INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 75
Organizational Commitment, Personality Domains, and Self-
Regulations: A Structural Equation Model on Work Engagement
among Public Secondary School Teachers
Josephine A. Mamparo
1
, Elizabeth M. Malonzo
2
1
Professional School, University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines
2
Professor, University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2024.131208
Received: 07 December 2024; Accepted: 10 December 2024; Published: 08 January 2025
Abstract: This study identified the best-fit model for work engagement among public secondary school teachers in the Davao Region,
Philippines, by examining the influence of organizational commitment, personality domains, and self-regulation. Using a stratified
sampling technique, data were collected from 400 teachers and analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). A non-
experimental, quantitative, descriptive research design was employed, with statistical tools including mean, standard deviation, Pearson
product-moment correlation, and SEM. The results revealed that the levels of organizational commitment, personality domains, self-
regulation, and work engagement among teachers were all very high. Additionally, while no significant relationship was found between
organizational commitment and work engagement or between self-regulation and work engagement, a significant relationship was
observed between personality domains and work engagement. Furthermore, the study identified Model 3 as the best fit for explaining
work engagement, highlighting the roles of organizational commitment, personality domains, and self-regulation as influenced by
academic leaders and educational advocates in fostering work engagement.
Keywords: Organizational commitment, Personality domains, Self-regulations, Structural Equation Model, teachers, Davao Region,
Philippines
I. Introduction
If teachers lack of resources, it makes it difficult for them to perform their jobs which leads to low level performance of students. As matter
of fact most school heads experienced disengagements of teachers resulting to the feeling of insecurity and refusal to work with (Monje-
Amor, Vázquez, & Faíña, 2020). According to Sudibjo & Riantini (2023) in Total Reward Survey, less than a quarter of working
population globally is noted with high engagement, and only around 39% have average work engagement. It was supported by the Global
Workplace report that up to 85% are not engaged at work. Compared to that data, what could be the status as of today with the mere fact that
Philippines is currently experiencing pandemic which gave fatalities and educational setbacks.
Specifically, Teachers’ Engagement is important amidst diverse challenges teachers front onto their workstations. It has been instituted
by several research that teacher engagement is particularly important, as education is carried out more efficiently by teachers if they are
highly engaged in their work. Particularly, it is the emotional, cognitive and social devotion to the profession, and this is demonstrated
through vigor, dedication and absorption (Iwal & Arenga, 2024). Several studies have highlighted the relationship between organizational
commitment, personality domains, and self-regulation with work engagement. Teachers' personality traits are crucial to their work
engagement (Ding et al., 2022; Bakker, 2022). Previous literature has sparked significant interest in work engagement, with the growing
recognition of its importance among stakeholders motivating this study. Work engagement is influenced by organizational commitment,
as emphasized by Bansal, Bhushan, & Gupta (2020), who suggest that organizational commitment reflects a worker’s ability and
connection to the organization. Moreover, teachers with higher levels of self-regulation tend to be more productive, while those with
lower levels of harmful self-regulation and greater involvement in their work report higher levels of positive emotions (Shu, 2022).
Additionally, Wang et al. (2020) also highlight that it reflects attitudes toward the organization’s ideals and goals.
However, there is limited information on the integration of the influences of organizational commitment, personality domains, and self-
regulation on the work engagement among teachers. While these constructs have been studied individually, few studies explore their
combined influence on teacher performance and well-being, nor do they provide actionable insights tailored to contemporary challenges
in education. Albrecht and Marty (2020), concentrated on personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations with
employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions through survey research. Tisu et al. (2020), explored the Personality
characteristics, job performance and mental health: the mediating role of work engagement collected data from university students,
Hameli et al. (2023), focused on the role of self-efficacy and psychological empowerment in explaining the relationship between emotional
intelligence and work engagement. Hence, the researcher conducted this study to address this gap to delve into the organizational
commitment, personality domains, and self- regulations on work engagement.
Therefore, the researcher intended to answer the following research questions to determine the best fit structural model on work
engagement. The study’s specific objectives are as follows: to assess the level of organizational commitment of teachers in terms of
affective commitment, continuance, commitment, and normative commitment. To ascertain the level of personality domains of teachers
in terms of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. To evaluate teachers’ self-regulations level in goal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 76
setting, intrinsic interest, performance goal orientation, mastery goal orientation, self-instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-
reaction, and help-seeking.
To determine teachers’ work engagement level regarding vigor, dedication and absorption. To determine the significant relationship
between organizational commitment and teachers’ work engagement, personality domains and work engagement of teachers, and self-
regulations and work engagement of teachers. To determine which combination of organizational commitment, personality domains,
and self-regulations significantly influences work engagement.
Lastly, to determine which structural model best fits work engagement. The following null hypotheses will be tested using the 0.05 level
of significance. There is no significant relationship between, organizational commitment and work engagement of teachers, personality
domains and work engagement of teachers and self-regulations and work engagement of teachers. The combination of organizational
commitment, personality domains, and self-regulations do not significantly influence work engagement and there is no model that best fit
work engagement.
Based on literature, organizational commitment is expressed as the relative intensity of an individual's affiliation with and participation in a
specific organization. It includes the priorities and principles of the organization, but not concrete and observable elements of the work
environment. Beyond objectives and principles, nothing is said about what an organization is about that can encourage the commitment of
teachers (Ahad et al., 2021).
