Ijm 11 07 003

International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 11, Issue 7, July 2020, pp. 20-34, Article ID: IJM_11_07_003
Available online athttp://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.7.2020.003
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
PERCEIVED PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING

OF AN ACADEMICIAN IN HIGHER
EDUCATION IS A FUNCTION OF
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, SUPERVISOR
SUPPORT, FAMILY SUPPORT AND SOCIAL
SUPPORT DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Dr. KDV Prasad
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
Patancheru, Telangana, India
Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya

Assistant Professor, Faculty In-Charge Training and Placement, (DMT)
Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering & Management, Nagpur, India
ABSTRACT
In this manuscript, the researchers present the results of an empirical study on the
effect of T on psychological wellbeing of an Academician in higher education. The
independent factors organizational, supervisor, family and social supports measured
on dependent factor psychological well-being of Academician in higher education
with six subscales autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive
relations with others, purpose in life and the self-acceptance. The respondents were
applied to a research survey instrument based on Likert-type scale, a questionnaire
for gathering independent factors responses. A shortened version of 18-item Ryff’s
psychological wellbeing scale was used to gather psychological wellbeing factors of
Academicians in higher education institutes of Indian cities Hyderabad and Nagpur.
The authors applied descriptive statistics, correlations studies, reliable statistics and
multinomial logistic regression analysis to draw inferences from this empirical
research. The multinomial logistic regression results indicate independent social
support, family support, and education are statistically significant and influencing
outcome variable psychological wellbeing of Academicians in higher education. Very
minor statistically significant gender and age group differences were observed, which
are negligible whereas Academician’s discipline and role not significant predictors of
psychological wellbeing.
Key words: Psychological wellbeing, higher education, academician, supervisor,
social support, odd ratios
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 20 editor@iaeme.com
Perceived Psychological Wellbeing of an Academician in Higher Education is a Function of
Organizational Support, Supervisor Support, Family Support and Social Support During
Covid-19 Pandemic
Cite this Article: Dr. KDV Prasad and Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya, Perceived
Psychological Wellbeing of an Academician in Higher Education is a Function of
Organizational Support, Supervisor Support, Family Support and Social Support
During Covid-19 Pandemic, International Journal of Management, 11(7), 2020,
pp. 20-34.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7
1. INTRODUCTION
Psychological wellbeing is the happy state of mind or positive mental wellness with pleasure
and happiness of a human being. There are two important dimensions of psychological
wellbeing. The first is the degree to which people experience positive emotions and feelings
of fulfillment. This aspect of psychological wellbeing is also referred to as subjective
wellbeing (Diener, 2000). Subjective wellbeing is a vital part of the overall psychological
wellbeing, but just it is not enough. The two main ingredients in psychological wellbeing are
the subjective good feelings brought on by something that person enjoys, and the feeling that
what we do with our lives has some meaning and intention. The term "Hedonic" wellbeing is
usually used to refer to a subjective feeling of happiness. The two elements of Hedonic
wellbeing are an affective component with high positive and low negative effects and other
one a cognitive component with satisfaction in life. And an individual experiences happiness
with positive affect and satisfaction (Carruthers & Hood, 2004). The less popular word
"Eudaimonic" is used to refer to the purposeful aspect of psychological wellbeing. Carol Ryff
has developed a six important types of model of psychological wellbeing.
Psychological well-being of academician is extremely significant for the higher education
institution. Wellbeing of any person considered as a measure to identify the progress of any
cohort of development and it is used by the policymakers in developing and developed
countries for the further improvement. The Covid-19 Pandemic significantly stress on
employees of all the sector in general and health sector in particular causing high
psychological wellbeing effect. Now this topic has been now used to measure the health of
several services by the public sector, industry and governments. However, there is very
limited and spare literature is available on the studies psychological well-being of
Academician in higher education like professors, associate professors and assistant professors.
Suman Zaki (2018) studied the enhancing quality of teachers through enhancing their
psychological wellbeing using six dimensions Ryff scale and suggested strategies for teacher
psychological wellbeing. Ilgan et. al. (2015) investigated the relationship between of quality
