The goals and Hypotheses of the present study

This study’s main goal was to examine the psychometric properties (the constructs’ reliability, discriminant, construct validity of Coping with Stress Questionnaire and explore its mediator role between psychological capital and teacher well-being.

Teacher well-being’s primary goal is to recover from adversity and build a flourishing life of teachers’ (Linley, Joseph, Harrington, & Wood, 2006). Thus, positive psychology plays a crucial role in employees’ well-being and fosters a healthy working environment. For instance, understanding of well-being among teachers is essential not only for the teachers themselves but also for students, schools, and the nation at large (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009; Pakarinen & Kiuru, 2010; Collie, Shapka, Perry, & Martin, 2015). The teacher well-being model introduced by Collie, Shapka, Perry, and Martin (2015) emphasized teachers’ specific work life. We believe that this model has cross-cultural potential for researchers, and it should have value for practical intervention in university teachers’ well-being by applying positive psychology and coping strategies. Furthermore, its results can also help us construct a theoretical model on the relationship of coping with stress, teacher well-being, and psychological capital. This led to the following hypothesis:

H1: Reliability. Coping with Stress constructs will be expected to be reliable.

H2: Factorial validity. The three-factor (acceptance, change, and withdrawal) model of Copying with stress was expected to fit the data.

H3: Correlation. Psychological Capital (hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism) would positively relate to coping through acceptance and Copying with change.

H4: Correlation. Psychological Capital (hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism) would negatively relate to coping through withdrawal.

H5: Mediation. Copying with stress (CWS) would be a mediator of the psychological capital Capital (PsyCap) and Teacher well-being (TWB).

Method A total of 836 University teachers from three public Universities of Ethiopia (male 74, 8% and female 25, 2%) participated. The mean age of teachers was 34.00, and the standard deviation was 6.55. Stratified was used because the ministry of Education in Ethiopia categorized Universities into three clusters. The sample was randomly split and grouped into two; 240 sample teachers’ were used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the Maximum Likelihood method, and 596 teachers’ scores were used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and mediation analysis was performed. Instruments Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Short Version; PCQ_12; Luthans; Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Twelve items with four sub-dimensions measured the PsyCap_12 scale: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism on a Likert scale between 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) and 6 (“Strongly Agree”).In our previous study the psychometric evaluation by taking 861 samples for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed a good model fit: χ2(48) =211.31, χ2/df = 4.34, TLI=0.959, CFI = 0.970, RMSEA= 0.063 [95% bootstrap CI: 0.054–0.072], and SRMR= 0.046. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the four PsyCap pillars was ranging from 0.765to 0.892. The reliability of the PsyCap composite score was 0.879. The Teacher Well-Being Scale (TWBS; Collie, Shapka, Perry, & Martin, 2015) was gauged by 11 items on a Likert scale between 1 (“Negatively”) and 7 (“Positively”) with three subscales: Workload Well-being with 6 items; Organizational Well-Being with six items and Student Interaction well-Being with four items. Also, in our previous study the psychometric evaluation of 861 samples university teachers for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed a good model fit: χ2(101) =318.16, χ2/df = 3.15, TLI=0.973, CFI = 0.978, RMSEA= 0.050 [95% bootstrap CI: 0.044–0.056], and SRMR= 0.029. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the three teacher well-being dimensions was ranging from .915 to .918. The reliability of the composite TWBS was 0.919. Coping With Stress Questionnaire (CWS-Q; Rabenu & Yaniv, 2017) was gauged by Ten items on a Likert scale between 1 (“Very infrequently”) and 6 (“Very frequently”) of the overall ten items with acceptable reliability (α =. 65). The Cronbach’s alphas reliability for the core dimensions were: change: 3 items (α = .71), accept three items (α = .53) and withdrawal: 4 items (α = .76). The construct was highly valid (Rabenu et al., 2016). In this study, the CWS_Q first-order factor had a good model fit: χ2(24) =80.23, χ2/df= 3.33, TLI= 0.974, CFI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.063[95% bootstrap CI: 0.048–0.078], and SRMR= 0.039. The Cronbach alpha reliability of the three CWS_Q dimensions was ranging from 0.86 to 0.89. The composite reliability of the CWS construct was 0.70.

As a result, this research examines whether coping with stress can be an appropriate (reliable and valid) instrument for an Ethiopian sample; second, to explore the relationship of coping with stress constructs with psychological capital components and teacher well-being. Third, to examine the mediation role of copying strategies between psychological capital and teacher well-being. As a result, all psychometric constructs Copying with Stress construct are reliable in the Ethiopian context. Furthermore, reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha and C.R.; all constructs showed results higher than 0.7, thus confirming the reliability of the data. Besides, we found that PsyCap dimensions were positively related to teacher well-being (total and dimensions); coping with stress (total and dimensions; acceptance, change, and withdrawal) fully mediated the link between PsyCap and teacher well-being. Furthermore, EFA and CFA data support a theoretically hypothesized three factors as a one-factor solution with nine items (Copying with stress) hierarchical was found to have an acceptable fit to the data. Finally, Psychological Capital has a direct effect on the Strategies of Coping with Stress and teacher well-being. Besides, the Psychological Capital had indirectly affected the teacher’s well-being. This implies that copying strategies have played a mediator role in the relationship between Psychological Capital and the teacher’s well-being.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos 23.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: IBM SPSS. 1–702. Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016998 Collie, R. J. (2014). Understanding Teacher Well-Being and Motivation: Measurement, Theory, and Change over Time (Issue February). THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Collie, R., Shapka, J., Perry, N. &, & Martin, A. (2015). Teacher Well-Being: Exploring Its Components and a Practice-Oriented Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(8), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915587990 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. Cronbach, L. (2004). My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404266386 Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157232 Luthans; Youssef & Avolio. (2007). Psychological Capital : Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195187526.001.0001