Moreover, commitment is identified as a strong belief in and recognition of the goals and values of the organization, a willingness to
make substantial efforts on behalf of the organization; and a strong desire to retain organizational membership. From different
viewpoints, organizational commitment has been conceptualized (Kawiana et al., 2021). Organizational commitment is taken from the
behavioral approach as the production of contribution-sharing processes between administrators and teachers. As cited by Jung, Song, &
Yoon (2021), dedication from the psychological approach is seen from the point of view of employee attachment or identification with
the organization in which they work.
Meanwhile, affective commitment refers to the firm belief and acceptance of goals and professional values and the will to make
considerable efforts to fulfill the professional objectives and responsibilities. Along their professional experience, school heads involve
themselves in their activity, establishing good relationships with peers and students. The studies prove that the empathy and ability to
transpose oneself in another person’s situation as if were the other such as teachers’ professional trait, develops and strengthens in time
and has a vital affective component. Other studies on the teacher’s affective abilities confirm that they develop in time, along the teaching
profession they turn into steady personality traits (Loan, 2020).
Additionally, personality is a stable set of features responsible for the identity of oneself. The aspects of personality are largely beyond our
grasp, but our behaviors, perceptions, and beliefs about others are highly influenced, affecting our behavior (Anglim et al., 2020). Park &
Hess (2020) describes personality traits within an individual as mechanisms and propensities that explain characteristics, thought patterns,
emotions, and behavior. Personality captures what individuals are like, and talent captures what individuals can do (Saucier et al., 2020).
Personality characteristics in an individual are repeated regularities and patterns. In today's dynamic organizational environment, personal
traits are of extreme significance. An unacceptable style of personality also proves dreadful and generates unnecessary organizational
pressures and concerns (Anglim et al., 2020).
Moreover, extraversion requires a deep desire for praise, acceptance of culture, rank, and strength. Adjective qualities, being talkative,
sociable, passionate, bold, and dominant, are associated with extraversion (Lyon et al., 2021). Extraversion is distinguished by noticeable
interaction with the outside world. Extraverts enjoy being around individuals. They are full of energy and optimistic feelings are always
witnessed. They seem to be action-oriented, assertive, and energetic and are likely to say yes to exciting opportunities. They like to speak
a great deal in groups, assert themselves, and attract attention (Rau et al., 2021).
A high degree of extroversion is argued to result in positive emotions such as liveliness, satisfaction, excitement, movement, and high
energy levels. Such characteristics also influence the performance of an athlete, as he or she may overcome negative emotions such as
haste, fear, concern, frustration, and feelings of guilt (Danner et al., 2021). Extroverts tend to be socially focused (outgoing and
gregarious) but are also emergent (dominant and ambitious) and active (Ober et al., 2021).
In the same vine, self-regulation, along with self-control, has been studied to be one of the main aspects of adaptive human behavior
in various fields of psychology. The process of self-regulation involves constantly adjusting to personal, behavioral and environmental
factors as one learns and executes (Inzlicht et al., 2021). Self-regulation is an umbrella term for various psychological skills including
cognitive skills, emotional skills, and personality-related factors (Frazier et al., 2021).
In addition, self-regulation enables people to monitor their progress and act to modify effort and behavior in order to achieve their goals
(Bylieva et al., 2021). Citing Cusumano, Gawer, & Yoffie (2021), when people are working toward a goal, they engage in a process of
readying themselves for change, identifying and setting a goal, making and acting upon plans to pursue the goal, and evaluating progress
toward achieving the goal. These four steps of goal achievement require the use of self-regulation, even as engaging in them can help to
build an individual’s self- regulation.
Moreover, self-regulation is a process of systematically organizes thoughts, feelings, and actions to attain goals (Finders et al., 2021). The
process of self- regulation, regulating thoughts, emotions, attention, behavior, and impulses, has also been described as conscious and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 77
non-conscious (Khan et al., 2021).
An array of factors has been linked to better understanding of teachers’ work engagement. To illustrate, studies have indicated the effect of
job satisfaction and teachers’ autonomy on work engagement (Bakker, 2022; Scharp et al., 2022). In addition, psychological resources
linked to the working environment was a promoting factor in work engagement in terms of dedication, absorption, and vigor (Guo et al.,
2022). Several researches have linked job resources (Makikangas et al., 2022), social support (Zúñiga et al., 2022) and autonomy
(Aboramadan, 2022) to positively affect the levels of work engagement. It was also noted that teaching practices did not have a
significant effect from the levels of work engagement.
Aside from understanding how job satisfaction and resources drive work engagement, demographics such as age have also been studied
in relation to this concept. Findings show that work engagement did indeed vary across the diverse age group and is influenced by
different resources. While younger teachers are driven by the development opportunities and interactions with their colleagues, older
teachers appreciate having their competencies acknowledged (Karatepe et al., 2022).
While some studies have explored work engagement as a precursor to organizational commitment, others have visualized work
engagement as a result of organizational commitment (Zhou et al., 2022). In the study of big companies, it was found that research on
work engagement had improved the organizations positive outlook towards its employees (Wang et al., 2022). More specifically in
schools, the productivity of work of the teachers as the key members of the workforce relies on teacher’s wellbeing and organizational
performance on work engagement and organizational commitment (Soares & Mosquera, 2019). Work engagement among employees is
necessary as it encompasses the ardent involvement of the staff in the activities arranged by the organization. Employing work
engagement will result in better wellbeing of the workforce in the organization which would lead to heightened organizational productivity
and higher chances for growth with excellent participation from employees (Danner et al., 2021).
