (2009),

Lent (2004), Lent and Brown (2006), and Maier and Brunstein (2001)

Moderate to strong

relations

Work-related

self-efficacy

Work conditions Judge et al. (2005), Caprara et al. (2003), Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent

and Brown (2006), Lent (2008), Lent et al. (2007), Judge, Erez, et al. (2002),

Judge, Heller, et al. (2002), Judge et al. (2003), Judge and Bono (2001),

Caprara et al. (2003), and Chen et al. (2004)

Weak to strong

relations

Goal progress Work conditions Ryan and Deci (2001), Judge and Bono (2001), Brief and Weiss (2002),

Duffy and Lent (2009), Lent and Brown (2006), Lent (2008),

Lent et al. (2007), and Cable and DeRue (2002)

Weak to strong

relations

Goal support Work conditions Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp (2006), Duffy and

Lent (2009), Lent and Brown (2006), Lent (2008), Lent et al. (2007),

Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002),

and Cable and DeRue (2002)

Weak to strong

relations

a The (from to effect) might be direct or through other variables. Some of these studies are empirical, and some conceptual but provide support for the

proposed relationship.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 15

1.4. The Abu Dhabi context

The nature of Abu Dhabi’s educational context imposes another dimension for the importance of teacher job satisfaction.Abu Dhabi’s education system is undergoing a major reform that began in 2008. The authority responsible for Abu Dhabipublic school education is the Abu Dhabi Education Council, ADEC. The previous system tended to minimize teacherautonomy and their engagement in related management issues.

The makeup of the teaching force is another differentiating variable in Abu Dhabi’s education environment. In 2010, thenumber of public school teachers totaled 10,758 teachers (60% female and 40% male; 60% expats and 40% nationals). Theseteachers were distributed among four school types (PPP, government, model, and Ghad), where each type offered theteachers different responsibilities, curricula, resources, and school environments.

Private school teachers in Abu Dhabi total 16,757 teachers (11,803 male and 4954 female; with nearly 95% expats). Theonly discriminating factor in teacher salaries was the teacher’s years of experience. The system offered no incentives forteachers based on individual performance or school outcomes. The school reform in Abu Dhabi, in its third year in 2010, hasevolved around ‘‘the new school model – NSM.’’

The previous lack of teacher satisfaction research in Abu Dhabi is evident. The search of literature identified severalstudies related to education in the UAE in general, but none focused on teacher satisfaction. This lack of related researchalong with the teacher population’s diversity, especially in an era of school reform in a developing country, raises an urgentneed for the current research. Therefore, the current study uses the Duffy and Lent (2009) instrument to test the Lent andBrown (2006) model on a sample of Abu Dhabi teachers. The Duffy and Lent (2009) instrument has undergone rigorouspsychometric tests proving its reliability and validity. The current study also attempts to verify its applicability in a differenteducation environment, Abu Dhabi.

1.5. Hypotheses

Set 1 – Based on Lent and Brown’s (2006) job satisfaction model and the studies listed in Table 1, the present study teststhe overall fit of the model. It also hypothesizes that the five predictors will have a positive direct effect on teacher jobsatisfaction:

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2416

H1. Positive affect directly affects job satisfaction.

H2. Goal support directly affects job satisfaction.

H3. Self-efficacy directly affects job satisfaction.

H4. Work conditions directly affect job satisfaction.

H5. Goal progress directly affects job satisfaction.

Set 2 – The study also tests the direct relationships among the predictors according to the Lent and Brown (2006) model:

H6. There is a direct effect from positive affect directly affects goal support.

H7. There is a direct effect from positive affect directly affects self-efficacy.

H8. Positive affect directly affects goal progress.

H9. Positive affect directly affects work conditions.

H10. Goal support directly affects self-efficacy.

H11. Goal support directly affects goal progress.

H12. Goal support directly affects work conditions.

H13. Self-efficacy directly affects goal progress.

H14. Self-efficacy directly affects work conditions.

Set 3 – The present study tests several sets of mediating relationships as depicted in Fig. 1:

H15. Progress at work-related goals partially mediates the effect of work-related goal support on job satisfaction.

H16. Progress at work-related goals partially mediates the effect of self-efficacy on job satisfaction.

H17. Progress at work-related goals partially mediates the effect of work conditions on job satisfaction.

H18. Work related self-efficacy partially mediates the effect of goal support on job satisfaction.

H19. Work related self-efficacy partially mediates the effect of positive affect on job satisfaction.

