DOI: 10.3390/bs16112013 ISSN: 2076-328X

Latent Profiles of Teacher Subjective Well-Being and Occupational Stress Among University English Teachers in Northeast China: Associations with Work Engagement

Weining Zhang, Jing Meng

Teachers’ well-being and occupational stress may coexist in complex ways. However, their configurations and associations with work engagement among university English teachers remain insufficiently understood. This study identified latent profiles of subjective well-being and perceived occupational stress and examined their demographic associations and engagement differences. Using convenience sampling, we collected cross-sectional survey data from 536 English teachers at six public universities in Northeast China. Nine profile indicators comprised two dimensions of teacher subjective well-being: school belonging and teaching self-efficacy, and seven perceived occupational stress domains: academic research, organizational functioning, professional development, career promotion, English language teaching, workload, and interpersonal relationships. Latent profile analysis was followed by R3STEP analysis of demographic associations and BCH comparisons of work engagement and its three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Four profiles emerged: the High Well-Being and High Task-Related Stress Profile (P1), the Moderate Well-Being and Moderate Stress Profile (P2), the High Well-Being and Low Stress Profile (P3), and the Low Belonging and Multidimensionally High Stress Profile (P4). Their proportions based on most likely assignments were 19.0%, 27.2%, 6.3%, and 47.4%. Only academic rank showed a significant overall association with profile membership after adjustment. Across all four engagement outcomes, P1 scored significantly higher than P4 and P2, while P3 and P4 scored significantly higher than P2. These findings link configurations of organizational connectedness, perceived teaching competence, and domain-specific stress to differences in work engagement. They provide configurational evidence rather than a causal test of Job Demands–Resources theory.

More from our Archive