The literature consistently highlights the significant relationships between organizational commitment, personality traits, self-regulation,
and work engagement. Teachers with higher levels of self-regulation and positive personality traits, such as conscientiousness and
agreeableness, tend to exhibit greater work engagement (Ding et al., 2022; Bakker, 2022), while organizational commitment has been
shown to positively influence work engagement (Bansal et al., 2020; Rai& Maheshwari, 2020). Self-regulation also plays a key role in
enhancing work engagement by fostering positive emotions and higher productivity (Shu, 2022). However, while these factors have been
studied individually, there is limited research exploring how they interact collectively, especially within specific contexts such as the
Davao Region. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the combined effects of organizational commitment, personality domains,
and self- regulation on work engagement among secondary school teachers in the Davao Region, thereby contributing to a deeper
understanding of the dynamics influencing teacher engagement in this specific context.
The current study was anchored on a specific theory and study based on the assumed interrelationship and causal relationship shown in the
hypothesized models. First, it was anchored on Work Engagement Theory of Kahn (1990), which stated that a person shows self-preference
in job tasks to promote connections between self and job, which can increase role performance through cognitive, emotional, and
physical self-investment. Two theories supporting Kahn's Work Engagement Theory are the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model and
Self- Determination Theory (SDT). The JD-R model by Bakker & Demerouti (2007) suggests that sufficient job resources, like support
and autonomy, boost engagement, aligning with Kahn's view on external factors. Meanwhile, SDT by Deci and Ryan (1985) emphasizes
that meeting employees' needs for competence, autonomy, and connection enhances intrinsic motivation and engagement, complementing
Kahn’s focus on psychological presence and personal needs. Both theories highlight key factors influencing work engagement.
Moreover, the current study aligns with the concepts on examining the effects of Organizational Commitment, Personality Domains,
and Self-Regulation on Work Engagement among secondary school teachers. The Organizational Commitment refers to the emotional
attachment, perceived costs of leaving, and sense of obligation to stay within the organization (Loan, 2020). This is categorized into
affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Meanwhile, Personality Domains include traits such as agreeableness
(cooperativeness and empathy), extraversion (sociability and assertiveness), conscientiousness (organization and dependability),
emotional stability (ability to remain calm under pressure), and open-mindedness (openness to new experiences), all of which influence
work engagement (He, Donnellan, & Mendoza, 2019).
Self-Regulation encompasses behaviors like intrinsic interest (internal motivation), goal setting (defining objectives), emotional control
(managing emotional responses), and help-seeking (seeking assistance when necessary), which are expected to promote work
engagement (Sahar & Naqvi, 2020), Work Engagement is defined as the level of vigor (energy and resilience), dedication (sense of
involvement and significance), and absorption (concentration and focus) an individual feels towards their work (Kusumaningtyas &
Laksono, 2021). These factors are hypothesized to interact, contributing to higher levels of work engagement among teachers.
To evaluate these frameworks, hypothesized models were treated for best fit in this study that may contribute to the work engagement
among public secondary school teachers in Region XI. The first conceptual paradigm demonstrates the direct influence of the exogenous
variables towards the endogenous variable, work engagement among public secondary school teachers as supported by theories and
studies. Because latent variables are not observed directly, it follows that they cannot be measured directly. With this, each latent
construct is associated with multiple measures or observed variables. Thus, the extent of the regression paths between the unobserved
and observed variables is of the greatest concern of the study.
Specifically, the exogenous variables are organizational commitment, personality domains, and self – regulations. Moreover, Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) is essential to arrive at the best fit model. The hypothesized model shows the following: the oval shapes
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 78
represent the latent variables of the study, the rectangular figures connected from the oval are the measured variables of a latent construct,
single headed arrow represents the direct relation from one variable to another while the double headed arrow signifies correlation.
In particular, the Hypothesized Model 1 illustrated in Figure 1 reflects the correlation of the three latent exogenous variables and their
direct causal relation to the latent endogenous. This is observed through the double headed arrow connected among three latent
exogenous variables, such as shown between organizational commitment, personality domains, and self – regulations. The single headed
arrow pointing from the three-latent exogenous signifies its direct relation to work engagement among public secondary school teachers.
This is illustrated through a single headed arrow connected from the latent exogenous variables to the latent endogenous variable.
Furthermore, the rectangular shapes represent the measured variables of the corresponding latent exogenous and endogenous variables.
Researchers, educators, and policymakers have increasingly focused on work engagement over the years as the key to tackling low-
performance problems (Nergiz & Unsal-Akbiyik, 2024). Therefore, it is essential for work engagement studies to be carried out and for
information to be obtained so that variables that have important roles can be explored in the level of work engagement of teachers in
school. Data will be processed on various indicators of both work engagement and organizational commitment of teachers, personality
domains and self- regulations, and will be used in the field of human resource development.