H20. Work conditions partially mediate the effect of self-efficacy on job satisfaction.

H21. Work conditions partially mediate the effect of goal support on job satisfaction.

H22. Goal support partially mediates the effect of positive affect on job satisfaction.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 5022 teachers in Abu Dhabi employed full-time in public and private schools. Respondents whomissed answering some of the questions on the questionnaire were, however, counted if they responded to most of thequestions. As a result, the totals for certain categories do not add up to the full number of respondents. For the genderquestion, responses included 3163 females and 1858 males. The same process of counting is true for the other categories. Forthe specific demographic questions, 3895 teachers come from public schools and 850 from private schools; 236 teachershold teaching diplomas (less than a bachelor’s degree), 3919 teachers hold bachelor’s degrees, 802 teachers hold master’sdegrees, and 65 teachers hold PhDs; the highest percentage of teachers (15%) teach grade 12, and the lowest percentage (5%)teach grade 2; the highest number of teachers teach English (1099), Arabic (1045), and math (571); teachers’ average age is38.65 years; and they average 13 years’ experience.

2.2. Measures

Multiple observed indicators represented each factor. The measures replicated Lent and Brown’s (2006), later used byothers (i.e., Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent et al., 2011, in press). Other scholars developed most of the measures and used them inother applications. The reliability coefficients ranged from a low of 0.874 to a high of 0.981.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 17

In summary, two measures of job satisfaction served as observed indicators of the job satisfaction construct: the five-itemversion of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) index of job satisfaction (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) and the TeacherSatisfaction Scale (TSS; Lim-Ho & Tung-Au, 2006). Participants were asked to respond to the items of the index of jobsatisfaction on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The two measures’ scores were summed onlyfor the job satisfaction construct.

The positive affect construct was measured with the Positive Affect (PA) items of the Positive and Negative Affect Scales(PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they have felt each of the 10 emotionslisted during the past few weeks, using a 5-point scale ranging from very slightly to extremely.

Progress at work-related goals was measured with a 5-item scale adapted from Lent et al. (2005). The degree to whichparticipants felt supported in their pursuit of work-related goals was measured with a modified version of a scale (modifiedby Duffy & Lent, 2009) originally designed to measure marital partner goal support (Brunstein, Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss,1996). Each item was rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from completely disagree to completely agree.

Finally, this study used three measures to index participants’ perceptions of the favorability of their work environments.Person/organization (PO) fit and needs/supplies (NS) fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002) measured two aspects of perceived fitbetween oneself and one’s work environment. Both scales contained three items, to each of which participants responded ona 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Perceived Organizational Support Scale-Short Form(SPOS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) assessed the third aspect of work conditions. Participantsresponded to each item on a 7-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The totaled scores from each measurewere further summed together to form the work conditions construct.

2.3. Survey process

The Research, Planning and Performance Management Unit [Remark 6] in the Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC)designed the survey and administered it via the Internet to teachers in Abu Dhabi Emirate schools. An online surveyproduced a random sample of the general population of Abu Dhabi teachers. ADEC oversees a total of 305 public schools(126,294 students and 10,758 teachers) and 184 private schools (165,020 students and 9445 teachers). Many methodswere used to reach the teachers to encourage them to participate. The methods included half-page ad in major AbuDhabi newspapers (both English and Arabic), phone text messages directly to teachers, emails, and letters written fromthe ADEC Director General to schools. As noted, there were 3895 public school teachers and 850 private school teachers,the unbalanced reply resulting from ADEC’s greater means for reaching public school teachers, all of whose completecontact information is registered in the central ADEC system. As a result, in a two week span, all public school teachersreceived an SMS on their cell phones encouraging them to participate, a method not available for the private schoolteachers. ADEC also participated in many live radio shows for this purpose, and the response instrument was online fortwo weeks.

2.4. Analysis methods

Structural equations modeling (SEM) assessed the overall fit of the proposed model. Statistical measures of fit includedx2, root mean square error of approximation RMSEA, comparative fit index CFI, and SRMR. A non-significant x2 suggests thatthe model fits the data adequately, but x2 is sensitive to sample size. The CFI determines whether the hypothesized model isa better fit to the data than a null model. CFI values range from 0 to 1, and Hu and Bentler (1999) have suggested a minimumcutoff of 0.95. RMSEA assesses the degree of complexity in the model, and resulting values close to 0.06 indicate adequatemodel-data fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). SRMR values �0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) are typically considered as indicatingacceptable levels of fit. SEM outputs tested the strength and direction of effects and relationships described in the 22hypotheses.

