The Relationship between Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being with the Moderation Effect of Self-Efficacy and Study Abroad Experience

全文

(1)The Relationship between Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being with the Moderation Effect of Self-Efficacy and Study Abroad Experience by Yi Chen Lu. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Wei-Wen Chang, Ph.D. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan July 2019.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENT First of all, I would like to appreciate my advisor Dr. Chang. She is a very kind, wise, and warm person. She helped me the most in my thesis writing journey. When I was struggling with the writing process, she always provided me useful advises and the warmest encouragement to push me forward. Without her, I could ever finish this big challenge. Second, I would like to thank the classmates, professors, and staffs in IHRD who had help me in the three year of master study. Without the support, I couldn’t finish the thesis writing and the master degree. Third, I would like to thank my friends which always notice me to stay in the writing schedule. Although they weren’t students anymore, they never forget to encourage me to finish my thesis and start to work with them. Continually, I would like to thank my boyfriend Mike. When I was stressful and depressing in the writing process, he could always cheer me up and encourage me to go forward. The writing process of thesis was very tough. It is very important to have him apart. The last is my beloved family. They are my strongest backing when I face difficulties and challenges. Especially, they provide me this opportunity to finish the master degree and support me when I needed them..

(3) ABSTRACT In this globalized world, there is an increasing number of study abroad program. In addition, the existing literature is often discussing the cross-cultural capacity of the students who have study abroad experience. However, mental health and the level of psychological well-being of the students who went abroad is also important. Therefore, the study aims to understand the level of psychological well-being of the students with study abroad experience. Moreover, this study examines the relationship between psychological flexibility, and psychological wellbeing, and test the moderation effect of self-efficacy and study abroad experience to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. There is a total of 256 surveys collected in this study. Among these 256 responders, 220 had study abroad experience. The researcher analyzed the 220 samples to examine the relationship between the variables mentioned above. In the other hand, the researcher separates the 256 data into two groups. One group has over 8 months of study abroad experience, and the other group has less than 8 months of study abroad experience (including no experience). This study compared two group’s means in terms of psychological well-being. The result of this study presented (a) a significant effect between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being, (b) a negative moderation effect of self-efficacy to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being, and (c) there is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing level between students who studied abroad over 8 months and less than 8 months. However, there is no moderation effect of study abroad experience to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Keyword: psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, psychological well-being. I.

(4) II.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….….I TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………III LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………....V LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………...VII CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement............................................................................................................ 3 Research Purpose and Questions ...................................................................................... 4 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................. 4 Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 5. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................. 7 Psychological Flexibility .................................................................................................. 7 Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................................................... 8 Study Abroad Experience ................................................................................................. 9 Psychological Well-Being .............................................................................................. 10 Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being .............................................. 11 The Relationship among Self-Efficacy, Psychological Flexibility, and Psychological Well-Being ...................................................................................................................... 12 The Relationship among Study Abroad Experience, Psychological Flexibility, and Psychological Well-Being .............................................................................................. 13 Study Abroad Length and U-Curve ................................................................................ 13. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 15 Research Framework ...................................................................................................... 15 Research Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 16 Research Procedure ........................................................................................................ 16 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 17 Research Sample ............................................................................................................ 18 Research Instrument ....................................................................................................... 19 Instrument Validity ......................................................................................................... 21 III.

(6) CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................... 25 Demographic Statistic .................................................................................................... 25 Common Method Variance (CMV) ................................................................................ 26 Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................ 27 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ........................................................................................ 27 Correlation Analysis ....................................................................................................... 34 Independent T-test Analysis ............................................................................................ 39 Summary and Discussions of the Analysis Result ......................................................... 40. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................. 43 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 43 Implications .................................................................................................................... 43 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 44 Suggestions for the Future Study ................................................................................... 45. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................... 51. IV.

(7) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1.. Psychological Flexibility (AAQ-II)…..............................................................19. Table 3.2.. Self-Efficacy….................................................................................................20. Table 3.3.. Psychological Well-Being….............................................................................21. Table 3.4.. Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis (N = 35)................................................................22. Table 4.1.. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Demographics (n = 256)…............................26. Table 4.2.. Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis (N = 220) ..............................................................27. Table 4.3.. Summary of Good-Fit Criteria..........................................................................28. Table 4.4.. CFA Results for Psychological Flexibility........................................................29. Table 4.5.. CFA Results for Self-Efficacy...........................................................................31. Table 4.6.. CFA Results for Psychological Well-Being......................................................32. Table 4.7.. Comparison of Fit Indices in This Study..........................................................33. Table 4.8.. Pearson Correlation Analysis (N = 220)...........................................................34. Table 4.9.. The Linear Regression Result for the Relationship between Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being.........................................................35. Table 4.10.. Summary of Hierarchical Regression for Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being.........................................................................................................36. Table 4.11.. Summary of Hierarchical Regression for Moderating Effect of Study Abroad Experience on the Relationship between Psychological Flexibility Psychological Well-Being.................................................................................38. Table 4.12.. Independent T-test..............................................................................................39. Table 4.13.. Result of the Study.............................................................................................40. V.

(8) VI.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1.. Research framework……………………………………………….…………15. Figure 3.2.. Research procedure…………………………………………………………..17. Figure 4.1.. Psychological flexibility model……………………………….….…..………29. Figure 4.2.. Self-efficacy model…………………………………………….…………….30. Figure 4.3.. Psychological well-being model……………………………….…………….32. Figure 4.4.. The moderation effect of self-efficacy…………………………..…………...37. VII.

(10) VIII.

(11) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter introduces the background of this study and the problem statement. Based on the background and problem statement, the researcher examines the research purpose, research question, and significance of this study. Finally, according to the purpose and the questions, the researcher noted the definition of terms in this study.. Background of the Study In recent years, globalization and global mobility became an important topic for discussion. Since the international company increases, increasingly products, stores, thoughts go through all over the world. The globalized situation is similar to organizational talents. Nowadays, companies required more cross-cultural talents in order to face the globalized workforce. Kaufman and Johnson (2005) noted that companies prefer to hire international backgrounds or individuals with international experience. By developing the cross-cultural young talents, study abroad program is often viewed as an effective way to realize it. Several studies found out that the study abroad program develops student’s global view, cross-cultural competency, self- confidence, and well-being (Kitsantas, 2004). When people face different culture and environment, they are often forced to change their behaviors and mindsets; thus they can survive in a different surrounding. In this condition, there are increasing opportunities for offering study abroad programs. Berdan (2017) also reported, there are 325,339 U.S. students studied oversea in the academic year 2015/16, which is a growth of 4% over the previous academic year. Moreover, it was a tripled number during the past 20 years. Although there is a trend of studying abroad, there are few studies discussing the psychological well-being level of the students who studied abroad. The researcher-researched on Scopus database; there is only one study research on the well-being level of students who studied abroad through the year 2000 to 2019 (Yang, Zhang, & Sheldon, 2018). However, many philosophical, and researchers emphasize that it is important to aware the maintenance and improvement of an individual’s well-being (Wilber, 2000). Psychological well-being is not only conceptualization of mental health but also a major predictor to individuals performance (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Therefore, it is important to understand the psychological well-being level of the students who studied abroad. In addition, when students studied abroad, they may struggling with cultural differences. In order to balance and comfort their thoughts and feelings, psychological flexibility stands an important role. As Bond, Flaxman, and Bunce (2008) mentioned that psychological flexibility 1.