Figure 1. Hypothesized Structural Model 1 in Standardized Solution
Legend:
aff – Affective
con – Continuance
nor – Normative
OC – Organizational Commitment
gs – Goal Setting
ii – Intrinsic Interest
pgo – Performance Goal Orientation
mgo – Mastery Goal Orientation
si – Self-instruction
ec –Emotional Control
se – Self-evaluation
slr – Self-regulation
hs – Help-seeking
SR –Self-Regulations
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 79
ext – Extraversion
agr – Agreeableness
cons – Conscientiousness
neu – Neuroticism
opp – openness
PD – Personality Domains
vig –Vigor
ded – Dedication
abs –Absorption
WE – Work Engagement
This study is socially significant as it deepens the understanding of factors influencing teacher work engagement, such as organizational
commitment, personality traits, and self-regulation. By enhancing teacher engagement, the study aims to improve teacher performance, job
satisfaction, and educational outcomes, benefiting students, schools, and the wider community. The findings can inform policies that
create supportive environments for teachers, fostering their professional growth and improving education quality.
Specifically, the results may assist DepEd officials in developing a customized profile of best practices for enhancing organizational
commitment, personality domains, and self-regulation among teachers. Additionally, the study can guide teachers in understanding their
current levels of commitment, personality traits, self-regulation, and work engagement, offering insights into strategies for improvement.
Furthermore, the study's findings may prompt academics and researchers to explore the determinants of work engagement more deeply,
serving as a foundation for further research in this area.
II. Method
The survey was conducted from January – May 2022 in Region XI Davao Region, located in the southeastern part of Mindanao. It is
bordered by the CARAGA region to the north, the Philippine Sea to the east and south, and Bukidnon and the SOCSARGEN region to the
west. Region XI comprises five provinces: Davao de Oro, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, and Davao Occidental. The
survey targeted secondary school teachers from DepEd Region XI, specifically from these provinces.
Research Respondents
There are approximately 41,084 public secondary school teachers from DepEd Region XI. The current study targeted only 400 public-
school teachers in Region XI since the study was measured and find best fit model for work engagement. Additionally, the strata in
stratified random sampling, also known as stratification, are established according to common attributes or member characteristics,
including educational attainment or income. Stratified random sampling was employed (Hayes, 2020) to ensure representative
participation, as this study focuses on the work engagement of public-school teachers. The respondents were exclusively DepEd teachers
from the Davao Region, randomly selected and stratified according to the provinces and cities included in the study.
Following the fundamental rule for the number of respondents appropriate for Structural Equation Modeling (Altikriti & Anderson, 2021)
which should be 300 and 400, the researcher tried to work backward by using appropriate sample per strata in stratified random sampling
which is 10. Shown below are the 400 public secondary school teachers who were the subjects in the study. So, it is expected that the
number of respondents must be between 300 to 400. These respondents must come to five identified provinces in region XI.
Moreover, the researcher considered the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the selection of the respondents of the study. Specifically, the
possible respondents of this research study were regular teachers among public secondary schools in Region XI whose plantilla numbers
are in the Department of Education. Teachers were willing to submit themselves and were permitted by their school heads to undergo the
survey to be conducted. Those teachers who voluntarily agreed with the informed consent were included in the survey, hence,
teachers who clearly confessed their denial were excluded from the study. The study excluded all non- plantilla teachers such as
substitute teachers and volunteer teachers.
The researcher reminded the respondents that their participation in the study is entirely voluntary, and they can withdraw if they wish to
without being penalized for it. They can withdraw their participation if, during the conduct of the study, they have other commitments,
have health issues, and the like.
Research Instrument
The survey on organizational commitment was adapted from Loan (2020). Each factor of the instrument represents one facet of
organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. The survey on personality domains used by He, Donnellan, &
Mendoza (2019) was also utilized in the study. It assesses a personality in his/her study in terms of agreeableness, extraversion,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, and open-mindedness. The Self- Regulations Questionnaire (SRQ) was adapted from Sahar and
Naqvi (2020), as an attempt to assess these self-regulatory processes through self-report in terms of intrinsic interest, goal setting,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 80
performance goal orientation, mastery goal orientation, self-instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and help-
seeking. The survey on Work Engagement was adapted from Kusumaningtyas and Laksono (2021). They authors utilized the Likert-type,
self-report questionnaire that focuses on the comprehensive assessment of the construct of teacher engagement in terms of vigor,
dedication, and absorption.
The scale employed for interpreting the means of organizational commitment, personality domain, self-regulation, and work engagement
is in the following ranges: 4.20-5.00 is considered very high; 3.40-4.19 regarded as high;2.60-3.39 regarded as moderate; 1.80-2.59
considered to be low and finally, 1.00-1.79 noted as very low.
Four instruments were adapted to measure the four constructs of the study, which are the following: The validators’ rating of the
questionnaires had a mean 4.01. Minor revisions recommended in some contents and statements of the instruments. Prior to the actual
survey, the researcher conducted a preliminary survey with 50 respondents for reliability testing. The preliminary data gathered were
subjected to an internal consistency validity test using Cronbach's alpha. With a reliability test of 30 items, the first independent variable
resulted 0.877 for organizational commitment, independent variable 0.911 for personality domains and independent variable 0.891 for
self-regulations and the dependent variable, work engagement 0.901.
Research Design
The descriptive-correlational research design was used in this study. This method describes the statistical association between two or
more variables (Songcog & Guhao 2020). Causal methods were used to develop and take up mathematical models, theories, and/or
hypotheses in the generation of the best fit model, as asserted by Altikriti and Anderson (2021). Since the study seeks to come up with the
best-fit work engagement model, the most appropriate to use is the causal design.
