Journal ofhttp://jca.sagepub.

com/
Career Assessment

Examining the Relationships Among Self-Efficacy, Coping, and Job Satisfaction

Using Social Career Cognitive Theory: An SEM Analysis
Yuhsuan Chang and Jodie K. Edwards
Journal of Career Assessment published online 13 February 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1069072714523083

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/13/1069072714523083

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Career Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 13, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Article
Journal of Career Assessment
1-13
ª The Author(s) 2014
Examining the Relationships Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Among Self-Efficacy, Coping, DOI: 10.1177/1069072714523083
jca.sagepub.com
and Job Satisfaction Using
Social Career Cognitive
Theory: An SEM Analysis

Yuhsuan Chang1 and Jodie K. Edwards2

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; Touran-
geau & 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.

1
College of Management, Yuan Ze University, Chungli, Taiwan
2
School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Cincinnati Christian University, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:
Yuhsuan Chang, College of Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chungli, Taoyuan, Taiwan, China.
Email: yuyuchang@saturn.yzu.edu.tw

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

2 Journal of Career Assessment

Numerous factors influence the job satisfaction of nurses, including salary (Tzeng, 2002), rela-
tionships 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 satisfac-
tion 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 satisfac-
tion. 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 spe-
cific 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 condi-
tions) 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 sim-
ilar 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 con-
structs 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 satis-
faction (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 imple-
ment 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. There-
fore, 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).

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 3

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 satis-
faction. 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). Individ-
uals 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 cop-
ing 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 asso-
ciated with problem-focused coping but negatively associated with emotion-focused coping. In a

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

4 Journal of Career Assessment

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 impor-
tant 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 par-
ticipants 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 hospi-
tals, 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. Par-
ticipants were 314 nurses who volunteered to participate (89% return rate). Thus, 99% of the sample
was female (n ¼ 312), with 54.5% (n ¼ 171) aged between 21 and 30 years old, 37.9% (n ¼ 119)
aged between 31 and 40 years old, and 52.9% (n ¼ 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
deviation¼ 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 ¼ almost never to 5 ¼ 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

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 5

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 as ranging from .73 to .77. In this study,
Cronbach’s as 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 com-
petence 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 ¼ agree a little to 4 ¼ agree
very much). Internal reliability coefficients ranged from .76 to .90 across 23 nations. In this study,
the Cronbach’s a 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 ¼ almost never’’ to ‘‘5 ¼ 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 a of .88 for
overall job satisfaction, with as for the subscales ranging from .60 to .83. The score of total job satis-
faction ranges from 23 to 115, with higher score indicating greater job satisfaction. In this study, the
subscale a ranges from .74 to .90 and the overall job satisfaction Cronbach’s a 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 a ¼ .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 devel-
oped 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 sub-
scale factors because they have fewer parameters to estimate and the chances for residuals to be cor-
related 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 load-
ings 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

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

6 Journal of Career Assessment

e4 e5

PC1 PC2

.75 .90
.03 J1 e6
P-Coping e12
.53
e3 SE1 .18* J2 e7
.17* .76
.73
.79
.80 .41* J3 e8
e2 Self-efficacy Job Sat
SE2
.77
.92 J4 e9
.85
e1 SE3 .22
e10
e13 .57 J5

J6 e11

Figure 1. Structural model (Model A) relating self-efficacy and job satisfaction: problem-focused coping as a
mediator.
Note. N ¼ 314. J1–J6 ¼ job satisfaction parcels 1–6; SE1–3 ¼ self-efficacy parcels 1–3; PC1–2 ¼ problem-
focused coping parcels 1–2; P-Coping ¼ problem-focused coping; Job sat ¼ job satisfaction. *p < .01.

construct of job satisfaction because it is a multidimensional construct that can be well represented
by the original six subscales.

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 ¼ .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.

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

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 7

e4 e5 e6

EC1 EC2 EC3

.71 .82 .75

J1 e8
E-Coping e15
.53
e3 SE1 -.42* -.25* .76 J2 e9
.73
.78
.88 .32* J3 e10
e2 Self-efficacy Job Sat
SE2
.77
.90 e11
J4
.84
e1 SE3
.68
e14 J5 e12

J6 e13

Figure 2. Structural model (Model B) relating self-efficacy and job satisfaction: emotion-focused coping as a
mediator.
Note. N = 314. J1-J6 = job satisfaction parcels 1-6; SE1-3 = self-efficacy parcels 1-3; EC1-3 = emotion-focused
coping parcels 1-3; E-Coping = emotion-focused coping; Job sat = job satisfaction. *p < .01.

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 ¼ 314. SD ¼ standard deviation. SE1-3 ¼ self-efficacy parcels 1 to 3; PC1-2 ¼ problem-focused coping parcels 1 to 2;
EC1-3¼emotion-focused coping parcels 1 to 3; J1-J6 ¼ job satisfaction subscales. Bivariate coefficients are statistically signif-
icant at p < .01.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

8 Journal of Career Assessment

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

Model/indexes w2 df Sig. w2/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 ¼ 314. RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit
index. Model A ¼ problem-focused partially mediating model; Model A1 ¼ problem-focused fully mediating model; Model
B ¼ emotion-focused partially mediating model; Model B1 ¼ emotion-focused fully mediating model.