3. Results

3.1. Prior analysis and results

Similar to the Duffy and Lent study, when computing descriptive statistics for each of the six constructs, observationfound most of them negatively skewed and kurtotic; that is, the standardized skewness values were not within the rangeexpected for data from a normal distribution. Table 2 presents the summary statistics for the selected data variables,including their measures of central tendency, variability, and shape. Of particular interest here are the standardizedskewness and standardized kurtosis, from which we can determine whether the sample represents a normal distribution.These statistics’ values outside the range of �2 to +2 indicate significant departures from normality, which invalidates manyof the statistical procedures normally applied to this data. The data exhibits standardized skewness values outside theexpected range for all variables.

Table 3 presents the correlation coefficients among the constructs used in this study. All bivariate correlations arerelatively high and significant. We found the highest correlation between self-efficacy and goal progress (0.806), positiveaffectivity and job satisfaction (0.798), and work conditions and goal support (0.783).

Table 3

Correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Work satisfaction 1

2 Positive affectivity 0.798 1

3 Goal progress 0.708 0.722 1

4 Self-efficacy 0.616 0.637 0.806 1

5 Goal support 0.622 0.622 0.651 0.653 1

6 Work conditions 0.691 0.671 0.663 0.676 0.783 1

Notes: N = 5022. All correlations are significant at p < 0.01.

Table 2

Summary statistics for the original data.

Satisfaction Positive affect Goal progress Self efficacy Goal support Work conditions

Average 5.086 3.619 5.726 4.034 5.185 4.967

Standard deviation 1.813 1.324 1.717 1.01 1.908 1.815

Coeff. of variation 35.65% 36.60% 29.99% 24.99% 36.79% 36.54%

Stnd. skewness �36.23 �35.53 �61.99 �89.65 �37.93 �35.36

Stnd. kurtosis 12.40 12.63 60.14 134.17 13.61 13.19

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2418

To create more normally distributed scores, we subjected the variables to rank transformations and then converted theseto z scores (McDonald, 1999). These transformed values were used in all subsequent analyses. Table 3 contains the originalmeans and standard deviations of constructs, and the correlation coefficients among the constructs.

The six constructs were relatively high internal consistencies (Cronbach reliability coefficients): job satisfaction (0.938),positive affect (0.966), work-related goal progress (0.920) [work related self-efficacy (0.874), teacher self-efficacy (0.927),work task self-efficacy (0.886)], and [perceived fit (0.923), work goal support (0.912), perceived organizational support(0.981)].

Each of the model’s six constructs was represented by a single variable (summed scores of all the items in the sameconstruct). For those constructs that Duffy and Lent considered to represent more than one measure, a single summed scorewas computed to represent the measures (i.e., job satisfaction, 2 measures; work conditions, 3 measures; and work relatedself-efficacy, 3 measures). This study used path analysis as a result of these modifications.

3.2. Test of the predictive model

LISREL 8.8 tested the overall fit of the path model depicted in Fig. 1. We first ran the six-factor structural model (Fig. 1)suggested by Duffy and Lent (2009), unmodified. The test proved the Duffy and Lent (2009) model not a good fit to the data(x2 [5] = 156, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.246), and so that model could not be generalized to the full population of AbuDhabi teachers.

Next, we used LISREL output modification results to identify a model with adequate fit. Fig. 2 depicts the best-fit model tothe data of Abu Dhabi teacher satisfaction (x2 [4] = 14.69, p < 0.0538, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = 0.023, SRMR = 0.0048). The fullmodel accounted for 82% of the variance in job satisfaction, which is relatively high compared to the 75% obtained in theDuffy and Lent (2009) study of 366 full time teachers in the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools.

0.55*

Positive

Affect

Goal

Support

Self

Efficacy

Work

conditions

Goal

Progress

Work

Satisfaction

0.50*

0.21*

0.54*

0.29*

0.27*

0.28*

0.16*

0.54*

0.17*

Fig. 2. Best model of work satisfaction.

Table 4

Results of hypotheses testing–and SEM coefficients.