(12) refers to the capacity when individuals concentrate on the present situation and take actions to achieve their goals and values, even they are facing the situation or feelings that they unwanted. As being an international student, there are cultural differences and difficulties during their abroad time. In order to overcome these unwanted thoughts and achieve their goals (e.g. finishing their study abroad program, learn a different language, and adapt to a different culture), enhancing their psychological flexibility become an important issue. Therefore, the researcher aims to study the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being with the background of study abroad students. On the other hand, studying abroad often increases an individual’s self-efficacy (Page, 2005). When studying abroad, individuals often go abroad by themselves. Hence, they are facing a totally different surrounding alone. In that situation, they are often forced to face those difficulties and challenges by themselves. However, it causes them to grow at the same time. Overtimes, they can deal with more challenges than they could; moreover, the experience may help them to increase their self-confidence. In Dwyer & Peters (2004) study, they surveyed around 3400 students after the students who joined a study abroad program; 96% of the students think that they are more confident than before they went studying abroad. As the definition of self-efficacy, it was defined as the capacity to believe themselves and to achieve the goals (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001). In other words, students with study abroad experience may have a higher level of self-efficacy. Moreover, several studies had examined self-efficacy as a predictor of psychological well-being (Karademas, 2006; Page, 2005). As already noted above, the researcher wants to study about self-efficacy to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Furthermore, the length of studying abroad could also make a difference in the impact of students who studied abroad. Some researchers claimed that longer studying abroad experience could have a better impact on an individual’s future (Dwyer, 2004). Other researchers argued that a short-term study abroad program made a big difference to one’s life (Anderson, Lawton, Rexeisen, & Hubbard, 2006). The U-curve adjustment theory presents four stages of people living in a new culture. In the third stage of the theory called adjustment stage, it means that individuals steady adapt to a different culture; in addition, they try to learn how to behave properly refers to the cultural norms from the host country (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). From the theory, the researcher found that people start to adjust their behavior after their sixth to eighth months while going abroad. Furthermore, the peak of behavioral changing is the eighth months of staying in a new culture (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Therefore, in this study, the 2.

(13) researcher will also compare two groups of the sample. One group with over 8 months of study abroad experiences (A group) and the other group that with under 8 months of study abroad experiences including no experience (B group). This study would like to utilize the t-test to compare the two groups’ means in terms of psychological well-being level.. Problem Statement According to the literature, researchers often studied on the benefit of student’s global view, intercultural competence, language capabilities and how study abroad program affects them to choose their future university major and future jobs (Dwyer & Peters, 2004; Franklin, 2010; Kitsantas, 2004; Norris & Gillespie, 2009). However, limited studies focus on how study abroad experiences make a difference in their psychological well-being. Deci and Ryan (2008) noted that psychological well-being is one of the basic and common psychological need. Therefore, it is important to study on the psychological well-being level of the people who have study abroad experience. When deeper discussing the psychological well-being level of students who studied abroad, psychological flexibility may take an important role. Despite several studies examining the major influence of psychological flexibility to one’s mental health and well-being. There are lacking literature which studied directly on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Consequently, this study aims to study the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. On the other hand, the researcher noted that self-efficacy and study abroad experience may influence the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. However, there has thus far been relatively little research on these variables. Therefore, in this study, the researcher also aims to study the moderation effect of self-efficacy and study abroad experience to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Furthermore, the length of studying abroad is also an important issue for the individual’s study abroad impact. There are several choices when we go abroad to study; one of the alternatives is a time of study abroad program. A number of studies have shown a different perspective between the benefit of long-term studying abroad and short-term studying abroad. While several researchers aim longer study abroad program is better (Dwyer, 2004). Therefore, according to the U-curve adjustment theory (Black & Mendenhall, 1991), this study separates the sample into two groups in order to test whether study abroad length makes a difference on one’s psychological well-being.. 3.

(14) Research Purpose and Questions The purpose of this study is to discover whether psychological flexibility has a positive effect on one’s psychological well-being. In addition, this study aims to understand the moderation effect of study abroad experiences and self-efficacy between the relationship of psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. More specifically, this study compares two groups of the sample in order to understand how study abroad length makes a difference in one’s psychological well- being. The research questions are stated as follows: 1.. Does psychological flexibility affect one’s psychological well-being?. 2.. Whether self-efficacy has a moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being?. 3.. Whether study abroad experience has a moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being?. 4.. Is there a significant difference in psychological well-being between people with staying abroad over and under 8 months?. Significance of the Study In this globalized world, having a global view, intercultural sensitive and abilities are becoming more and more important. Therefore, there are increased numbers of overseas study programs. Since students went to study abroad, they might be facing difficulties in cultural difference. In addition, considering the level of psychological well-being of students who studied abroad is also important. Despite psychological flexibility is a predictor to an individual’s mental health. However, in literature, there are lacking studies between the relationship of psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Wersebe, Lieb, Meyer, Hofer, and Gloster (2018) suggested that there is a need for researching the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Thus, this study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Furthermore, this study presents the moderation effect result of selfefficacy and study abroad experience to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. It provides an understanding of how self-efficacy and study abroad experience affect to one’s psychological well-being. Last but not least, this study provides another perspective of choosing study abroad length by considering their psychological well-being level. In general, this research shows a more comprehensive view of the relationship among psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, and psychological well-being.. 4.