Structural Equation Modeling or SEM was used to achieve the target above. SEM is a technique for multivariate statistical analysis to
analyze structural relationships between measured variables and latent constructs by combining factor analysis and multiple regression
analysis. The researcher preferred this technique because in a single analysis, it estimated the multiple and interrelated dependence.
Endogenous variable and exogenous variables were used in this analysis of two types of variables. Equivalent to dependent variables,
endogenous variables were equal to the independent variables (Guhao, 2019).
Due to its ability to impute relationships between unnoticed constructs (latent variables) from observable variables, the use of SEM was
commonly justified in social sciences. SEM includes confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, modeling of partial least square paths, and
latent modeling of growth. The concept should not be confused in econometrics with the related concept of structural models, or
economics with structural models. To evaluate unobservable 'latent' constructs, structural equation models are often used. They often
invoke a model of measurement that used one or more observed variables to define latent variables and a structural model that imputes
relationships between latent variables (Altikriti & Anderson, 2021).
A combination of factor analysis and path analysis into one comprehensive statistical methodology represented Structural Equation
Modeling. It is a family of statistical methods designed to test a conceptual (or) theoretical model by representing, estimating, and testing
a network of relationships between variables. A methodology for representing, estimating, and testing a network of relationships between
variables (measured variables and latent constructs) was structural equation modeling (Rahim, 2022).
SEM is also known as Causal Models, Simultaneous Equations, Path Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Covariance Structure
Analysis (CSA), and Latent Variable Modeling. Path analysis/regression repeated analysis of measures/latent growth curve modeling, and
confirmatory factor analysis was examples. Structural equation modeling (SEM) can be portrayed as a model that uses four graphical
symbols, that is, an ellipse (or circle), a rectangle, and a single or double- headed arrow, to use specific structure configurations.
Procedure
The study employed several processes in collecting the data for the study. The researcher sought permission from the Dean of
Professional Schools, the Regional Director and Schools Division Superintendents of the Department of Education, DepEd Supervisors
and School Heads of the targeted schools and respondents before the collection of data.
This study adhered to ethical guidelines, obtaining approval from the UM Ethics Review Committee (UMERC) with the certificate
number UMERC-2022-015. Respondents' personal information was protected under the Data Privacy Act of 2012, and informed consent
was obtained, emphasizing voluntariness and participant rights. Potential risks were identified and mitigated through proper risk
management. Moreover, the study posed minimal risk and maintained confidentiality through pseudonyms. To avoid plagiarism, Turnitin
and Grammarly software were used to ensure proper citation and adherence to APA 7th edition guidelines.
Request letters were signed by the researcher, the adviser, and distributed to the selected branches by the Dean of Professional Schools.
The copy of the research proposal and the questionnaires were also included to give the authorities an idea of the significance of this study
to their department or school as well as how data collection were carried out in their respective schools. A timetable was established for the
floating and retrieval period of the questionnaire.
The online survey in this study was done by first, asking the consent of the target participants. The researchers explained that considering
the current situation, their involvement is not compulsory. It was also stressed that if they participate, their identity will remain
anonymous, and their responses will be analyzed. The link to the online questionnaire was posted on the discussion board of a learning
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 81
management system.
Statistical Treatment
The following statistical tools were utilized in this study to analyze the data: the mean was employed to quantify the levels of
organizational commitment, personality domains, self-regulation, and work engagement; Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used
to determine the interrelationships among these variables; multiple regression was applied to identify significant predictors of work
engagement; and Structural Equation Modeling (Maximum Likelihood), a multivariate technique combining aspects of multiple regression
and factor analysis, was used to estimate a series of interrelated dependence relationships simultaneously (Johari et al., 2022).
In order to determine the best fit model, the following indices were used with their corresponding criterion:
Index
Criterion
Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom
0 < value < 2
P-value
> .05
Normed Fit Index (NFI)
> .95
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
> .95
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
> .95
GFI (Goodness of Fit Index)
> .95
Root Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA)
< .05
P of Close Fit (P-close)
> .05
Specifically, it was used to test the hypothesized model and to determine the best-fit model of work engagement. In order to evaluate the
goodness of fit of the hypothesized models, the following indices were considered: Chi-square/degrees of freedom (𝑥
2
/df), Goodness of
Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker- Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation.
III. Results and Discussion
In this section, the data collected from the teachers on experience organizational commitment, personality domains, self-regulations and
work engagement was given, evaluated, and interpreted in light of the research objectives.
Organizational Commitment
The level of organizational commitment is presented in table I. It is measured by affective, continuance, and normative. It recorded an
overall standard deviation of 0.41 with a mean rating of 4.25, which is very high. This indicates that the level of organizational
commitment is always evident among public secondary school teachers. Affective commitment registered with the highest meaning
rating of 4.38, followed by normative commitment with 4.31. Lastly, continuance registered the lowest mean of 4.07 rated very high. The
three indicators were labeled as very high; this indicates that the measure is always evident among public school teachers.
Table I Level of Organizational Commitment
Indicator
SD
Mean
Descriptive Evaluation
Affective
0.49
4.38
Very High
Continuance
0.54
4.07
High
Normative
0.51
4.31
Very High
Overall
0.41
4.25
Very High
The very high level of organizational commitment was due to the ratings given by the teachers on affective, continuance, and normative.