Hypotheses Set 1 Hypotheses Set 2 Hypotheses Set 3

Direct effects (independent

variables to dependent

variable)

Direct effects (independent

variables to independent

variables)

Indirect effects (independent variables to dependent

variable – mediations)

H1 Yes (0.50) H6 Yes (0.54) H15 No

H2 No H7 Yes (0.21) H16 Yes (0.54) ! (0.17)

H3 No H8 No H17 No

H4 Yes (0.28) H9 Yes (0.29) H18 Yes (0.27) ! (0.54) ! (0.17)

H5 Yes (0.17) H10 Yes (0.29) H19 Yes (0.21) ! (0.54) ! (0.17)

Yes (0.21) ! (0.16) ! (0.28)

H11 No H20 Yes (0.16) ! (0.28)

H12 Yes (0.55) H21 Yes (0.55) ! (0.28)

H13 Yes (0.54) H22 Yes (0.54) ! (0.55) ! (0.28)

Yes ((0.54) ! (0.27) ! (0.16) ! (0.28)

Yes (0.21) ! (0.54) ! (0.17)

Yes (0.21) ! (0.16) ! (0.28)

H14 Yes (0.28)

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 19

When we add a path from goal support to goal progress as proposed by Duffy and Lent (2009), the resulting model-fitparameters are not inadequate (x2 [5] = 508.54, p < 0.0001, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.14, SRMR = 0.043). As a result, it makesstatistical sense to add a path only from positive affect to work conditions.

In general, the structural model supports the five predictor components of job satisfaction, and most of the relationshipsamong the predictors were also consistent with the hypotheses drawn using the Duffy and Lent (2009) path diagram.

3.3. Testing hypotheses

For the best fit model depicted in Fig. 2, the significant path coefficients are used to test the present study’s 22 hypotheses(were derived from the Duffy and Lent (2009) model). Table 4 depicts the hypotheses, the direct effects, and the indirecteffects associated with each set of hypotheses.

For direct effect on job satisfaction (Fig. 2), structural coefficients indicated that positive affect, goal progress, and workconditions each produced significant paths to job satisfaction. Positive affect produced the largest coefficient (0.50).However, self-efficacy and goal support did not produce significant paths to job satisfaction (as suggested by Duffy and Lent(2009)). Therefore, the first set of hypotheses was partially supported by the sample of Abu Dhabi teachers.

For the second set of hypotheses related to the predictor variables’ direct effect on each other, structural coefficientsindicated direct effect from positive affect to goal support (0.54), from positive affect to self-efficacy (0.21), from positiveaffect to work conditions (0.29), from goal support to self-efficacy (0.27), and from goal support to work conditions (0.55).Note that the study followed Duffy and Lent (2009) in not proposing a direct link from positive affect to work conditions, andfrom work conditions to goal progress. The present study observed no significant link from work conditions to goal progress,but a significant path from positive affect to work conditions. As a result, the second set of hypotheses was partiallysupported by the sample of Abu Dhabi teachers.

For the third set of hypotheses related to mediating effects, results supported six of eight hypotheses, but not the 15th and17th. Results in Table 4 demonstrate three hypotheses’ (H16, H20, and H21) proposed indirect effect of the independentvariables on job satisfaction but through only one mediating variable. Progress toward work-related goals partially mediatedself-efficacy’s effect on job satisfaction. Self-efficacy’s indirect effect on job satisfaction is 0.54 � (0.17) = 0.092. Workconditions partially mediate self-efficacy’s and goal support’s effect on job satisfaction. For the 18th hypothesis, work relatedself-efficacy partially mediates goal support’s effect on job satisfaction, but through a third mediating variable, goal progress.As a result, self-efficacy’s indirect effect on job satisfaction is (0.27) � (0.54) � (0.17) = (0.025). For the 19th hypothesis, notethat work related self-efficacy partially mediates positive affect’s effect on job satisfaction but through two separate thirdvariables, goal progress and work conditions. Positive affect’s indirect effect on job satisfaction is 0.019 + 0.009 = 0.028. The22nd hypothesis is also supported, as goal support partially mediates positive affect’s effect on job satisfaction but throughfour different paths and with a combination of other mediating variables. Positive affect’s total indirect effect on jobsatisfaction where goal progress is a mediating variable is 0.1184.

4. Discussion

The present study’s results provide overall support the integrative social cognitive model’s application to explain teacherjob satisfaction. Testing the hypothesized structural model provided good overall fit to the data for the sample of Abu Dhabiteachers. The paths representing direct and indirect effects of the predictors on job satisfaction provided statistical evidenceof the validity of the five component model of job satisfaction predictors. In general, these results support the findings ofDuffy and Lent (2009). The Duffy and Lent (2009) model’s validity further justifies the investigation of teacher satisfaction

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2420

from a broad, integrative, and system wide perspective. The set of independent variables within the social cognitive modelaccounted for 82% of job satisfaction variance. This result suggests that school decision makers should consider teacher jobsatisfaction in an integrative model.