(15) Definition of Terms There are four key terms in this study: psychological flexibility, psychological well-being, self-efficacy, and study abroad experience. Their definitions are noted as follow:. Psychological Flexibility In Bond et al. (2011)’s study, they defined psychological flexibility as “the ability to fully contact the present moment and the thoughts and feelings. It contains without needless defense, and, depending upon what the situation affords, persisting or changing in behavior in the pursuit of goals and values” (p.7). In other words, psychological flexibility is the capacity to change one’s actions and minds when facing a wanted or unwanted situation.. Psychological Well-Being Ryff (1989) developed a theoretical model of psychological well-being. The model includes six dimensions: Autonomy, personal growth, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, purpose of life and self-acceptance. Ryff and Keyes (1995) had defined these six elements: These dimensions encompass a breadth of wellness that includes positive evaluations of oneself and one's past life (Self-Acceptance), a sense of continued growth and development as a person (Personal Growth), the belief that one's life is purposeful and meaningful (Purpose in Life), the possession of quality relations with others (Positive Relations With Others), the capacity to manage effectively one's life and surrounding world (Environmental Mastery), and a sense of self-determination (Autonomy). (p.720). Self-Efficacy In Chen et al. (2001)’s study, self-efficacy was defined as “one’s belief in one’s overall competence to effect requisite performances across a wide variety of achievement situations” (p.63). Simply stated, when one’s self-efficacy is higher, it has a better ability and motivation to face the difficulties and problems.. Study Abroad Experience Williams (2005) provided a definition of study abroad experience, which was stated as “staying in a foreign country within the context of an academic setting” (p.358). The researcher will use study abroad length as the measurement for study abroad experience. In other words, this study collects different kinds of study abroad experience base on different study abroad programs (e.g., a semester-long program and a yearlong program).. 5.

(16) 6.

(17) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter shows a review of the literature on psychological flexibility, study abroad experience, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being. Furthermore, according to the research questions in the previous chapter, the researcher proposes the hypothesis based on the literature.. Psychological Flexibility Since psychological flexibility plays a major role in individuals psychological health (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010), not only researchers in management field but also psychologist had done many studies on psychological flexibility. Bond et al. (2011) had defined psychological flexibility as the capacity to master the present moment and thoughts, which included relying on the appearing situations and without any defense. By changing or continuing behaviors to persist their goals and value. McCracken and Morley (2014) had a similar definition as mentioned above, they defined psychological flexibility as the ability to pursuit or to change behavior in a situation that (1) has a sense of thoughts and feelings, (2) be thankful to what situation pay for, and (3) is led by individuals goals and values. In addition, Lloyd, Bond, and Flaxman (2013) examined psychological flexibility as a fundamental factor of mental health and behavioral effectiveness. And it refers to a based theory of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). By executing the ACT, the expected outcome is the enhancement of an individual’s psychological flexibility. Therefore, in general, the researcher terms to refer the ACT model to discuss the psychological flexibility model. The model includes six elements: (1) cognitive defusion, (2) acceptance, (3) contact with the present moment/ flexible present-focused attention, (4) self-as-context, (5) committed action, and (6) values (Bond, Hayes, & BarnesHolmes, 2006). Cognitive defusion refers to the capacity to distinguish between feelings, thoughts, and emotions, and respond directly to the situation without dominated by past experience and feelings. Acceptance refers to the ability to open their mind, accept the feelings and thoughts through their mind without trying to change those unwanted emotions. Contact with the present moment refers to aware of the present situation and feel free to accept the ongoing experience. Self-as-context refers to a sense of transcendent to observe themselves and it is a continuity of consciousness. Committed action means to execute and achieve their goals, and the goal was set according to their values. Values mean the chosen patterns of they believe what the good quality is, and they are dedicated to working for and it is not once-and-for-all. As mentioned above, psychological flexibility is a topic which highly connected to an individual’s mental health. Researchers had also different studies through psychological 7.

(18) flexibility. In Bond et al. (2008)’s study, they executed a quasi-experiment and tested the relationship between individual characteristic, psychological flexibility, and the moderation effect of a control-enhancing work reorganization intervention. The sample was in a total of 312 workers in a call center. The result of the study reported that individuals who had a higher level of psychological flexibility may improve their mental health and absence rates through this intervention. In addition, job control showed a significant moderation effect in the study. Masuda et al. (2011) studied the mediation effect of psychological flexibility to the relationship between self-concealment and negative psychological outcomes. There were two studies in the research, study one tested 591 students in the same university. In addition, the result reported that psychological flexibility has a significant mediation effect on the relationship between selfconcealment and emotional distress in stressful interpersonal conditions. And the second study, the sample was 575 students in the same university as the first study. The result of study 2 showed that psychological flexibility only has a partial mediation effect on the relationship between self-concealment and general psychological ill-health.. Self-Efficacy Several studies had noted self-efficacy as a predictor of some important organizational outcomes, for example, training proficiency and job performance (Chen et al., 2001). Bandura (1982) had first defined self-efficacy as “a personal judgment of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (p.122). As stated by social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), self-efficacy concludes three dimensions: (a) level or magnitude, (b) strength, and (c) generality which is an extension of magnitude and strength. In addition, the three dimensions are all in a specific level of task difficulties (Chen et al., 2001). In the year 1986, Bandura (1986) discussed that human beings were viewed as more selfcontrolled, active, and self-organizing rather than shaped by the environment. According to this statement, Bandura (1995) gave self-efficacy a new definition which self-efficacy is “the belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (p.2). In recent year, researchers are more interested in developing the generality dimension of self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001). As Chen et al. (2001) noted, self-efficacy was defined as “one’s belief in one’s overall competence to effect requisite performances across a wide variety of achievement situations” (p.63). Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998) also proposed a definition of self-efficacy as “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of different situations” (p.170). 8.