of school work life and psychological wellbeing of public school teachers and reported
moderate level of quality of school work life and high psychological wellbeing the teachers
and observed some significant differences in demographic variables. This study further
revealed that quality of school life is a function of psychological wellbeing of the teachers.
Ganesh Bhat suggested a framework for Ensuring Wellness of Faculty Members for Higher
Education Effectiveness and suggested health promotion of health related activities, safe
physical and social environments, access to faculties, staff wellness programs and continuous
evaluation. Sally Weale (2019) an education correspondent reported that there was a steep
occupational health concerns and referral counselling in higher education staff. A research
study with 59 universities, report a 316% increase in access to counselling services at the
University of Warwick, a 292% increase at, 126% at Newcastle and Kent, 172% at Brunel,
88% at Bristol, as the higher education universities are becoming anxiety machines.
Dr. KDV Prasad and Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya
Prasad et. al. (2016) reported moderate level occupational stress and effect on
psychological wellbeing in study on CBSE teacher around Hyderabad, India. This study
further reported some health associated issues like varicose veins, musculoskeletal issues and
anxiety with female teachers having higher occupational stress. Vazi (2013) studied the
relationship between wellbeing factors and psychological stress using a cross sectional survey
in Eastern Cape South African Public schools. This study reported that stress is common to all
the teaching professors. The variance in stress is due to psychological wellbeing, negative
affect role problems. The psychological wellbeing of teachers strongly correlated with inverse
relationship of occupational stress
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The researchers Ryff and Keyes (1995) developed shortened version of psychological
wellbeing scale with 18 items with subscales. The distinguished psychological well-being
scale developed by Ryff (1989) has of 42 items and 6 subscales or factors. Both the scales are
tested for tested on multiple sample by various researchers and found is suitable for
psychological wellbeing studies. The shortened version of psychological wellbeing short form
scale is tested and validated through validated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
with minor modifications. The reliability statistic measured revealed the scale is consistent
and reliable for all the factors (Opree, Buijzen, & Reijmersdal, 2018). Study also discussed,
the scale can be tested for other population.
Seifert (2005) developed the assessments notes for the Ryff scales of psychological well-
being. When high scores are referred for all six types of Ryff‟s scale, the high scores reflect
the respondent‟s optimistic attitude about his/her self in self-acceptance. in environment
mastery respondent makes good use of resources and has a sense of expertise in handling
environmental conditions and events, including day-to-day management and creating
circumstances that support personal needs. Respondent's presence in positive relationships
with others, including shared support, friendship and love in positive relations with others. in
personal growth, the respondent continues to develop, welcomes new experiences and
recognizes improved behavior and self-reliance over time. A high objective of the
respondent's orientation and belief that life holds value in purpose of life. Autonomy is The
respondent is independent and regulates his or her behavior independently of social pressure.
However, authors have examined various supporting mechanisms for the positive
psychological well-being. It is found that highlighted diverse way of supporting system as a
moderator for the well-being in different context. Indeed, the research witnessed the
supporting system in relation to work engagement (Burns, 2016), employee psychological
wellbeing (Zheng, Zhu, Zhao, & Zhang, 2015).
The authors also reviewed each supporting system or supporting mechanism to measure if
there is any statistically significant impact that it would have been for the organization
commitment as modelled by (Woo & Chelladurai, 2012). (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley,
1988). The researchers (Holden, Lee, Hockey, Ware, & Dobson, 2014) developed a
Multidimensional Scale to identify the level of support from each mechanism for the well-
being of the employees. Mamatha and Prasad (2017) studied the social support as a function
of employee psychological wellbeing in agricultural research sector employees and reported
the employees who receive social support will immensely benefit mitigating occupational
stress and wellbeing. Stressful experiences can include people to subsequent mood and
anxiety disorders (Gladstone, Parker and Mitchell, 2004)
In general, the theories focus on causes and consequences of psychological wellbeing,
Carol Ryff‟s model is widely accepted for understanding the structure of psychological
wellbeing. The psychological wellbeing can be influenced past and present situations of an
Covid-19 Pandemic
underlying personality (Gladstone, Parker and Mitchell, 2004); However, exposure to