However, two specified paths deviated from expectations. Specifically, although three of the five predictors – positiveaffect, goal progress, and work conditions – explained unique variances in job satisfaction prediction, self-efficacy and goalsupport did not significantly influence teacher’ job satisfaction. Although both self-efficacy and goal support each producedsignificant bivariate relations with job satisfaction (0.616 and 0.622, respectively), which is consistent with past findings(e.g., Babin & Boles, 1996; Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002; Maier & Brunstein, 2001; Wiese & Freund, 2005), these two variablesdid not yield unique direct paths to job satisfaction, only indirect effects on teacher job satisfaction through other constructs.

The lack of self-efficacy’s effect on job satisfaction is not in line with past findings in the academic, social, and workdomains (e.g., Caprara et al., 2003; Duffy & Lent, 2009; Judge & Bono, 2001; Lent et al., 2005, 2007). This result suggests thatAbu Dhabi teachers with greater confidence in performing their work-related tasks and fulfilling their work-related goalsmay not be more satisfied with their work. However, the significant path from self-efficacy to goal progress, then to jobsatisfaction justifies the conclusion that teachers need to feel true progress before feeling fully satisfied. For Abu Dhabi, thisresult might have major consequences if not directly addressed. That is, in a system where self-efficacy does not directlyaffect job satisfaction, other variables such as goal progress and work conditions become essential.

In Abu Dhabi’s education system, and among public schools specifically, teachers’ performance is not formally rated onthe basis of their self-efficacy ‘‘factors’’ or elements. Salary package calculations consider only job experience. During 2008–2010 of education reform, many other factors have become to play a major role for teachers, such as teacher specialization,awards, professional development participation, command of certain skills (i.e., information technology), and student resultsin local and international tests. All these factors are believed to affect the teacher self-efficacy. What teachers believe abouttheir capability is a strong predictor of their effectiveness. Research has demonstrated that teachers with high self-efficacytend to persist in difficult situations (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), take more risks with the curriculum (Guskey, 1988), use newteaching approaches (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), obtain better gains in students’ achievement (Brookover, Beady, Flood,Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1979), and have more motivated students (Midgely, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

Meanwhile, the lack of linkage of perceived organizational support to job satisfaction differs from other previous findings(Duffy & Lent, 2009; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Other studies found perceived goal support directly linked to jobsatisfaction (Babin & Boles, 1996; Baruch-Feldman et al., 2002; Maier & Brunstein, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002;Wiese & Freund, 2005). In the present Abu Dhabi study, goal progress yielded no significant direct path, only indirect effectsthrough other mediating predictors such as work conditions, self-efficacy, and goal progress.

The finding that positive affect relates to job satisfaction is consistent with other research findings (Caprara & Steca, 2006;Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Duffy & Lent, 2009; Judge & Ilies, 2004; Lent et al., 2011, in press; Rhoades & Eisenberger,2002; Thoresen et al., 2003), suggesting that teachers with higher levels of trait positive affect are more likely to havepositive attitudes toward their work (Duffy & Lent, 2009). It should be noted that Lent et al. (2005) found that the positiveaffect scale was related to life satisfaction as well as academic self-efficacy and environmental supports.

The present study and others support many of the hypothesized paths (relationships) between the predictor variables inthe Lent and Brown (2006) model, most notably, positive affect and self-efficacy, positive affect and goal support, self-efficacy and work conditions, self-efficacy and goal progress, and goal support and self-efficacy. The support for the presentstudy’s related hypotheses provides strong evidence supporting the Lent and Brown (2006) structural model. However, twoimportant links exhibited weak direct effects: goal support and goal progress, and work conditions and goal progress.

Further, the best fit model supported a strong link between positive affect and work conditions. This means thatteachers’ positive emotions favorably influence their perceptions of their work environment. Even though this link was notsupported directly by the Lent and Brown (2006) model, many other studies yielded direct or indirect relationshipsbetween the two constructs. Edwards and Cooper (1990) found a direct relationship between positive affect (especiallystress) and person–environment fit (P–E). Others such as Yu (2009) also focused on the important role of work-based affecton P–E fit. He proposed that affective consistency may account for work-based affect’s effect on P–E fit. Such conceptsimprove our understanding of how individuals actually experience and manage P–E fit as a result of their affectiveexperiences at work.