(19) In this study, the researcher selects Chen et al. (2001)’s definition. Their study developed a new general self-efficacy scale which was more valid and fewer questions than the general self-efficacy scale. Moreover, it measured specific in the work context which is related to this study. Therefore, via this new general self-efficacy scale, this research may provide a more significant result. As the researcher mentions above, there were some studies which examined self-efficacy as the potential predictor in the work-related outcome (Chen et al., 2001). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) discussed the relationship between self-efficacy and work-related performance. They examined the relationship by a meta-analysis that includes 114 studies. In the study, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) stated two main results: (a) self-efficacy was significant related to work-related performance, and (b) locus of performance and task complexity have a moderation effect on the relationship between self-efficacy and work-related performance. Karademas (2006) studied the relationship between self-efficacy, social support, and wellbeing, moreover, the researcher tested optimism as the mediator to the relationship mentioned previously. The sample was 201 employees in four insurance company. The result showed a significant relationship between self-efficacy, social support, and well-being. However, optimism only partially mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and wellbeing. Some of the literature studied self-efficacy as a moderator. Siu, Spector, Cooper, and Lu (2005) tested self-efficacy as a moderator to the relationship between job stressors and work well-being. The study surveyed 105 employees from Hong Kong and 129 employees from Beijing. The result showed self-efficacy was a strong predictor for work well-being in both samples. In another hand, self-efficacy was founded as a moderator in the relationship between job stressor and work well-being.. Study Abroad Experience As Berdan (2017) reported, there was an increased number of study abroad programs. Since there was a trend for students studying abroad, researchers developed several studies on the advantages of study abroad. Kitsantas (2004) defined the study abroad program as “all educational programs that take place outside the geographical boundaries of the country origin” (p.441). The study focused on how study abroad affects intercultural abilities and global mindset. The researcher collected data from 232 college students, which completed a study abroad program for 3 to 6 weeks. The result reported that study abroad programs increase student’s cross-cultural capabilities and international concept. 9.

(20) Dwyer and Peters (2004) examined the benefits of study abroad. They conducted a largescale questionnaire to develop the long-term impact of study abroad. In their study, they surveyed the alumni from IES (international education of students) study abroad programs from the year 1950 to 1999; there were more than 3400 respondents. They reported study abroad benefits individuals in several ways: (a) personal growth, (b) intercultural development, and (c) education and career attainment (Dwyer & Peters, 2004). Moreover, the study found the differences study abroad impact on study abroad length; Dwyer and Peters (2004) noted “the longer students study abroad, the more significant the academic and cultural development and personal growth benefits” (p.2). In Clarke III, Flaherty, Wright, and McMillen (2009)’s study, they researched on several potential intercultural influences among students studied abroad for a semester-long. They conducted two groups of the sample from U.S. state university. One group of the students finished a semester-long of required lessons; the other group of the students finished the same courses in Belgium. The result showed that study abroad experiences influence students to become more globalized. Moreover, students with study abroad experience may be more openminded to cultural diversity and have better cross-cultural proficiency (Clarke III et al., 2009). Franklin (2010) developed a longitudinal case study of how study abroad experience impact on individuals’ life-long career path and proficient applicability. They surveyed 189 study abroad alumni who studied abroad 10 years ago. The result examined that study abroad experience has a significant impact on individuals’ long-lasting career development and professional ability (Franklin, 2010). In addition, they reported that knowledge, abilities, and self-awareness obtained by studying abroad has a strong linkage to intercultural competences and personal growth.. Psychological Well-Being Research on psychological well-being had flourished in decades, one of the discussions of the literature was the relationship between well-being and health. In Danna and Griffin (1999)’s study, they examined that there are no clear borders between well-being and health. In addition, they claim that health is one of psychological well-being’s component. Jahoda (1958) also supported the idea which examined well-being as something that illness lack off. Another definition of psychological well-being was life satisfaction, there were some researchers who developed the Life Satisfaction Index to measure an individual’s psychological well-being level (Neugarten, Havighurst, & Tobin, 1961; Ryff, 1989). In the year 1986, Bandura presented the first basic model of psychological well-being. The study focused 10.

(21) on the difference between the positive and negative effects of psychological well-being (Bandura, 1986). Ryff (1989) presented a comprehensive model of psychological well-being, the model included 6 elements. The 6 elements of psychological well-being are (1) purpose in life, (2) autonomy, (3) personal growth, (4) environment mastery, (5) positive relationships, and (6) self-acceptance. “Purpose in life” means the extending of how individuals think of their meaning of life, life directions, and purpose. “Autonomy” refers to the power of selfdetermination, and “personal growth” is making use of individuals potential and talents. “Environment mastery” means how individuals manage situations through their daily life. “Positive relations” presents how depth the relationship and connections of individuals with others. And “self-acceptance” presents a positive attitude of individuals viewed their past experience. According to this psycholoigical well-being model, Zheng, Zhu, Zhao, and Zhang (2015) had proposed a psychological well-being scale, which there were 6 items and the cronbach’s alpha value was .88. Due to the importance of psychological well-being, several researchers had done different perspectives of studies on the relationship between psychological well-being and other variables. One of the studies was presented by Wright and Cropanzano (2000), in their study, they presented the relationship between psychological well-being and job performance. There were two studies in the research, the first study’s sample was 47 human service workers and the second study’s sample was 37 Juvenile probation officers. Both of the results presented psychological well-being as a predictor to job performance. Another study from Rasulzada and Dackert (2009), they did the study about the relationship between organizational creativity, innovation, and psychological well-being. The study was researching in a high-tech company which the sample was 95 employees in the company. The result of the research showed that organizational creativity and innovation are significant effecting on higher employee’s psychological well-being. There were also studies which research about psychological wellbeing as a mediator. The sample was 513 managers who worked in two large Indian manufacture-companies. The result showed there was a mediation effect of psychological wellbeing to the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment.. Psychological Flexibility and Psychological Well-Being According to Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010), one of the fundamental aspects of mental health is psychological flexibility. In addition, the study claimed that psychological flexibility 11.

(22) influenced a lot to psychological health and daily well-being. Also in Biglan, Flay, Embry, and Sandler (2012)’s studies, they examined that if individuals want to have a higher level of psychological well-being, first they need to promote their psychological flexibility. Moreover, Ciarrochi, Bilich, and Godsell (2010) stated that since psychological flexibility was highly connected to one’s feelings and thoughts. In order to control or remove unwanted emotions and experience, individuals need to connect to their behavior which is damaging their psychological well-being and emotions. In other words, by increasing an individual’s psychological flexibility, their psychological well-being will be better, too. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was proposed as below: H1: Psychological flexibility is positively related to psychological well-being.. The Relationship among Self-Efficacy, Psychological Flexibility, and Psychological Well-Being Page (2005) provided extensive discussions of well-being; his study examined the construct of core self-evaluations (including self-efficacy) which the elements are founded to have a positive influence on well-being levels. Karademas (2006) also noted that better selfefficacy was related to higher well-being. In other words, individuals with lower self-efficacy influences it’s psychological well-being to a lower level. According to Karademas (2006)’s study, the relationship between self-efficacy, social support, and well-being is significant. Furthermore, Soysa and Wilcomb (2015) also suggested that self-efficacy is a good predictor of well-being. In another side, Wei, Tsai, Lannin, Du, and Tucker (2015) studied the relationship between psychological flexibility and counseling self-efficacy. And they reported that there are positive effects between the relationship of psychological flexibility and counseling self-efficacy. Although counseling self-efficacy is specified refers to the counselor’s self-efficacy, however, the value of self-efficacy is similar. According to the literature mentioned above, when individuals has higher self-efficacy, the influence of the relationship of psychological flexibility to psychological well-being may increase. Consequently, the researcher proposed hypothesis 2: H2: Self-efficacy has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being.. 12.