extremely traumatic events will build resilience and actually helps in protecting the
psychological wellbeing. For younger generation and children exposed to moderately stressful
incidents will cope with subsequent stressors (Khobasa & Maddi, 1999). The same
“inoculating” impact of stressful incidents visible working adults (Soloman, Berger and
Ginsberg, 2007). Chandola et al, 2008 reported that, a minimal and moderate stress is
necessary to generate interest and work as catalyst, however, long-term stress is harmful in
psychological wellbeing. The long term stress will result in serious illness, cardiovascular
disease, unable to control blood sugar, enhanced diabetes and immunity disorders.
Alsubaie et. al. (2019) in their study of social support and quality of life on university
students reported that social support from friends and famility significantly predicted the
quality of life and Sources of social support as a valuable resource for universities in
protecting the mental health of students. Thomas et al. (2017) in their study family relations
and wellbeing discussed the influence marital, sibling relations and intergenerational
relationships on wellbeing. The quality of family relationships and diversity in relationships
will significantly influence the wellbeing.
2.1. Research Question

Is there any correlation between organizational, supervisor, family and social supports on
psychological wellbeing of Academicians in Higher Education?
2.1.1. Research Gap

The Indian Union Government announced first lock down on 24 March 2020 extended to the
third phase till 17th May. The lockdown is necessary to mitigate the spread of infection to the
minimal as the most of the employees work remotely at home. Though there are some
literature available on the effect of occupational stress, family support, social support,
organizational support, and peer relations on psychological wellbeing of teachers, there is no
direct studies reported on the effect of higher education teachers in humanities, management,
and engineering disciplines. Further the researchers would like to examine the psychological
wellbeing of the Academicians of higher education during Covid-19 Pandemic.
This empirical study will focus on studying the effect of psychological well-being of an
academician in higher education and how it is being impacted through four support system
components. These four factors that s/he regularly interferes, cooperatives or comes across
his/her path while dispensing the services in the higher education system. The operating area
of this study and research is confined to the Colleges of Engineering and Management in
Hyderabad Metro and Nagpur City.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To study the effect of organizational, supervisor, family and social supports on
psychological wellbeing of Academicians in higher education
 To study if there are gender and age differences that influence the psychological
wellbeing of Academicians of higher education
 To study if there are discipline and role (designation) differences that influence the
psychological wellbeing of Academicians of higher education
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 Psychological wellbeing of Academicians in higher education is embodied and well

dependent on four dimensions as indicated in four triangular blocks and can impact the Academicians
psychological wellbeing as measured by Ryff‟s scale
The evaluation of psychological well-being with reference to four independent factors

organizational climate, family support, social support and peer support of Academicians in
higher education, the above theoretical framework was developed by Prasad et. al. (2020).
4.1. Hypothesis
After reviewing the literature and identifying the problem, the following hypotheses were
framed:
Ha1: The four independent factors organizational, supervisor, family and social supports are
statistically significant and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians in higher
education
Ha2: There are statistically significant gender and age differences among the respondents that
are statistically significant and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians in
higher education
Ha3: There are statistically significant discipline and role differences among the respondents
and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians in higher education
4.2. Estimation of Sample Size

For finite sample size i.e. in case of Engineering Colleges where the respondents were
approached the researcher used Yamane‟s formula calculating sample size:
As per Yamane‟s formula a 95% confidence level and p = 0.5 size of the sample should be
N
N= ----------
1+N(e2)
Covid-19 Pandemic
Where, N is the population size (i.e. total employees in IARI) and e is the level of
precision.
N = 700 with ±5% precision, assuming 95% confidence level and p = 0.5 the sample size is
700
n = ---------------
(1+700(0.05)2) = 254 so 245 was used
The sample demography and description are presented in Tables 1 and 2 and the study
variables both dependent and independent are presented in Table 3.
Table 1 Demography of the sample

Gender Frequency Per cent
Men 156 64
Women 89 36
Total 245 100
Source: Primary data
Table 2 Sample description

Age group Number of respondents
20-30 44
31-40 87
41-50 89
51-60 25
Table 3 Faculty description/distribution

Designation No of respondents Discipline No. of respondents
Assistant Professor 161 Humanities 47
Associate Professor 40 Management 127
Professor 44 Engineering 71
Table 4 Study variables – Independent and outcome variables

Factor Description No. of items
Independent factors
1 Social support 6
2 Supervisor support 5
3 Organizational support 8
4 Family support 5
Total items 24
Psychological wellbeing
1 Autonomy 3
2 Self-acceptance 3
3 Purpose in Life 3
4 Personal Growth 3
5 Environment Mastery 3
6 Positive Relations with others 3
4.3. Research Instrument

Measurement of independent factors: A research instrument a unbiased questionnaire was
prepared based on five-point Likert-type scale, with 25 items for independent factors. With
preliminary data the for each item, reliability and consistency test was carried out measuring
Cronbach Alpha value. One item in independent variable was dropped from the study due low
Cronbach value and the analysis was carried out with 24 items. The scale used measured was
Strongly agree=5; Agree = 4; Neutral =3; Disagree =2; Strongly disagree 1, based on the
earlier studies Prasad, et al. (2016, 2018, 2020). The total items measured are 24
Measurement of psychological wellbeing based factors: A shortened version of 18-point
scaler developed by Ryff and Keyes (1995) was applied on respondents to measure the
psychological wellbeing. A 7-point rating scale with Strongly agree = 7, Somewhat agree = 6,
A little agree = 5, Neither agree nor disagree = 4, A little disagree = 3, Somewhat disagree =
2, Strongly disagree =1 and the factors measured are Autonomy, Environmental Mastery,
Personal Growth, Positive Relations, Purpose in Life and the Self-Acceptance with 3 items
for each factors. This seven-point scale was converted into 5 point scale for ease of
calculation, using Linear transformation methods. Some items are reverse coded. The linear
transformation and reverse coded items are measured based on the model proposed by Prasad
et al. (2020).
5. DATA ANALYSIS
The researchers have applied appropriate statistical techniques on the respondents data
recorded for the study to draw the inferences and conclusions from primary data. The
researchers used descriptive statistics, multinomial nominal logistic regression analysis.
5.1. Reliability Methods