Results of the relationships among the independent variables (H6–H13) confirm previous research results (Table 5),further validating the Duffy and Lent (2009) model. The present study also found goal support to have a weak effect on goalprogress, which deviates from other research results showing a moderate to strong relationship (Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lakey &Scoboria, 2005; Lent & Brown, 2006). In the present study, however, self-efficacy mediates between goal support and goalprogress. Thus, goal support improves goal progress only if a teacher has high confidence in his/her workplace.

The present study’s finding of self-efficacy’s strong influence on job satisfaction through other mediating predictorssuggests that planners need to understand that self-efficacy’s effectiveness requires other essential components. This resultconcurs with other empirical studies (Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent et al., 2011, in press). Previous studies have also noted self-efficacy’s direct effect on goal progress. In developing a wellbeing model focused on dispositional optimism, Scheire andCarver (1985) suggested that the degree to which individuals have positive thoughts about their future affects their currentsubjective wellbeing. In general, this result suggests that teachers with important goals and a sense of progress in attainingthem will more likely experience increased job satisfaction over the course of their job career. Previous research also foundthat goal progress related strongly to wellbeing (Brunstein, 1993; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Table 5

Strength of relations between the independent variables.

From To Nature of relationships

(previous research)

Nature of relationships

(current research)

Positive affect Work related self efficacy Moderate to strong relations Moderate relations

Positive affect Goad support Weak to moderate relations Strong relations

Work related self efficacy Goal progress Strong relations Strong relations

Goal support Work-related self-efficacy Moderate relations Moderate relations

Goal support Goal progress Moderate to strong relations Weak relations

Work-related self-efficacy Work conditions Weak to strong relations Moderate relations

Goal progress Work conditions Weak to strong relations Weak relations

Goal support Work conditions Weak to strong relations Strong relations

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 21

Similar to the present study’s results, previous research found that higher levels of goal progress and achievementcorrelated significantly with job satisfaction, and that work conditions directly affect job satisfaction (Harris, Daniels, &Briner, 2003; Ter Doest, Maes, Gebhardt, & Koelewijn, 2006; Wiese & Freund, 2005).

An important component of Lent and Brown’s (2006) job satisfaction model concerns the degree to which individuals feelsupported in the pursuit of their work-related goals. The Abu Dhabi data reveal that goal support directly affects both self-efficacy and work conditions. These results are consistent with other studies (Babin & Boles, 1996; Baruch-Feldman et al.,2002; Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent et al., 2005, 2007).

The current study examined the measurement and conceptual equivalence of the model’s variables across a sample froma different culture or nation, as many other authors (Miller & Sheu, 2008) have recommended. Thus, the Abu Dhabi studyprovides more research on the Lent and Brown (2006) job satisfaction model by demonstrating its range of cross-culturalapplicability and the psychometric properties of the measures with international samples.

4.1. Limitations and future research

The study sample included an unbalanced mixture of public and private teachers. Future studies should consider usingsimilar solicitation methods to encourage teachers from both public and private schools to take part.

Analysis of variances showed that responses for all SEM constructs in the study differed among the sample by gender, age,nationality, grade level, subjects taught, and type of school. For Abu Dhabi, and because of the large sample of teachersparticipating in the study single or multiple-group path analysis would also be useful (e.g., involving national teachers andforeign teachers, female teachers and male teachers, teachers in public schools and teachers in private schools) to examinepossible differences in model fit or path coefficients. Future efforts might yield important results from examining thegeneralizability of the study finding on the Abu Dhabi sample’s gender composition. In Abu Dhabi public schools, all cycle 1teachers (KG1, KG2, Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) are females, whereas teachers in cycles 2 and 3 are a mixture of males andfemales, depending on the school student-gender or the school’s public/private designation. Results demonstrated thatcertain factors, such as age, gender, background, and school type may well be further confounding factors in shaping theinteractions of the complex model. That is, the school type, for example, may act as a ‘‘control-parameter’’ that may changethe entire model. Future studies should examine all respondent characteristics in greater detail because one major limitationof the present study might be biased responses in the sampling, which might in turn cause limitations on the study’s externalvalidity.