(23) The Relationship among Study Abroad Experience, Psychological Flexibility, and Psychological Well-Being Kauffmann and Kuh (1984) founded that there were three major changes in personal functioning after study abroad; which one of the changing factors was personal well-being. Kitsantas (2004) also reported study abroad experience might impact on an individual’s wellbeing. In Muto, Hayes, and Jeffcoat (2011)’s study, they researched on international students in Japan. The study executed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to the students and tested the general mental health of the international students after all. As a result, international students are having better general mental health after ACT. In other words, by executing ACT, international students enhance their level of psychological flexibility, and since they are enhancing their psychological flexibility, they are increasing their psychological well-being in the same moment. Hence, the researcher proposed the hypothesis 3: H3: Study abroad experience has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being.. Study Abroad Length and U-Curve As mentioned above, there were pieces of literature mentioned the relationship between study abroad experience and psychological well-being. Moreover, in literature, there was a different perspective on the study abroad program’s impact on different study abroad length. Some studies claimed short-term study abroad may benefit on individuals (Anderson et al., 2006; Kitsantas, 2004). However, some researchers emphasized that long-term study abroad programs are better than short-term study abroad program (Dwyer, 2004). According to the Ucurve theory provided by Black and Mendenhall (1991), individuals adjust their behavior in their sixth to eighth months abroad. Therefore, there might have a different impact on the different length of study abroad experience. In this study, the researcher divided the sample into two groups. One group with over 8 months of study abroad experience and the other group with less than 8 months of study abroad experience (including no experience). The study executes t-test in order to compare the two groups and figure out the difference between the two groups’ psychological well-being level. In addition, this study proposed hypothesis 4: H4: The group with study abroad experience over 8 months has a higher level of psychological well-being than the group with study abroad experience under 8 months.. 13.

(24) 14.

(25) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY. This chapter reported the research methods that used in this study. It contains the research framework, research hypotheses, research procedure, and research method.. Research Framework According to the purpose of this study, the researcher has adopted a quantitative approach for data collection. The research framework was based on the previous literature study, research questions, and the purpose of the study. The framework examined the relationship among psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, and psychological well-being (Figure 3.1). As stated by the goal of this study, the research set psychological flexibility (X) as the independent variable and psychological well-being (Y) as the dependent variable. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the moderation effect of self-efficacy (M1) and study abroad experience (M2) to the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. Moreover, this study due to sample’s study abroad length separated into two groups, one is individuals with over 8 months of study abroad experience (A group) and the other group with less than 8 months of study abroad experience, including no experience (B group). The study compared the two groups’ means in order to test which group with a higher level of psychological well-being. The detail of the research framework examined as below Figure 3.1.. Figure 3.1. Research framework. 15.

(26) Research Hypothesis According to the research questions, the following hypotheses are generated to examine the relationship among psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, and psychological well-being. Moreover, based on the last research question, this study aimed to investigate the influence of study abroad length. Hence, the hypotheses are formulated as follows: H1: Psychological flexibility is positively related to psychological well-being. H2: Self-efficacy has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. H3: Study abroad length has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between psychological flexibility and psychological well-being. H4: The group with study abroad experience over 8 months has a higher level of psychological well-being than the group with study abroad experience under 8 months.. Research Procedure There are 11 steps in the research procedure (Figure 3.2). In order to understand the relationship among psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, and psychological well-being, the researcher examined the needs of this study. According to the needs, deeper literature study required to be reviewed. After the literature reviewed, the researcher finally set the main purposes of this paper. Following this step, with a profusion of the previous literature and data, the study formed its theoretical framework. After the development of the framework and based on the previous study, the researcher selected relevant and valid instruments. The questionnaire was utilized in two languages: English and Chinese. Therefore, the questionnaire was translated into Chinese. The translation process was first developed by the researcher and back-translated by two Taiwanese who have a good ability in English. As the translation process has been done, the questionnaire was reviewed by two peers and two experts. After peer review and expert review, the pilot test was conducted to ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments. Finally, the final version of the questionnaire was used to collect the data. As the data was collected, the researcher runs the data through SPSS in order to develop the finding of this study. Based on the finding and result of the data, the researcher examined the limitations and suggestions for future studies.. 16.

(27) Needs identification. Literature review. Purpose of this study. Research framework development. Instrument of this study. Questionnarie revise and translation. Peer review and expert review. Pilot study and evaluate the validation. Data collection. Data analysis. Conclusion and suggestions. Figure 3.2. Research procedure. Data Collection This research is conducting a quantitative approach. With the purpose of collecting data, this study compiles a questionnaire that includes elements of psychological flexibility, selfefficacy, study abroad length, and psychological well-being. As the target sample are using English and Chinese, the questionnaire is written into two languages. In addition, considering the sample is worldwide, the data collection process was conducted by the online questionnaire. 17.

(28) In the pilot data collection, the researcher targets the groups who had went abroad and asked them to fill in the questionnaire. As a result of the collection, there are 35 responders in the pilot study. After the validity check of the pilot study. The researcher officially targets the population of individuals who had studied abroad experience. The researcher targets her friends who were exchange students. The researcher not only asked them to answer the questionnaire but also asked them to find more ex-exchange students to fill in the questionnaire. In order to enhance the sample number, the researcher also targets the international exchange student Facebook group which can reach more samples worldwide. On the other hand, this study also targets some sample who haven’t gone abroad to study. The researcher targets her ex-colleagues and friends who didn’t have these experiences. In addition, she used snowball sampling and convenience sampling to ask them spreading out the questionnaire to gain more samples. As a result, the exact number of the sample is 256. In the total 256 responders, there are 220 with study abroad experience and 36 without study abroad experience.. Research Sample The main purpose of this study is to understand the relationship among psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, study abroad experience, and psychological well-being, especially the research population is individuals who had study abroad experience. In order to reach this goal, the researcher is targeting the sample who have study abroad experiences. People with no study abroad experience will also be included as the control group. When considering to collect more data and to collect the data worldwide, English and Chinese are selected for the two main languages of the questionnaire. With the intention of gathering data, the researcher used convenience sampling and snowball sampling to target more data. The researcher has enrolled in rotary youth exchange program seven years ago, therefore can serve as a good connection with Taiwanese and international exchange students. The research targets three main sources for sampling; the first resource is the population of Taiwanese who has been for an exchange student. Secondly, the sample is the exchange students that the researcher knew in her exchange year. She was exchanged to Germany in her exchange year, therefore, the targets are basically Europeans and Americans. The last target is the international exchange student group on Facebook that includes around 28,000 exchange students worldwide. As for the target without study abroad experiences, the researcher is also using convenience sampling and snowball sampling to target the researcher’s friends, family, and ex-colleagues. 18.