The Cronbach alpha reliability statistic was measured. All the items appears to be reliable and
consistent. However, one item of dependent factor resulted very low Cronbach alpha value
that factor was dropped out from the study (Table 5). The analysis was carried out further.
Table 5 Reliability statistics of study variables – Independent and outcome variables

Factor Description No. of items
Independent factors
1 Social support 0.87
2 Supervisor support 0.77
3 Organizational support 0.68
4 Family support 0.89
Total items 24
Psychological wellbeing
1 Autonomy 0.67
2 Self-acceptance 0.67
3 Purpose in Life Not reliable dropped from the study
4 Personal Growth 0.67
5 Environment Mastery 0.65
6 Positive Relations with others 0.66
Covid-19 Pandemic
5.2. Determination of Levels of Psychological Wellbeing Categories

Table 6 Levels of Psychological Wellbeing Categories
Minimum Maximum Range
42 210 168 (average range is 4)
The study variables measured with Five-point liker type scale and seven-point Ryff scales.
However, after linear transformation the Ryff‟s scale also converted to a five-point scale.
Therefore, 42 items measured , with each item on five point scale will yield a total score of
210, range is 168. However, for accurate representation the mean calculation was one
dividing the range by total statements and a mean of 4 was arrived, while the calculated mean
for the study is 3.9, and standard deviation is 0.30. The psychological wellbeing effect levels
categorized into 3 groups, low, moderate and high psychological wellbeing levels, and were
used in this study, and the level of psychological wellbeing was measured.
For a nearly symmetric distribution, expected range will be 6 times of standard deviation
(σ) and better approximation makes it a normal distribution (Andre Francis 2008 and Sumathi
Nandagopal, 2015). As the calculated standard deviation is 0.39 and the average range is 4.
The psychological wellbeing experienced by the respondents as mentioned above the three
groups low, moderate and high level psychological wellbeing was measured based on the
mean and standard deviation using the method adopted by Sumathi and Nandagopal (2015)
and Prasad et. al. (2016, 2017).
Levels of psychological wellbeing in the sample
Table 7 Sample
Mean (measured) Standard Deviation
3.9 0.30
From the above table, the Standard Deviation is added to the Mean and the ceiling for
higher psychological wellbeing value is set (3.9+0.3=4.2) and the higher level of
psychological wellbeing experienced will be is: >4.2). The difference of Mean and Standard
Deviation is arrived to find out the lower level of psychological wellbeing (3.90-0.30=3.60
and lower level is: <3.6); and the level between minimum and maximum is medium level (is
moderate level: 3.6-4.2) is moderate level of psychological wellbeing. Based on the above
level of scales th psychological wellbeing distribution is: Low Effect 19, Moderate Effect 159
and High Effect 67
6. RESULTS
In this research to study the impact of psychological wellbeing caused by the independent
factors social support, family support, organization climate and supervisor support coping
experienced by the respondents were categorized into three levels Low effect, Moderate
Effect and High effect. Thus the outcome variable is categorical variable, and has more than 2
categories. In SPSS system these dependent variables need to be stored as nominal variables.
The multinomial logistic regression is used to predict a nominal dependent variable in the
study i.e. the effect on psychological wellbeing with social support, family support, supervisor
support and organization climate. The multinomial logistic regression allows interactions
between independent variables to predict the dependent variable.
6.1. Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis

Table 8 Case Processing Summary overall sample
Marginal
N Percentage
Psychological wellbeing Low Effect 19 7.8
Effect Moderate Effect 159 64.9
High Effect 67 27.3
Valid 245 100
Missing 0
Total 245
Subpopulation 34a
a. The dependent variable has only one value observed in 103 (100.0%)
subpopulations.
The Case Processing Summary (Table 8) shows the number of cases in each category and
percentage with 245 valid cases with 34 subpopulations are included in this study with „0‟
non-missing cases. N provides the number of observations fitting the description. The first
three values are the number of observations for Psychological wellbeing effect – low effect,
moderate effect and high effect.
Table 9 Model fitting information to predict the Psychological wellbeing levels in overall sample
Model Fitting
Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
-2 Log Chi-
Model Likelihood Square Df Sig.
Intercept 394.345
Only
Final 321.326 73.019 6 0.000
Model: The final model is an improved model due to addition of the predictor variable than
base or intercept only model. The differences in the -2(Log Likelihood) values associated
indicates this Table 9). The model fit is significant χ² (6) = 73.019, p < .001, which indicates
our full model predicts significantly better, or more accurately, than the null model and p-
value is <0.05 indicates a good fit.
The results in Table 10 indicate lack of significance, and infer that lack of significance as
indicating good fit. The p-value to be greater than 0.05 to indicate good fit.
Table 10 Goodness of fit statistics