In this, the level of engagement and dedication team members feel toward their individual jobs and the organization. It also describes the
different reasons professionals remain with an employer rather than seek opportunities elsewhere. Thus, the teachers succeed in
performing the tasks entrusted to them in an effective and worthy manner. The teachers also believe in the goals of their organization and
working hard to achieve the goals and vision.
The very high level of organizational commitment revealed the high importance of achieving effectiveness which in turn influences
learning outcomes. This claim is in line with Ahad et al. (2021), stating that organizational commitment plays an essential role in
establishing a unified effort within an organization.
Thus, it is necessary for every individual in the organization to build up efforts in supporting the augmentation of commitment towards the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 82
organization. Moreover, the results of the study are also in line with various authors (Alrowwad et al., 2020; Al-Jabari et al., 2019) who
mentioned that commitments comprise behavioral terms that refer to what actions a commitment entails. For organizational commitment,
the focal behavior is speculated to be keeping up organizational attachment.
Personality Domains
Presented in Table II is the level of personality domains in terms of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
openness. It registered an overall standard deviation of 0.52 and the overall mean rating of 4.30, which is described as high. This indicates
that personality domain is always evident among public school teachers. Individually, openness registered the highest mean of 4.38,
followed by neuroticism with 4.30 and conscientiousness with 4.29. Extraversion, agreeableness got the lowest mean score of 4.26. All
indicators garnered very high ratings. The very high mean rating meant that the personality domains of teachers in Region 11 was always
evident.
This is evident that the positive characteristics included personality traits of caring, communicativeness, cooperativeness, kindness,
accessibility, ability to motivate and having a positive attitude. As regards to ability traits, the participants considered the ability to
transmit knowledge, demonstrate ability to present knowledge and possess research skills along with clarity of concepts. The negative
characteristics according to the respondents were lack of approachability and high knowledge level, which the teacher was unable to
simplify to the level of the students.
Table II Level of Personality Domains
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Evaluation
Extraversion
0.60
4.26
Very High
Agreeableness
0.66
4.26
Very High
Conscientiousness
0.60
4.29
Very High
Neuroticism
0.61
4.30
Very High
Openness
0.58
4.38
Very High
Overall
0.52
4.30
Very High
The manifestations are associated with the views of Kim et al., (2019), which stated that all these qualities have been observed as
characteristics that highlight the idea of a person who possesses positive personality traits, particularly in the context of education. In
support, Ding et al. (2022) also emphasized that teachers bring their unique mix of experience, culture, and personality with them
everywhere they go, including the classrooms where they teach. Consequently, in the study of Buenvinida et. al. (2020), educators must
have a deep and meaningful comprehension of their own uniqueness, identity, and culture to interact with and respond to the unique
identities, languages, and cultures of their students in a genuine way.
Self-Regulations
Presented in Table III is the level self-regulations in terms of goal setting, intrinsic interest, performance goal orientation, mastery goal
orientation, self- instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and help-seeking. It registered an overall standard deviation
of 0.44 and the overall mean rating of 4.47, which is very high. This indicates that the level of self-regulations is always manifested among
public secondary school teachers. Individually, mastery goal orientation registered the highest mean of 4.57, followed self-evaluation
with 4.54, help-seeking with 4.53, intrinsic interest and self-reaction with 4.52, while the lowest indicator was described as very high, which
also means that the measure is always evident among public secondary school teachers is emotional control.
The high level of self-regulation observed was attributed to the teachers' ratings, reflecting their consistent practice of self-regulation to
enhance job performance and mitigate stress. Regular self-regulation helps alleviate classroom stress for both teachers and students while
serving as a model for students to manage and express emotions constructively, fostering an optimal learning environment. Studies (Khan
et al., 2021; Onunye et al., 2023; Gao & Shao, 2024) highlight teachers' need for self-regulation strategies due to frequent exposure to
stress. The respondents’ very high self-regulation scores indicate their effective adoption of such methods, aligning with Inzlicht et al.
(2021), who emphasized strong support for teacher self-regulation.
Table III Level of Self-Regulations
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Evaluation
Goal Setting
0.53
4.51
Very High
Intrinsic Interest
0.47
4.52
Very High
Performance Goal Orientation
0.48
4.35
Very High
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 83
Mastery Goal Orientation
0.44
4.57
Very High
Self-instruction
0.46
4.48
Very High
Emotional control
0.67
4.22
Very High
Self-evaluation
0.52
4.54
Very High
Self-reaction
0.50
4.52
Very High
Help-seeking
0.74
4.53
Very High
Overall
0.44
4.47
Very High
Work Engagement
Presented in Table IV is the level of work engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption. It registered an overall standard
deviation of 0.44 mean rating of 4.30, which is very high. This indicates that the level of work engagement is always evident among public
school teachers. The first indicator with the highest mean is dedication, with a mean rating of 4.42, with a descriptive level of very high.
The second is vigor, with a mean rating of 4.28, which is described as very high. Lastly is absorption, with a mean rating of 4.21, still
very high got the lowest mean rating.