(29) Research Instrument According to the aim of this paper, the research instrument is developed by four elements: demographics, psychological flexibility (AAQ-II), self-efficacy scale, and psychological wellbeing scale. The first section of the questionnaire is demographics. It requires the responder provides their demographic situation, such as their age, nationalities, and the experience of going abroad. Moreover, in this section, the researcher confirms their experiences of study abroad. For example, how long did you go to study abroad? In which continent you went to study abroad?. Psychological Flexibility In this study, the researcher measured the individual’s psychological flexibility through the instrument Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) which examined by Bond et al. (2011). The AAQ-II is the measurement to test an individual’s psychological flexibility/ psychological inflexibility or experiential avoidance. In other words, AAQ-II examines the inflexibility dominance of an individual’s internal experience and the value-based action to environmental contingencies. Therefore, after the data was collected, the researcher does the reverse coding in order to measure the variable as psychological flexibility. The instrument is in a total of 7 items and its reliability presents .88. All items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never true, 7 = always true). The sample questions for employee well-being are “My painful experiences and memories make it difficult for me to live a life that I would value.” and “Emotions cause problems in my life”. The detail of AAQ-II was present as below Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Psychological Flexibility (AAQ-II) Cronbach’s alpha α PF1 My painful experiences and memories make it difficult for me to live a .88 life that I would value. PF2 I’m afraid of my feelings. PF3 I worry about not being able to control my worries and feelings. PF4 My painful memories prevent me from having a fulfilling life. PF5 Emotions cause problems in my life. PF6 It seems like most people are handling their lives better than I am. PF7 Worries get in the way of my success. Note. Adapted from “Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire-ii: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance.,” by F. W. Bond et al. 2011, Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676-688. Code. Question item. 19.

(30) Self-Efficacy For the purpose of this study, the researcher selects “New General Self-Efficacy Scale” as the instrument to measure self-efficacy. It is developed by Chen et al. (2001) and includes 8 items (Table 3.2). The Cronbach’s alpha for this instrument is .86 to .90. Different from the previous instrument, self-efficacy scale is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Samples items are “When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them” and “I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.” Table 3.2. Self-Efficacy Code. Question item. Cronbach’s alpha α .86 to .90. SE1 I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself. SE2 When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them. SE3 In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. SE4 I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind. SE5 I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. SE6 I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks. SE7 Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well. SE8 Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. Note. Adapted from “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale,” by G. Chen, S. M. Gully, & D. Eden. 2001, Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62-83.. Psychological Well-Being The psychological well-being scale is adopted from Zheng et al. (2015). A total of 6 items consists of this scale and its reliability presents .88. All items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The sample questions for employee well-being are “I am good at making flexible timetables for my work.” and “I generally feel good about myself, and I’m confident”. The items of psychological well-being were presented as below Table 3.3:. 20.

(31) Table 3.3. Psychological Well-Being Code. Question item. PW1 PW2 PW3 PW4 PW5 PW6. Cronbach’s alpha α .88. I feel I have grown as a person. I handle daily affairs well. I generally feel good about myself, and I’m confident. People think I am willing to give and to share my time with others. I am good at making flexible timetables for my work. I love having deep conversations with family and friends so that we can better understand each other. Note. Adapted from “Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation,” by X. Zheng, W. Zhu, H. Zhao, & C. Zhang, 2015, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621-644.. Control Variable When discussing psychological well-being, there were several studies set working experience as the control variable. Is is because when individuals have working experience, there are more potential factors (e.g. tenure, organizational climate,and leadership) which inflence individuals’ psychological well-being (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the researcher set whether individuals has working experience as the control variable.. Instrument Validity This study selected three instruments which presented a good result in their reliability. However, the instrument was using in Chinese and English. Moreover, the population is different from the previous study. Therefore, in order to make the data collection process and result more consistent, there are some following steps need to be conducted. This process was done for the whole questionnaire, including demographics, psychological flexibility (AAQ-II), self-efficacy scale, and psychological well-being scale.. Consolidation and Revise The first step of the process was to consolidate the three scales and the demographic part. After the whole questionnaire is finished, the researcher discussed with her advisor and she revised some of the demographic details in order to make the questionnaire more comprehensive and relevant to this study.. 21.

(32) Translation and Back-Translation According to the needs of this study, the questionnaire was developed into an English and Chinese version. The original scale was written in English, therefore the researcher had first translated it into Chinese version. The researcher comes from Taiwan and has Chinese as her mother language. After her translation, two Taiwanese who had over 800 Toeic score backtranslated the questionnaire. Moreover, the selected translators are in human resource background.. Peer Review Once, the questionnaire was translated into Chinese, the questionnaire proceeded to two peer review. The selected two peers were in human resource background and native Chinese speakers that had a high-level English ability. The reason why the researcher did this process was to gain more suggestions and feedbacks about the translation and the content. After peer review was done, the researcher analyzed the result and did some necessary reversion.. Expert Review The next process was an expert review. In this step, the researcher contacted two professionals that had over 2 years working experiences and have good language ability in English and Chinese. The two experts had joined in Rotary youth exchange program for over six years, which handled numerous exchange students issues and cases. The questionnaire was sent in two languages by email. Through this step, the researcher hoped to obtain more professional and consist of an instrument from their experience.. Pilot Test After peer review and expert reviewed, the researcher applied the questionnaire to do a pilot test. The researcher selected the population of ones who have gone abroad experiences. And she conducted the pilot study through convenience sampling. The expected sample was 30 responses. As a result, this study collected 35 responders for doing the pilot study. The researcher did the reliability test through SPSS and check for the Cronbach’s alpha of each variable. In Table 3.4, all variables presented a good result. The Cronbach’s Alpha of all variables was ranged between .812 and .931. The result of the pilot test examined an acceptable outcome, hence, this study utilized the instrument directly to collect the data.. 22.