Chi-Square df Sig.
Pearson 1420.380 56 .568
Deviance 778.187 56 .530
The Pseudo R-Square values are the measures of effect size and do not. represent the
amount of variance in the outcome variable accounted for by the predictor variables. In
general, higher values indicate better fit
Covid-19 Pandemic
Table 11 Effect of size to test the strength of the model Pesudo R-Square
Cox and Snell 0.258
Nagelkerke 0.318
McFadden 0.179
Table 12 Likelihood ratio test: organizational, supervisor, family and social supports its impact on
psychological wellbeing
Model Fitting Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
-2 Log Likelihood of
Effect Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.
Intercept 321.326a .000 0 .
Supervisor support 322.532 1.206 2 .547
Organization climate 327.504 6.177 2 .046
Social Support 335.055 13.729 2 .001
Family Support 371.073 49.747 2 .000
Gender 335.115 13.788 2 .001
Age_Group 335.115 55.488 6 .000
Education 335.115 25.342 2 .000
Discipline 335.115 61.720 4 .000
Designation 335.115 15.549 4 .004
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model and a reduced
model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the final model. The null hypothesis is
that all parameters of that effect are 0.
The results in Table 12 indicate that each factor of the model is compared to the full
model to determine if each element should be included in the full model. This means each
element is contributing meaningfully in the model or not, and the values in Table 10 indicates
meaningful contribution from all the factors. The parameter estimates to predict the
psychological wellbeing with organizational, supervisor, family and social supports are
presented in the Table 13.
Table 13 Parameter estimates to predict Psychological wellbeing with organizational, supervisor,

family and social supports
95% Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)
Psychological wellbeing Std. Lower Upper
Effecta B Error Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Bound
Low Intercept 11.565 3.192 13.126 1 .000
Effect Supervisor .179 .615 .085 1 .771 1.196 .358 3.990
Organization -1.165 .639 3.327 1 .068 .312 .089 1.091
support
Social Support 2.176 .726 8.991 1 .003 8.811 2.125 36.541
Family Support -4.064 .806 25.437 1 .000 .017 .004 .083
[Gender=1] -.493 .666 .547 1 .459 .611 .166 2.254
[Gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Age_Group=1] -2.529 1.059 5.703 1 .017 .080 .010 .635
[Age_Group=2] -22.698 .000 . 1 . 1.388E-10 1.388E-10 1.388E-10
[Age_Group=3] 1.077 .945 1.299 1 .254 2.934 .461 18.690
[Age_Group=4] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Education=1] -2.802 .761 13.549 1 .000 .061 .014 .270
[Education=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Discipline=1] -.207 .000 . 1 . .813 .813 .813
[Discipline=2] -.853 .754 1.279 1 .258 .426 .097 1.868
[Discipline=3] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Design.=1] .064 .676 .009 1 .924 1.067 .284 4.009

[Design.=2] -20.707 .000 . 1 . 1.017E-9 1.017E-9 1.017E-9
[Design.=3] 0b . . 0 . . . .
Moderate Intercept 11.678 2.076 31.638 1 .000
Effect Supervisor .396 .380 1.085 1 .298 1.486 .705 3.129
Organization -.994 .427 5.407 1 .020 .370 .160 .855
support
Social Support .727 .303 5.765 1 .016 2.069 1.143 3.746
Family Support -2.380 .478 24.764 1 .000 .093 .036 .236
[Gender=1] -1.297 .389 11.132 1 .001 .273 .128 .586
[Gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Age_Group=1] -.811 .746 1.183 1 .277 .444 .103 1.917
[Age_Group=2] 1.193 .682 3.060 1 .080 3.297 .866 12.553
[Age_Group=3] 2.494 .717 12.083 1 .001 12.110 2.968 49.416
[Age_Group=4] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[Education=1] -1.961 .452 18.820 1 .000 .141 .058 .341
[Education=2] 0b . . 0 . .. . .
[Discipline=1] 20.219 5700.460 .000 1 .997 604134380. .000 .c
2
[Discipline=2] -1.524 .574 7.055 1 .008 .218 .071 .671
[Design.=1] .932 .481 3.756 1 .053 2.541 .990 6.524
[Design.=2] .597 .577 1.072 1 .300 1.817 .587 5.625
[Design.=3] 0b . . 0 . . . .
The reference category is: High Effect. B. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant
Table 14 Presenting the results multinomial logistic regression: organizational, supervisor, family and
social supports measured on dependent variable psychological wellbeing. Age, gender, education,
discipline and designation results are also presented
Low effect(n=19) Medium effect(n=159)
Variable OR(95% CI) SE OR(95% CI) SE
Supervisor 1.20(0.4-4.0) 0.8 1.5(0.7-3.12) 0.4
Organization climate 0.30(0.09-1.091) 0.6 0.370(0.16- 0.855)** 0.4
Social support 8.8(2.1-36.5)*** 0.7 2.0(1.14-3.75)*** 0.30
Family support .017(.004-.083)*** 0.81 .093(.036-0.236) 0.48
Gender .611(.166-2.254) 0.67 .273(0.128-0.586) 0.39
Age: 20-30 .080(.010-.635)*** 1.1 .444(.1031.917) 0.75
Age: 31-40 Not Significant 0.0 3.297(.866-12.553) 0.68
Age: 41-50 2.934(0.461-18.69) 0.95 12.110(2.968-49.416)*** 0.72
Education .061(.014-.270)*** 0.76 .141(.058-0.341)*** 0.45
Discipline Not Significant Not significant
Designation Not Significant Not Significant
Note: Psychological wellbeing- Reference group: High effect(n=67) compared with low and moderate effect; OR=Odds
Ratio, SE=Standard Error, 95% CI = Confidence interval, *p< 0.05; **p<0.01); *** p<0.001)
A Multinomial Logistic Regression was used to analyse the predictors on unordered group
classification like low effect, moderate effect and high effect in terms of Psychological
wellbeing. The reference category for the outcome variable was High Effect and other two
categories Low Effect and Moderate Effect were compared to this reference group. The main
interest is of the current analysis was focused on relational ship between social support,
supervisory support, organizational support and family support on psychological wellbeing (3
categories) while controlling age group, gender, discipline and designation parameters (Table
14).
The first column of the Table 14 is Low effect (referring to Psychological wellbeing
Effect) was compared to reference category High Effect (high psychological wellbeing
effect). Referring to the parameter estimates of Table 14 the comparison will be done
comparing low effect (first half). The results suggest that the predictor variable supervisor has
no statistically significant influence on psychological wellbeing when compared with low
effect keeping high effect as reference category. In relation to organizational climate is
Covid-19 Pandemic
significantly influencing the psychological wellbeing of an employee when compared with

