About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 18. School Readiness/Childcare

Paper #1
Working Conditions and Their Relations to Holistic Well-Being and Turnover Intent for Early Childhood Educators
Author information	Role
Dr. Kyong-Ah Kwon, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, United States	Presenting author
Timothy G. Ford, University of Oklahoma, United States	Non-presenting author
Seulki Jang, AECOM, United States	Non-presenting author
Joshua Chappell, University of Oklahoma, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
The Early Care and Education (ECE) workforce, including teachers and administrators, has experienced pressing challenges related to suboptimal working conditions in multiple dimensions (e.g., high job demands), contributing to poor well-being and high turnover (Authors, 2020; Grant et al., 2019). However, the existing conceptualization and measures are limited to capturing a wide array of working conditions in ECE settings and how they are associated with teachers' and leaders’ well-being and turnover intent. From the Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and the triple-match principle (de Jonge & Dormann, 2006), we developed, validated, and used a comprehensive measure of a broad range of job demands and resources and investigated their relations to the ECE teachers and leaders’ holistic well-being (physical, psychological, and professional well-being) and turnover intent. Method Our interdisciplinary research team collected online survey data on the background, working conditions, holistic well-being, and intent to leave. Our analysis consisted of 405 ECE leaders and 488 teachers who work in various early childhood education settings (e.g., child care, pre-K, Head Start) from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. We developed and validated comprehensive ECE working condition measures for early childhood teachers, including physical, cognitive/professional, and psycho-social demands and resources, and organizational resources. We used a multi-step process to test this measure’s validity and reliability. The measures were modified to reflect the working conditions relevant for early childhood leaders. We also used various existing validated measures for holistic well-being and intent to leave (e.g., Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression, Andersen et al., 1994; the physical component score subscale of the SF-12 Health Survey Standard, Ware et al., 2002). We conducted a series of regressions with overall physical well-being, depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and intent to leave while controlling for age, school tenure, race, gender, center type, and salary. Results Overall, this measure shows satisfactory levels of reliability and validity. The key findings are presented in the Tables below. The teacher results demonstrate a general pattern of difference in significant effects for efficacy versus physical, psychological well-being, and intent to leave. Social support, workload, and emotional demands were associated with efficacy, while physical demands were related to physical well-being. Emotional demands were also positively associated with depressive symptoms, while a positive public view of teachers was associated with improved well-being across the board. For leaders, workload, role ambiguity, and workplace conflict were negatively associated with well-being, while substantial financial and human capital resources were positively associated with well-being. Implications The findings indicated that the workload and financial resources are significant predictors for multiple aspects of teachers’ and leaders’ well-being. However, emotional demands and public views on the early childhood profession appeared more consistently associated with teachers’ well-being and turnover intention than leaders. Our holistic and interdisciplinary approach sought to provide a multifaceted view of ECE teachers’ and leaders’ health and well-being to understand and support these educators and give them the tools to effectively carry out the critical work they do for children and families.

Paper #2
Early Educator Voices: How Features of their Work Environment Impact Well-Being
Author information	Role
Marisa Schlieber, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, United States	Presenting author
Abstract
Children depend on educators who are not only skilled but have their well-being and professional needs met. However, early educators are paid one of the lowest wages across occupations, and many work in settings that undermine their practice and well-being (McLean et al., 2021). Despite research documenting the relationship of the work environment and educator well-being on classroom and program quality and child outcomes (Cassidy et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2021; Whitebook et al., 2016), strategies for supporting their work environment, and thus their well-being, are largely absent. Few studies take a holistic approach to examining educator work environments and fewer measure well-being as a function of the work environment (e.g., compensation policies, program climate, and program support for physical wellness). Methods This study examines early educators’ assessments across a broad range of workplace supports, including how programs support well-being and features of the work environment associated with well-being and mental health. Data were collected across 400 center-based teaching staff utilizing the Supportive Environmental Quality Underlying Adult Learning (SEQUAL) survey. The measure captures early educators assessments across five critical areas comprising the work environment: Teaching Supports, Learning Community, Job Crafting, Adult Well-Being, and Leadership (Whitebook et al., 2021) and elicits the voice of teaching staff, which are often excluded, to understand their perspectives and to identify workplace conditions that impact educator practice and well-being. The survey also included questions regarding mental health symptoms (e.g. changes to sleep and eating patterns, difficulty concentrating, feelings of social isolation), and the frequency with which respondents experienced them. Utilizing descriptive and regression analysis along with Latent Profile Analyses (LPA), this study examined the following questions. 1. How do early educators assess multiple features of their work environments, including how their programs support their well-being, and their mental health? 2. What are the patterns of educator responses based on their assessments of their work environment? 3. How are assessments of early educators’ work environment associated with self-reported well-being and mental health? Additionally, the survey captured demographic and workforce characteristics to place findings into context and examine variations in survey responses. Results Preliminary results revealed that early educators reported challenges to their well-being and mental health. For example, slightly over three-quarters reported changes to their sleep in the last 12 months (78 percent) and worried about paying their families monthly bills (76 percent). The presentation will also address the following: educators’ assessments of their work environment across a broad range of workplace supports; the current status of early educator compensation, financial, and overall well-being; variations in assessments by educator and program characteristics; and profiles based on educator assessments of their work environment and how those profiles are associated with their well-being and mental health. Implications This study sheds light on the experiences of early educators by examining features of their work environment associated with well-being and mental health. While quality improvement strategies often focus on children’s learning environments, attention to strengthening early educators’ work environments also needs to be prioritized as these environments are intertwined.