(33) Table 3.4. Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis (N = 35) Variables. Number of items. Cronbach's Alpha. Psychological Flexibility. 7. .931. Self-Efficacy. 8. .907. Psychological Well-Being. 6. .812. Data Analysis Based on the purpose of this study, the research was conducted by a quantitative approach. As the researcher completes the data collection process, she analyzed the data through the latest version of SPSS 23. The following descriptions are the statistic method used in this study.. Descriptive Statistics The purpose to use descriptive statistics is to present the general summary of the main data. This method calculates the numerical data into a more interpretable form and the content of this part include the means, standard deviation, and frequency.. Common Method Variance According to this study, the questionnaire was conducted through an online survey. In this situation, there might be some bias when individuals filling the questionnaire. Common Method Variance (CMV) is the method to challenge the biases which may proceed from the different conditions, such as the survey instrument design, scale of the variables, survey format, the item’s context, and the length of survey instruments (Eichhorn, 2014).. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to check the validity of the instrument model for each variable of this study. The CFA result was examined through AMOS in this study. There are three criteria to check the model validity, one is the factor loading of each item, second is whether the CFA model has a good model fit, and the last one is the number of model’s CR and AVE.. Correlation When analyzing the relationship between the variables, the researcher use Pearson correlation analysis. It presents the strengths of the relationship between independent variable (X = psychological flexibility), dependent variable (Y = psychological well-being), and moderator (M1 = self-efficacy and M2 = study abroad experience). The relationship between 23.

(34) study abroad length and psychological well-being was conducted in this part, too.. Linear and Hierarchical Regression Analysis For the purpose of checking the hypothesis, the researcher conducted a regression analysis to test the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. Furthermore, the moderation effect was examined by the hierarchical regression analysis. Through the hierarchical regression analysis, the researcher can understand whether there is a moderation effect in the model. In addition, if there is a moderation effect, the result also shows out the effect’s direction (positive effect or negative effect).. Independent T-test In order to compare two group’s mean in terms of psychological well-being, the researcher conducted independent T-test. Through the independent T-test, the result shows whether the two groups have a significant difference to the variable the study needs to compare. According to hypothesis 4, the study separates the sample into two groups, A group and B group. As conducting independent t-test, the researcher can compare the two groups’ psychological wellbeing level.. 24.

(35) CHAPTER IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS. This chapter presents the analyzed result of the data collected. First of all, the chapter examined the demographics of the study in order to have a comprehensive view of this study. Second, the result showed the confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, common method variance to understand the study’s validity and reliability. Continually are the highlights of the study, which elaborated the result of this study’s hypothesis, including correlation, linear regression, hierarchical regression, and t-test. Finally, the chapter introduced the result of this paper and the discussions.. Demographic Statistic For this study, there was a total of 256 questionnaires collected. The data was collected via an online survey. Out of those 256 responds, 220 had oversea studied experience. Which the data was analyzed for hypothesis 1 to 3. However, hypothesis 4 was examining the comparison between A group and B group (individuals with under 8 months of study abroad experience, including no experience), therefore it was analyzed from the total 256 responds. In the demographic statistics, the sample characteristics of age, continent, whether they had studied abroad, and whether they had studied abroad over 8 months were contained in order to have basic background information of this study. Table 4.1 presents a summary of descriptive statistics on sample demographics. Among the 256 responders, the majority of the participants are 44 (65.2%) which are in the age of 21-25, the following are in the age under 20 (44/17.2%) and in the age of 26-30 (40/15.6%). However, there are 4 participants in the age of 31-35 (1.6%) and also 1 participant in the age of 46-50 (0.4%). As for the nationality of the participants, there are 124 (48.4%) from Asia, 54 (21.1%) from Europe, 42 (16.4%) from North America, 29 (11.3%) from South America, 4 (1.6%) from Africa, and 3 (1.2%) from Australia/ Oceania. According to the hypothesis of this study, hypothesis 1 to 3 are testing the sample of ones who studied abroad. In the demographics summary showed that there are 220 (85.9%) participants studied abroad and 36 (14.1%) without studied abroad experience. As for hypothesis 4, the study is comparing the sample of the group with over 8 months of study abroad experience and with less than 8 months of studied abroad experience (including no experience). The demographics reported there are 210 (82%) had over 8 months of study abroad experience and 46 (18%) without the experience.. 25.

(36) Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Demographics (N = 256) Item. Categories. Frequency. Percentage (%). Age. Under 20. 44. 17.2. 21-25. 167. 65.2. 26-30. 40. 15.6. 31-35. 4. 1.6. 46-50. 1. 0.4. Asia. 124. 48.4. Africa. 4. 1.6. Australia/ Oceania. 3. 1.2. Europe. 54. 21.1. North America. 42. 16.4. South America. 29. 11.3. Yes. 220. 85.9. No. 36. 14.1. Yes. 210. 82.0. No. 46. 18.0. Continent. Study abroad. Study abroad over 8 months. Common Method Variance (CMV) When conducting quantitative research, data are often collected by self-report instruments. Therefore, Common Method Variance (CMV) was often mentioned by researchers. CMV was defined as “the overlap in variance between two variables attributable to the type of measurement instrument used rather than due to a relationship between the underlying constructs”(Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991, p. 572). In order to check CMV, Harman onefactor analysis was frequently utilized. The criteria of the Harman one-factor analysis are under 26.

(37) 50%. The Harman one-factor result of this study is 34.89%, which showed that there are no single factor accounts for the majority of the variance in the variables from this study.. Reliability Analysis Mallery and George (2003) had mentioned that the number of Cronbach alpha is in charge of explaining the internal consistency of variables. The result ranging from .6 to .7 is considered to be acceptable while from .7 to .8 is good. Table 4.2 presents the report of reliability analysis. According to the result, all the Cronbach’ alpha of the variables is higher than .7. The result of psychological flexibility’s Cronbach alpha is .871, self-efficacy’s Cronbach alpha is .865, and psychological well-being’s Cronbach alpha is .755. As a result, the measurement of this study had good reliability.. Table 4.2. Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis (N = 220) Variables. Number of items. Cronbach's Alpha. Psychological Flexibility. 7. .871. Self-Efficacy. 8. .865. Psychological Well-Being. 6. .755. Confirmatory Factor Analysis The study conducted the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for checking the validity of the measurement model for each variable in this research. There are three criteria for checking after we finished the CFA. First, is about factor loading. When the factor loading is lower than .5, the item requires to be re-examined (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1987). Based on this situation, the researcher will think over other results and decide whether to delete the item or not. Secondly, the model fitness indices are reviewed to ensure whether the variables had achieved the required levels. The criteria for the good model-fit indices are present in Table 4.2. Third, for construct validity, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that Composite Reliability (CR) needs to larger than .6 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) larger than .5.. 27.