moderate effect (OR=0.370). For this model moderate effect versus high effect, for each unit
increase in organizational support the odds of increasing psychological wellbeing in moderate
effect group is 0.370 times (95%, CI 0.16- 0.855) p<0.01); Similarly, the predictor variable
social support is statistically significant and influencing the outcome variable psychological
wellbeing in both the groups (low and moderate) when compared with high effect group
(Table 14).
The results from the Table 14 indicate, for each unit increase in the social support odds of
increasing psychological wellbeing of an employee in low effect group is OR 8.7 times (95%,
CI 2.1 to 36.5), p<0.001), and for moderate effect group is OR 2.0 times (95% CI 1.14-3.75,
p<0.001) and so on. Similarly family support in low effect group is OR 0.017(95% CI, 0.004-
0.083, p<0.001); age group 20-3 OR 0.80 times (95% CI, 0.010-0.635, p<0.001) and age
group 41-50 in moderate effect group OR 12.110 times (95%, CI 2.968-49.416, p<0.001))
when compared with high effect group. In the similar way the education impact on
psychological wellbeing is statistically significant for low effect OR 0.061 times (95%, CI
0.014-0.270, p<0.01), moderate effect OR 0.147 times (95%, CI 0.058-0.341, p<0.01). The
variables discipline and designation no statistically significant effect on outcome variable
psychological wellbeing of Academician in higher education. Increased social support, family
support and organizational support will increase the psychological wellbeing of the
Academician.
In general, where the odd ratios ex(ß) are <1.0 indicate moderate effects and >1.0 are
significant and in this model social support, education and age groups are strong predictors of
psychological wellbeing of Academicians in higher education and Supervisor, discipline,
designation has no role influencing the psychological wellbeing.
The results conclude that
Ha1: The three independent factors organizational, family and social supports are statistically
significant and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians in higher education
and supervisor support is not good predictor of psychological wellbeing of academicians in
higher education
Ha2: There are no statistically significant gender and age differences among the respondents
that are statistically significant and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians
in higher education
And partially agree with
Ha3: There are some statistically significant discipline and role differences among the
respondents and influencing the psychological wellbeing of academicians in higher education
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The psychological wellbeing was classified in to three categories low effect, moderate effect
and high effect based on the procedures and models used by Prasad etl. (2016,2019), Sumati
and Nandagopal (2015), and Mamatha and Prasad (2017), based on the respondents replies to
the survey instrument. This study found that that predictor variable social support, family
support and organizational support are associated with the psychological wellbeing of
Academicians in higher education colleges. The results from multinomial logistic regression
analysis could not find any statistically significant influence on gender psychological
wellbeing. The researchers also studied the age group, discipline (humanities, engineering and
management), and designation (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor)
applying multinomial logistic regression analysis to see any statistically significant age,
discipline and role differences. However, there were no statistically significant age group,
discipline and role differences were observed.
The outcome confirms the earlier similar studies on social support (Mamatha and Prasad,
2017), Prasad and Vaidya (2018) reported moderate effect on psychological wellbeing in a
study on agricultural research sector employees. The researchers who used multinomial
logistic regression on analysis Supran Kumar Sharma, Jyoti Sharma, and Arti Devi (2012),
Kumar, K.S. and Madhu(2012), Suryavanshi et al. Prasad et. al. 2016), reported the similar
results.
The reliability statistic Cronbach alpha measured for all items and unfortunately one items
purpose in life of psychological wellbeing was dropped out of the study due to low Cronbach
alpha values. However, this deletion has not influenced the outcome of the study. We have
received data from 245 respondents and the sample size estimated by Yamane formula as the
population size was known in both the colleges and measured size was 254. Some
respondents were dropped our because these respondents not answered to all the statements.
The researchers suggest a comparative analysis of gathering the data from different
colleges of different states in India to study the gender, age group differences to further
generalize this model.
REFERENCES