Paper #3
Development and Validation of the Well-Being Culture and Climate in Early Childhood Program Scale
Author information	Role
Sooyeon Byun, Ph.D., Yonsei University, Korea (the Republic Of)	Presenting author
Shuai Li, University of Virginia, United States	Non-presenting author
Xiangyu Zhao, University of Virginia, United States	Non-presenting author
Sarah Chapman, University of Virginia, United States	Non-presenting author
Lieny Jeon, University of Virginia, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Educators’ well-being in early care and education (ECE) settings has become a central focus in ECE research (Jeon et al., 2023). According to the Ecological Model of Holistic ECE Workforce Well-Being (Jeon et al., 2023), educators’ well-being encompasses physical, psychological, and professional well-being and health promotion behaviors, interactively shaped by ECE program’s organizational culture and climate which can either support or hinder well-being. Therefore, to effectively promote educators’ holistic well-being, it is critical to understand the influences of organizational culture. Moreover, given the high workload and limited time among ECE educators (Heilala, et al., 2022), there is a need to develop a measurement tool that is concise and easy to administer. This study aims to develop and validate new scales which evaluate ECE programs’ culture and climate that support educators’ well-being. A total of 232 ECE educators participated in the study. Two closely related scales were developed (Table 1). We first created eight items to measure the General Culture to Support Well-Being (General Culture), adopting 10 categories in “Trauma-Informed Care in Youth Serving Settings: Organizational Self-Assessment” (TSIKFC, 2008). Additionally, we conducted a series of Rasch analysis (Rasch, 1980) to evaluate the items’ performance, which led to the development of a four-item short-form of General Culture. Second, four individual items were created to measure Resources to Support Holistic Well-Being (Resources), focusing on each of the four well-being domains suggested by Jeon et al. (2023). The four items showed strong correlations (r = .81 to .87). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to examine the factor structure of each scale. To explore the discriminant and predictive validity, correlation analyses were conducted. For the discriminant validity, we used two other scales measuring relationships with co-workers and supervisors. To estimate predictive validity, we included indicators of the four well-being domains as outcomes of those two scales (Table 2). EFA favored a one-factor model for both scales. General Culture and Resources both demonstrated high internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .95 and .95, respectively). Table 2 shows that both scales had weak to moderate correlations with co-worker and supervisor relationships. The new scales were both significantly correlated with most well-being indicators, except for depressive symptoms, general health, and sleep quality. Also, Resources were not correlated with stress and anxiety, whereas General Culture had significant correlations with both indicators. There were no notable differences in the findings between the full scale and the short-form of General Culture. Despite the theoretical distinctions among well-being domains, educators perceived their program’s support as holistic rather than segmented into distinct categories. Our scales provide ECE programs with efficient and validated tools to assess their culture and climate as they pertain to educators’ well-being. Both scales, along with the short-form, can be used for regular assessments and data-driven decision-making to improve the work environment, and as a quick screening tool to identify programs where more in-depth analysis or intervention may be required. Future research may benefit from investigating the long-term predictive validity of the new scales to reinforce the findings.

⇦ Back to session