Future studies should also seek other underlying causal relationships. As the present study’s objective was, in a sense, toexamine a complex relationship among the factors affecting job satisfaction. Byrne (2002) noted that we cannot easilydifferentiate between a causal factor and a dependent variable in a complex system. Further analysis could also examinewhether job satisfaction reciprocally affects this study’s independent variables. That is, the model itself might be reciprocal,with the assumed independent variables also influenced by job satisfaction. Thus the level of job satisfaction amongcolleagues might also have a contiguous effect on others. Other models could also be examined for various underlyingstructural designs. Tests should determine how different survey designs support the causal claim and ensure that no otherunderlying factors caused the various apparent direct and indirect interactions, along with the different directions andinteractions, between the factors.

4.2. Study implications

The present study’s major contribution to the literature is that, especially for Abu Dhabi, the results may provide much-needed information on the role of goal specific variables related to job satisfaction. More specifically, the constructs of goal-related progress, positive affect, and goal support are probably the most modifiable variables in the model, and so ADECdecision-makers could effectively target them in their strategies to improve teacher satisfaction.

As noted, the present study’s results differed from those of similar studies (i.e., Duffy & Lent, 2009; Lent & Brown, 2006) infinding no direct path between self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Many ADEC education advisors explain this observation bythe absence of a performance based pay system in Abu Dhabi, where only length of experience determines a teacher’s salary.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2422

As one put it, ‘‘All teachers are treated the same. There is no difference between a teacher who is providing excellent studentoutcomes, and those who never develop themselves and rely only on their experience.’’ In 2011, ADEC, through its schoolreform program, designed strategies for introducing a performance-based salary policy, expected to be implemented inacademic year 2012–2013.

Self-efficacy is considered a relatively important but modifiable variable in the context of job satisfaction (Lent & Brown,2006). Through carefully planned teacher professional development programs, teachers could strengthen their self-efficacyand skills in work tasks in which they perceive themselves as deficient. However, the present study’s results reveal that suchprograms must be accompanied by appropriate support and incentives.

The present study’s results may suggest tactics through which ADEC decision makers can increase teacher satisfaction intheir schools. Results of this study and those conducted by Lent and Brown (2006) and Duffy and Lent suggest the importanceof examining the predictors of job satisfaction within the context of a unified model rather than examining them in isolationfrom one another.

The present study of teacher satisfaction was conducted during a time when Abu Dhabi teachers were expecting highermonetary compensation because the education system is undergoing a major reform. A new salary system is expected to bein place by the end of 2012, and so future studies of teacher satisfaction should closely examine pay related variables.

References

Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress performance and jobsatisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72, 57–75.

Badri, M., & El Mourad, T. (2011). Measuring job satisfaction among teachers in Abu Dhabi: Design and testing differences. 4th Redesigning Pedagogy, NIEInternational Conference.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Dayan, D., & Schwartz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction and productivity. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 84–93.Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York:

Bergin.Brown, S. D., Ryan, N. E., & McPartland, E. B. (1996). Why are so many people happy and what do we do for those who aren’t? A reaction to Lightsey (1996). The

Counseling Psychologist, 24, 751–757.Brunstein, J. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on relationship mood and marital

satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1006–1019.Byrne, B. M. (2002). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah. NJ Erlbaum.Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884.Cano-Garcia, F. J., Padilla-Munoz, E. M., & Carrasco-Ortiz, M. A. (2005). Personality and contextual variables in teacher burnout. Personality and Individual

Differences, 38, 929–940.Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A

study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,

821–832.Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2006). The contribution of self-regulatory efficacy beliefs in managing affect and family relationships to positive thinking and hedonic

balance. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 25, 603–627.Chan, D. W. (2002). Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and psychological distress among prospective Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology,

22(5), 557–569.Chen, G., Goddard, T., & Casper, W. J. (2004). Relating general and work-specific self-evaluations and work-related control beliefs to an expanded job attitudes

criterion. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 349–370.Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.Culver, S., Wolfle, L., & Cross, L. (1992). Testing a model of teacher satisfaction for Blacks and Whites. American Education Research Journal, 25, 453–471.Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.De Nobile, J. (2003). Organisational Communication, Job Satisfaction and Occupational Stress in Catholic Primary Schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University

of New South Wales, Sydney.De Nobile, J. J. & McCormick, J. (2005). Job Satisfaction and Occupational Stress in Catholic Primary Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the

Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.Diener, Ed, Suh, Eunkook M. , Lucas, Robert E. , & Smith, Heidi L.. (1999). Subjective well- being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362–378.Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 379–396.Duffy, R., & Lent, R. (2009). Test of social cognitive model of work satisfaction in teachers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 212–223.Edwards, J., & Cooper, C. (1990). The person–environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 11, 293–307.Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective

experience of fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827.Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.Guskey, T. R. (1988). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41–47.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.Hakanen, J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513.Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Jokisaari, M. (2011). A 35-year follow-up study on burnout among Finnish employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16,

345–360.Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. B. (2003). A daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76,

401–410.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–24 23

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6, 1–55.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750–759.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.Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002a). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a

common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661–673.Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,

86, 67–98.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 17–34.Klassen, R., & Chiu, M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 102(3), 741–756.Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization,

person–group and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.Lakey, B., & Scoboria, A. (2005). The relational contribution of trait and social influences to the links among perceived social support, affect and self-esteem. Journal

of Personality, 73, 361–388.Lent, R., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Ginevra, M., Duffy, R., & Brown, S. (2011). Predicting the job and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of social cognitive model. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 79, 91–97.Lent, R., Taveira, M., & Lobo, C. Two tests of the social cognitive model of well-being in Portuguese college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, in press.Lent, R. W. (2004). Toward a unifying theoretical and practical perspective on well-being and psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 482–

509.Lent, R. W. (2008). Understanding and promoting work satisfaction. An integrative view. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th

ed.). New York: Wiley.Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,

236–247.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Brenner, B., Chopra, S. B., Davis, T., Talleyrand, R., et al. (2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in the choice of math/science

educational options: A test of social cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 474–483.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B., Lyons, H., & Treistman, D. (2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering

majors: Test of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458–465.Lent, R. W., Lopez, A. M., Lopez, F. G., & Sheu, H. (2008). Social cognitive career theory and the prediction of interests and choice goals in the computing disciplines.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 52–62.Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H., Gainor, K. A., Brenner, B. R., Treistman, D., et al. (2005). Social-cognitive predictors of domain and life satisfaction: Exploring the

theoretical precursors of subjective well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 429–442.Lent, R. W., Singley, D., Sheu, H., Schmidt, J. A., & Schmidt, L. C. (2007). Relation of social-cognitive factors to academic satisfaction in engineering students. Journal

of Career Assessment, 15, 87–97.Lim-Ho, C., & Tung-Au, W. (2006). Teaching satisfaction scale: Measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 172–185.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240–246.Lubbers, R., Loughlin, C., & Zweig, D. (2005). Common pathways to health and performance: Job-self efficacy and affect among young workers. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 67, 199–214.Luthans, F. (2002). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Maier, G. W., & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). The role of personal work goals in newcomers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A longitudinal analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1034–1042.Malik, J., Mueller, R., & Meinke, D. (1991). The effects of teaching experience and grade level taught on teacher stress: A LISREL analysis. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 7(1), 57–62.McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah. NJ Erlbaum.Midgely, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior

high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247–258.Miller, M., & Sheu, H. (2008). Measurement and research issues in multicultural psychology. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology

(4th ed., pp. 103–120). New York: Wiley.Moe, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1145–1153.Pang, N. (1996). School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(2), 64–83.Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related

applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 793–802.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

141–166.Scheire, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism coping and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–

247.Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76, 482–497.Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special

Education, 17(1), 37–47.Skaalvik, A., & Skalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and

emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038.Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher

burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625.Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518–524.Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Swanson, V., & Power, K. (2001). Employees’ perceptions of organizational restructuring: The role of social support. Work & Stress, 15, 161–178.

M.A. Badri et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 57 (2013) 12–2424

Ter Doest, L. T., Maes, S., Gebhardt, W., & Koelewijn, H. (2006). Personal goal facilitation through work: Implications for employee satisfaction and wellbeing.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(2), 192–219.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analyticreview and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.

Van Houtte, M. (2006). Tracking and teacher satisfaction: Role of study culture and trust. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 247–254.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.Wiese, B. S., & Freund, A. M. (2005). Goal progress makes one happy, or does it? Longitudinal findings from the work domain. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 78, 287–304.Wong, K. S., Cheuk, W. H., & Rosen, S. (2000). The influences of job stress and supervisor support on negative affects and job satisfaction in kindergarten principals.

Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 85–98.Yu, K. (2009). Affective influences in person–environment fit theory: Exploring the role of affect as both cause and outcome of p–e fit. Journal of Applied Psychology,

94(5), 1210–1226.