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 excel-
lent 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), w2 significance test
as well as the ratio of w2 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, w2(41, N ¼ 314) ¼ 115.48; CFI ¼ .96; GFI ¼ .94; RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01, and Model B, w2(62,
N ¼ 314) ¼ 164.60; CFI ¼ .95; GFI ¼ .92; RMSEA ¼ .07, p < .01. It is noted that although the w2
statistics reported the null hypothesis in the measurement model was rejected (showing significant),
w2 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 w2 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 con-
sidered 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: w2(41, N ¼ 314) ¼ 115.48, p < .01; CFI ¼ .96; GFI ¼ .94; RMSEA ¼ .08. Also,
self-efficacy positively predicted problem-focused coping style (b ¼ .17, p < .01) and job satisfac-
tion (b ¼ .41, p < .001). Problem-focused coping style positively predicted job satisfaction (b ¼ .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: w2(62,
N ¼ 314) ¼ 168.77, p < .01; CFI ¼ .95; GFI ¼ .92; RMSEA ¼ .07. Self-efficacy negatively pre-
dicted emotion-focused coping (b ¼.42, p < .001), and positively predicted job satisfaction
(b ¼ .32, p < .001). Emotion-focused coping style negatively predicted job satisfaction
(b ¼ .25, p < .001). In addition, 29.7% of the variance was accounted for by this 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: Dw2(1, N ¼ 314) ¼ 45.29/24.44, respectively, p < .01). Thus, in both Models A and B,

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 9

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 med-
iating 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 con-
siderable 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 emo-
tions 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.

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

10 Journal of Career Assessment

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 unchange-
able 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 associa-
tions 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 exam-
ined coping as a domain of goal-directed behavior that allows us to make more targeted recommen-
dations 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 stra-
tegies. 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 perfor-
mance 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.

10

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 11

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.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

References
Adams, A., & Bond, S. (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, J., & 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, C., Buunk, A. P., Dijkstra, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2008). The relationship between goal orientation, social
comparison responses, self-efficacy, and performance. European Psychologist, 13, 188–196.
Chang, Y. (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, Y., Li, H-H., Wu, C. M., & Wang, P. C. (2010). The influence of personality traits on nurses’ job satis-
faction in Taiwan. International Nursing Review, 57, 478–484.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cowin, L. (2002). The effects of nurses job satisfaction on retention: An Australian perspective. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 32, 283–291.
Dewe, P., Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: A review. Work
& Stress, 7, 5–15.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Folkman, S., & 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.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 466–475.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55,
647–654.
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.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1994). Coping with different concerns: Consistency and variations in coping
strategies used by adolescents. Australian Psychologist, 29, 45–48.

11

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

12 Journal of Career Assessment

Gellis, Z. D. (2002). Coping with occupational stress in healthcare: A comparison of social workers and nurses.
Administration in Social Work, 26, 37–52.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Healy, C., & McKay, M. (2000). Nursing stress: The effects of coping strategies and job satisfaction in a sample
of Australian nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 681–688.
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.
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.
Hsu, M., & Kernohan, G. (2006). Dimensions of hospital nurses’ quality of working life. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 54, 120–131.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hurley, M. (2005). A Rogerian exploration of nurse managers experience of job satisfaction, stress, and power.
Visions, 13, 12–26.
Irvine, D., & Evans, M. (1995). Job satisfaction and turnover among nurses: Integrating research findings across
studies. Nursing Research, 44, 246–253.
Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain rela-
tions: Coping style as an exploratory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 401–409.
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-anal-
ysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling [2nd ed.]. New York: Guilford
Press.
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.
Lefebvrea, J. C., Keefe, F. J., Affleck, G., Raezerc, L. B., Starr, K., Caldwell, D. S., & Tennen, H. (1999). The
relationship of arthritis self-efficacy to daily pain, daily mood, and daily pain coping in rheumatoid arthritis
patients. Pain, 80, 425–435.
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.
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.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and aca-
demic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
LeSergent, C., & Haney, C. (2005). Rural hospital nurse’s stressors and coping strategies: A survey.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 315–325.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring
the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Lu, K. Y., Lin, P. L., Wu, C. M., Hsieh, Y. L., & Chang, Y. Y. (2002). The relationship among turnover inten-
tions, professional commitment, and job satisfaction of hospital nurses. Journal of Professional Nursing, 18,
214–219.
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
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.
Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

12

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014

Chang and Edwards 13

McNeely, E. (2005). The consequences of job stress for nurses’ health: Time for a check-up. Nursing Outlook,
53, 291–299.
Nolan, M., Nolan, J., & Grant, G. (1995). Maintaining nurses’ job satisfaction and morale. British Journal of
Nursing, 4, 1148–1154.
Park, C., & Adler, N. (2003). Coping style as a predictor of health and well-being across the first year of medical
school. Health Psychology, 22, 627–631.
Parker, L. (1994). Working together: Perceived self- and collective efficacy at the workplace. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 47–59.
Price, M. (2002). Job satisfaction of registered nurses working in an acute hospital. British Journal of Nursing
11, 275–280.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: Theoretical
approaches and a new model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 217–242).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Siu, O. L. (2002). Predictors of job satisfaction and absenteeism in two samples of Hong Kong nurses. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 40, 218–229.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measuring of human service staff satisfaction. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 13, 693–713.
Steel, R. P. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of
Management Review, 27, 346–360.
Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987). Self-efficacy expectations and coping with career-related
events. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 91–108.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (4th ed.). New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tourangeau, A. E., & Cranley, L. A. (2006). Nurse intention to remain employed: Understanding and strength-
ening determinants. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55, 497–509.
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.
Vandewalle, D. (1997). Developing and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.
Welbourne, J. L., Eggerth, D., Hartley, T., Andrew, M. E., & Sanchez, F. (2007). Coping strategies in the work-
place: Relationships with attributional style and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70,
312–325.
Yeh, S. C. (2003). Nurse aides job satisfaction in long-term care facilities. Show Chwan Medical Journal, 4,
11–21.
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.
Zellars, K. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001). Beyond self-efficacy:
Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13,
483–499.
Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the general
self-efficacy scale. Psychologia, 38, 174–181.

13

Downloaded from jca.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 5, 2014