Table IV Level of Work Engagement
Indicators
SD
Mean
Descriptive Evaluation
Vigor
0.52
4.28
Very High
Dedication
0.49
4.42
Very High
Absorption
0.46
4.21
Very High
Overall
0.44
4.30
Very High
The very high level of work engagement of teachers is due to very high rating given by the respondents on the domain vigor, dedication,
and absorption. The level of work engagement helps teacher’s positive behaviors and outcomes for both employees and the organization.
This is supported by Jyoti et al., (2020), highlighting that that the teachers involved full of energy, dedicated to the company and work hard
without reports of job-related stress. Engaged teachers are not only successful in this way, but their positive approach to the job also
creates a positive environment at job. Some signs that this positive environment is also having a positive impact on others at work.
Committed teachers are contented with their work and are less likely to abandon their co teachers construct and defined it as a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. Teachers’ engagement might be affected by their
personal characteristics like identity, self-esteem and the sense of efficacy. Therefore, teachers with clearer identity, higher self-esteem
and higher sense of efficacy tend to be more engaged in their job.
This corroborates with the idea of various authors (Karatepe et al., 2022) who emphasized that teachers feel that time flies when
working, feels happy when working intensely and forgets everything else around when working. This means that teacher feels of
bursting with energy in the work, feels excited going to work when getting up in the morning and continues the work for very long period
of time.
Significance of the Relationship between Levels of Organizational Commitment and Work Engagement
Shown in Table V is the significance of the relationship between organizational commitment and work engagement. The overall r-value
of 0.030, with a p-value of 0.543, is greater than the 0.05 level of significance. This signifies the acceptance of the null hypothesis,
indicating no significant relationship between organizational commitment and work engagement. However, the relationship of individual
indicators of organizational commitment and work engagement revealed varying results. Only the Continuance indicator showed a
significant relationship with the indicators of work engagement, with an r-value of 0.104 and a p-value of 0.038 (< 0.05 significance
level). These results suggest that there is no significant overall relationship between organizational commitment and work engagement due
to insufficient evidence.
The existing studies dictates otherwise as they describe organizational commitment as an antecedent of work engagement. They argue
that when employees are attached to their organization, they may demonstrate higher work engagement (Rai & Maheshwari, 2020). It
means organizational commitment precedes WE, and when employees are committed to their organizations and willing to pay back to the
organization, work engagement emerges as a kind of repayment (Huang & Cheng, 2024). This view implies that as a result of the
attachment of the employees to the organization, attachment to the work occurs, as well. On the contrary, some other studies argue that
work engagement could lead to increased organizational commitment (Nergiz & Unsal-Akbiyik, 2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 84
Table V Significance on the Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Work Engagement
Organizational
Commitment
Work Engagement
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Overall
Affective
-.057 (0.259)
-.082 (0.101)
-.048 (0.335)
-.070 (0.162)
Continuance
.076 (0.129)
.094 (0.060)
.110* (0.028)
.104* (0.038)
Normative
.008 (0.869)
.065 (0.198)
.009 (0.856)
.030 (0.543)
Overall
.014 (0.773)
.035 (0.481)
.033 (0.509)
.030 (0.543)
*Significant at 0.05 significance level
This was also reported by Li et al., (2021) who found that teachers with higher organizational commitment to their schools have stronger
beliefs in the school’s aims and values and prefer to stay in the school. Teachers with a higher commitment endure feeling of warmth,
appreciation, and loyalty to the organization as a result of their positive thoughts and interactions within the organization and have a deep
desire to stay within the organization (Sezen-Gultekin, Bayrakcı, & Limon, 2021). Research also found significant relationship between
organizational commitment and work engagement.
The absence of a significant relationship between organizational commitment and work engagement in the study highlights the
importance of fostering teacher commitment in schools, as this could potentially lead to increased work engagement. A large proportion
of students are educated in government schools, and if teachers in these institutions demonstrate strong commitment to their work, it
could significantly enhance the country's global standing in education. Unfortunately, many teachers in government schools lack the
necessary commitment, motivation, and skills. According to Ahuja and Gupta (2019), this lack of commitment is often attributed to their
reluctance to adopt new teaching methodologies and their aversion to taking risks by implementing innovative ideas in their teaching
practices.
Table VI presents the significance of the relationship between personality domains and work engagement. The data reveal a significant
relationship, with an overall correlation coefficient of 0.215 and a p-value of 0 (p < 0.05 significance level). Individually, the indicators of
both personality domains and work engagement also demonstrated a significant overall correlation. These results suggest a clear and
meaningful relationship between the two variables, indicating that personality domains may influence levels of work engagement.
The finding jives with the study of Scharp et al., (2022) that personality should be considered separate from personal resources as it may
influence perceptions of individual’s situated environment, further disabling their ability to manage and influence that environment, thus
affecting their work engagement. Layek and Koodamara (2024) explored traits that provided ability to control thoughts and emotions to
actively interact with one’s environment considering those as the ones more likely to lead to engagement (Vitale & Bonaiuto, 2024): high
conscientiousness, reflecting the individual’s responsibility and task involvement and high extraversion, since people are more active,
alert and enthusiastic with their work.