[1] Alsubaie, M.M. H. J. Stain, L. A. D. Webster & R. Wadman (2019) The role of sources of
social support on depression and quality of life for university students, International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 24:4, 484-
496, DOI: 10.1080/02673843.2019.1568887.
[2] Andre Francis. (2008). Business Mathematics and Statistics. 6th Edition. South Western
Cengage Learning EMEA, High Holborn House. 50-51 Bedford Row, London WC1R
4LR. ISBN 978-1-84480-128
[3] Burns, K. L. (2016). Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Supervisor Support
as Antecedents of Work Engagement, 1–57
[4] Carruthers, C. P., & Hood, C. D. (2004). The power of the positive: Leisure and well-
being. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 38(2), 225.
[5] Chandola, Tarani, Annie Britton, Eric Brunner, Harry Hemingway, Marek Malik, Meena
Kumari, Ellena Badrick, Mika Kivimaki, and Michael Marmot. (2008) "Work stress and
coronary heart disease: what are the mechanisms?." European heart journal 29, no. 5:
640-648.
[6] Cronbach L. (1951) Coefficient Alpha and Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16,
297-334.
[7] Diener, E. (2000) Subjective wellbeing: The science of happiness and a proposal for a
national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.
[8] Ganesh Bhat S. (2015). A Framework for Ensuring Wellness of Faculty Members for
Higher Education Effectiveness Ganesh. Nitte Management Review 63-68.
[9] Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., Mitchell, P. B., Malhi, G. S., Wilhelm, K., & Austin, M.
P. (2004). Implications of childhood trauma for depressed women: an analysisof pathways
from childhood sexual abuse to deliberate self-harm and revictimization. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1417–1425.
[10] Holden, L., Lee, C., Hockey, R., Ware, R. S., & Dobson, A. J. (2014). Validation of the
MOS Social Support Survey 6-item (MOS-SSS-6) measure with two large population-
Covid-19 Pandemic
based samples of Australian women. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2849–2853.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0741-5
[11] Ilgan, A., Ozu-Cengiz, O., Ata, A., & Akram, M. (2015). The relationship between
teachers‟ psychological well-being and their quality of school work life. The Journal of
Happiness & Well-Being, 3(2), 159-181.
[12] Khoshaba, D. M., & Maddi, S. R. (1999). Early experiences in hardiness
development. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51, 106–116.
[13] Mamatha, C., & Prasad, K. D. V. (2017). Employee Psychological wellbeing A Function
of Social Support and Coping: A Case Study with Reference to Agricultural Research
Sector Employees Using Multinomial Logistic Regression. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management 19 (7), 12, 21
[14] Opree, S. J., Buijzen, M., & Reijmersdal, E. A. van. (2018). Development and Validation
of the Psychological Well-Being Scale for Children (PWB-c). Social Work (South
Africa), 8(18), 1–14. .https://doi.org/10.3390/soc8010018
[15] Prasad, K.D.V., Vaidya, R., & Anil Kumar V. (2018). Association among Occupational
Stress factors and Performance at workplace among Agricultural Research Sector
Employees at Hyderabad, India. Pacific Business Review International 10(7):27-36, 2018
[16] Prasad, K.D.V., & Vaidya, R. (2018). Causes and effect of occupational stress and coping
on performance and psychological well-being among the Agricultural Research Sector:
An Empirical Study using Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach. Helix Journal-The
Scientific Explorer, 8(6), 4114-4119.
[17] Prasad, K.D.V., Vaidya, R., & Kumar, V. A. (2016). Teacher‟s Psychological wellbeing
as a Function of Occupational Stress and Coping with Reference to CBSE Affiliated
School Teachers in and around Hyderabad: A Multinomial Regression
Approach. Psychology, 7(13), 1700-1718.
[18] Prasad, K.D.V, Rajesh Vaidya and Anil Kumar V. (2016), Social Support and Coping
Strategies As Predictors of Occupational Stress And Performance Among CBSE
Affiliated School Teachers In Hyderabad: A Multinomial Logistic Regression Approach.
International Journal of Recent Scientific Research. 7(10), pp. 13978-13986.
[19] Prasad, K.D.V., Mruthyanjaya Ra, M., Rajesh Vaidya & Muralidhar, B. (2020)
Organizational Climate, Opportunities, Challenges and Psychological Wellbeing of the
Remote Working Employees during Covid-19 Pandemic: A General Linear Model
Approach with Reference to Information Technology Industry in Hyderabad, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 11(4), 372-389.
[20] Prasad, K.D.V., Mruthyanjaya Ra, M., Rajesh Vaidya. (2020). Effect of Occupational
Stress and Remote Working on Psychological Wellbeing of Employees: An Empirical
Study during Covid-19 Pandemic with Reference to Information Technology Industry in
Hyderabad. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies 11(2),1-20
[21] Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081