(38) Table 4.3. Summary of Good-Fit Criteria Fit index. Acceptable levels. Chi-Square X2. No significant; >. 05 > .90 Reasonable fit. CFI > .95 Good model fit > .90 Reasonable fit NFI and GFI > .95 Good model fit < .05 Good model fit RMSEA > .05 but <. 08 Reasonable fit Note. Adapted from “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.” By P. M. Bentler & D. G. Bonett. 1980, Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.. Psychological Flexibility (PF) Figure 4.1 presents the model of psychological flexibility and Table 4.3 shows the result of the CFA report. Without deleting any item, the factor loading of all items are larger than the criteria .5. When checking the model fit indices, the result shows as below: X2 = 53.85, df = 14, RMSEA = .11, CFI = .94, NFI = .92, GFI = .93. Although RMSEA didn’t achieve the criteria, however, other indices had achieved it. As for the result of CR and AVE, CR = .87 which is above the criteria .6. AVE = .49, the criteria of AVE is .5, therefore the result of .49 is still acceptable. To sum up the CFA result of psychological flexibility, except RMSEA and AVE’s result is under the criteria, other indices and result had achieved the standard. Based on the result, the researcher doesn’t delete any item in psychological flexibility.. 28.

(39) Figure 4.1. Psychological flexibility model. Table 4.4. CFA Results for Psychological Flexibility Items. Factor Loading. PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5. .68*** .66*** .71*** .75*** .71***. PF6 PF7. .70*** .67***. CR. AVE. .87. .49. X2 = 53.85, df = 14, RMSEA = .11, CFI = .94, NFI = .92, GFI = .93 Note. p*** < .001.. 29.

(40) Self-Efficacy (SE) Figure 4.2 shows the model of self-efficacy and Table 4.4 examines the result of the CFA report. The result of the factor loading of each item is all above .5, which are all achieved the criteria. Continually, the model fit indices report is presented as below: X2 = 60.37, df = 20, RMSEA = .10, CFI = .94, NFI = .91, GFI = .94. Same as psychological flexibility, the result of RMSEA is larger than .08. However, all the other indices has reached the criteria. The last report is CR and AVE, CR = .87 and AVE = .45. In self-efficacy CFA report, CR is larger than the criteria .6, but AVE is smaller than the criteria .5. Consider all the factor loading is all above the criteria and the result of RMSEA and AVE is actually closer to the goal. Therefore, the researcher doesn’t delete any items of self-efficacy.. Figure 4.2. Self-efficacy model. 30.

(41) Table 4.5. CFA Results for Self-Efficacy Items. Factor Loading. SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6. .58*** .74*** .60*** .61*** .78*** .78***. SE7. .57***. SE8. .68***. CR. AVE. .87. .45. X2 = 60.37, df = 20, RMSEA = .10, CFI = .94, NFI = .91, GFI = .94 Note. p*** < .001.. Psychological Well-Being (PWB) Figure 4.3 reports the model of psychological well-being, and Table 4.5 presents the CFA result of psychological well-being. According to Figure 4.3, there are two item’s factor loading lower than .5 which is PWB4 = .45 and PWB6 = .47. As for the other items result of psychological well-being are all above .5. The report of model fit indices are examined under: X2 = 6.924, df = 9, RMSEA = 0, CFI = 1, NFI = .98, GFI = .99. And the report of CR = .76 and AVE = .36. As mentioned by the report, CFI = 1, the number shows that this model’s chi-square is bigger than the degree of freedom (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Moreover, according to the result of RMSEA = 0. Fan, Thompson, & Wang (1999) reported that when the sample size was too small, the result of RMSEA might very close to 0. According to the report above, the factor loading of PWB4 and PWB6 is lower than .5. And the AVE for the variable doesn’t achieve the criteria either. Therefore, the researcher tries to delete PWB4 and PWB6, to test the variable’s AVE and Cronbach alpha. However the result of AVE and Cronbach alpha doesn’t have a big difference than before deleting the items. Moreover, the researcher does the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in order to check whether all the items consist of the same factor. And the result of EFA shows that all six items consist of one component. Consider all the deleting result and the existing result of psychological wellbeing’s Cronbach alpha, the study decides not to delete any item. 31.

(42) Figure 4.3. Psychological well-being model. Table 4.6. CFA Results for Psychological Well-Being Items. Factor Loading. PWB1 PWB2 PWB3. .54*** .78*** .67***. PWB4 PWB5 PWB6. .45*** .61*** .47***. CR. AVE. .76. .36. X2 = 6.924, df = 9, RMSEA = 0, CFI = 1, NFI = .98, GFI = .99 Note. p*** < .001.. 32.

(43) In order to have a comprehensive result of CFA, Table 4.7 showed the detail of fit indices from different factors which refers to the measurement model. The researcher ran three-factor to one-factor. The result of the three-factor model presented an expected range of a strong measurement model (X2 = 364.196, df = 186, RMSEA = .066, CFI = .903, NFI = .822, GFI = .865). And the result of the two-factor model (X2 = 729.655, df = 188, RMSEA = .115, CFI = .706, NFI = .644, GFI = .668) was poorer than the three factor model. Moreover, the result of the one-factor model (X2 = 766.717, df = 189, RMSEA = .118, CFI = .686, NFI = .626, GFI = .663) was also poorer than the two-factor model. According to Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, and Muller (2003), when ∆X2 is significant, the result presents the original model is better than the reformed model. To sum up, the proposed model present a strong model for this study to measure. Table 4.7. Comparison of Fit Indices in This Study Models. Fit Indices X2. ∆X2. df. RMSEA. CFI. NFI. GFI. Three-Factor. 364.196. --. 186. .066. .903. .822. .865. Two-Factor. 729.655. 365.459. 188. .115. .706. .644. .668. One-Factor. 766.717. 37.062. 189. .118. .686. .626. .663. Note. Three-factor model: Proposed measurement model; Two-factor model: Combines psychological flexibility and self-efficacy; One-factor model: Combines psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, and psychological well-being.. 33.