[22] Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being
revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
[23] Ryff, C. D., Almeida, D. M., Ayanian, J. S., Carr, D. S., Cleary, P. D., Coe, C., Williams,
D. (2010). National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS II),
2004-2006: Documentation of psychosocial constructs and composite variables in MIDUS
II Project 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research.
[24] Ryff, C.D., Singer, B.H. and Love, G.D. (2004) Positive health: connecting wellbeing
with biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 1383-1394.
[25] Sally Weale. Higher Education. (2019). Higher education staff suffer 'epidemic' of poor
mental health. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/23/higher-education-
staff-suffer-epidemic-of-poor-mental-health (Education correspondent)
[26] Sateesh Kumar K, Madhu G. (2012) Analysis and multinomial logistic regression
modelling work stress in manufacturing industries in Kerala, India. International Journal
of Advances in Engineering & Technology 2(1): 410-418. 14.
[27] Seifert, T. A. (2005). The Ryff scales of psychological well-being. Assessment Notes.
[28] Sharma SK, Sharma J, Devi A. (2012) Determinants of role stress based on employee
segmentation: a multinomial logit analysis. Management: journal of contemporary
management issues, 17(2), 1-30, 17. 19.
[29] Solomon, Z., Berger, R., Ginsberg, K. (2007). Resilience of Israeli body handlers:
Implications of repressive coping style. Traumatology, 13, 64–74.
[30] Sumathi Annamaliand Nandagopal, R. (2015) Occupational Stress: A study of Employee
Stress in Indian ITES Industry. Pp 165. Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. India, 2015 21.
[31] Suryawanshi A, Savasani M and Shah J (2015) A study of stress level of married men and
women using multinomial logistic regression. International Journal of Scientific Research
Publications. 5(8): 1-8, 22.
[32] Thomas, P.A., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2017). Family relationships and well-
being. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), igx025.
[33] Vazi, M. L., Ruiter, R. A., Van den Borne, B., Martin, G., Dumont, K., & Reddy, P. S.
(2013). The relationship between wellbeing indicators and teacher psychological stress in
Eastern Cape public schools in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1),
00-00
[34] Woo, B., & Chelladurai, P. (2012). Dynamics of Perceived Support and Work Attitudes:
The Case of Fitness Club Employees. Human Resource Management Research, 2(1), 6–
18. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.hrmr.20120201.02
[35] Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1967. Pp. x–405.
[36] Zaki, S. (2018). Enhancing teacher effectiveness through psychological Well-Being: A
Key to improve quality of teachers. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences,
8(7), 286-295.
[37] Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. H. I. (2015). Employee well-being in
organizations : Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation,
644(January), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/job
[38] Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). Duplicate The
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment,
52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201
.

Ijm 11 07 003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijm 11 07 003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Management (IJM)

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

PERCEIVED PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING

Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya

underlying personality (Gladstone, Parker and Mitchell, 2004); However, exposure to

2.1. Research Question

2.1.1. Research Gap

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Figure 1 Psychological wellbeing of Academicians in higher education is embodied and well

The evaluation of psychological well-being with reference to four independent factors

4.2. Estimation of Sample Size

Table 1 Demography of the sample

Table 2 Sample description

Table 3 Faculty description/distribution

Table 4 Study variables – Independent and outcome variables

4.3. Research Instrument

5.1. Reliability Methods

Table 5 Reliability statistics of study variables – Independent and outcome variables

5.2. Determination of Levels of Psychological Wellbeing Categories

6.1. Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis

Table 10 Goodness of fit statistics

Table 13 Parameter estimates to predict Psychological wellbeing with organizational, supervisor,

[Design.=1] .064 .676 .009 1 .924 1.067 .284 4.009

significantly influencing the psychological wellbeing of an employee when compared with

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

based samples of Australian women. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2849–2853.

You might also like