Table VI Significance on the Relationship between Personality Domains and Work Engagement
P Personality Domains
Work Engagement
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Overall
Extraversion
.121* (0.015)
.185* (0.000)
.128* (0.011)
.162* (0.001)
Agreeableness
.094 (0.061)
.146* (0.003)
.111* (0.027)
.130* (0.009)
Conscientiousness
.167* (0.001)
.240* (0.000)
.184* (0.000)
.219* (0.000)
Neuroticism
.140* (0.000)
.204* (0.000)
.178* (0.000)
.194* (0.000)
Openness
.215* (0.000)
.219* (0.000)
.162* (0.001)
.223* (0.000)
Overall
.170* (0.001)
.231* (0.000)
.177* (0.000)
.215* (0.000)
*Significant at 0.05 significance level.
Significance of the Relationship between
Self-Regulations and Work Engagement
Shown in Table 7 is the significance of the relationship between self- regulations and work engagement. It can be seen on the table that
there was no significant relationship between the indicators of self-regulation and work engagement with an overall correlation
coefficient of .010 and a p-value of 0.848 (>0.05 level of significance). The results of the analysis imply that the study has no enough
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 85
evidence to prove a significant relationship between self-regulations and work engagement. These observations are in support of previous
studies that found no evidence of a positive influence of personal and social resources on work engagement.
However, the results contradict with one of the main premises of perceived organizational support. The work of Nergiz & Unsal-Akbiyik
(2024) argues that positivity stemming from high-quality relationships with supervisors characterized by trust and social interaction
enhances individual resources, such as work engagement. This, in turn, broadens and strengthens individual, group, and organizational
capabilities, fostering growth and capacity building.
Table 7 Significance on the Relationship between Levels of Self-Regulations and Work Engagement
Work Engagement
Self-Regulation
Vigor
Dedication
Absorption
Overall
Goal Setting
-.053
.015
-.007
-.018
(0.291)
(0.771)
(0.890)
(0.721)
Intrinsic Interest
.000
.521
.027
.028
(0.998)
(0.312)
(0.597)
(0.573)
Performance
-.017
.066
.024
.026
Goal Orientation
(0.739)
(0.187)
(0.629)
(0.598)
Mastery Goal
-.060
.021
-.028
-.026
Orientation
(0.233)
(0.677)
(0.572)
(0.610)
Self-instruction
.003
.072
.030
.039
(0.957)
(0.151)
(0.545)
(0.438)
Emotional
.009
.027
.050
.031
control
(0.858)
(0.589)
(0.315)
(0.533)
Self-evaluation
.022
.047
.088
.057
(0.665)
(0.347)
(0.078)
(0.254)
Self-reaction
-.007
.022
.027
.015
(0.896)
(0.658)
(0.585)
(0.764)
Help-seeking
-.058
-.042
-.049
-.056
(0.246)
(0.402)
(0.329)
(0.264)
Overall
-.023
.032
.019
.010
(0.645)
(0.522)
(0.700)
(0.848)
*Significant at 0.05 significance level
This part exhibits the interrelationship among the variables included in this study. Based on literature and theories, organizational
commitment, personality domains and self-regulations of teachers were considered to be critical variables to influence work engagement.
Hence, structural models were developed to investigate their correspondence
Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model
Figure 2 showed the interrelationship of the latent exogenous variables organizational commitment with all the three indicators
normative, affective and continuance; personality domains with complete set of five indicators neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness,
agreeableness and extraversion; and self- regulations with the entire nine indicators emotional control, intrinsic interest, performance goal
orientation, mastery goal orientation, self-instruction, self- evaluation, self-reaction, help-seeking and goal setting; and their direct
influence to the endogenous variable work engagement with the total three indicators vigor, dedication and absorption.
Generally, most of the indicators highly represent latent variables organizational commitment, personality domains and self-regulations.
However, the strong significant evidence of values in model 1 did not qualify for it to become the best fit model for this study based on the
result presented in Table 8, since all the indices value like Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/DF) = 5.922, p-value=.000, Root
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 86
Mean Square of Error Approximation (RMSEA)=.111, P-close value=.000, and the other indices such as Normed Fit Index (NFI)=.831,
Tucker- Lewis Index (TLI)=.832, Comparative Fit Index (CFI)=.855, and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)=.789 did not meet the acceptable
ranges. Hence, this denoted a poor fit model.
Figure 2. Structural Model 1 in Standardized Solution
Legend:
aff – Affective
PD – Personality Domains ec –Emotional Control
con – Continuance
gs – Goal Setting
nor – Normative
pgo – Performance Goal
OC – Organizational Commitment
ext – Extraversion
mgo – Mastery Goal Orientation agr – Agreeableness
si – Self-instruction
cons – Conscientiousness
neu – Neuroticism
opp – openness
se – Self-evaluation
slr – Self-reaction
hs – Help-seeking
SR –Self-Regulation
vig –Vigor
ded – Dedication
abs –Absorption
WE – Work Engagement
Table VIII Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 1
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 87
INDEX
CRITERION
MODEL FIT VALUE
P-Close
> 0.05
.000
CMIN/DF
0 < value < 2
5.922
P-value
> 0.05
.000
GFI
> 0.95
.789
CFI
> 0.95
.855
NFI
> 0.95
.831
TLI
> 0.95
.832
RMSEA
< 0.05
.111
Legend:
CMIN/DF- Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom
NFI- Normed Fit Index
TLI- Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI - Comparative Fit Index
GFI- Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA- Root Means Square of Error Approximation
P close- P of Close Fit
P-value- Probability Level
Generated Model 2 reflected in figure 3 showed the interrelationships of the latent exogenous variables, organizational commitment,
personality domains and self-regulations and their direct influence on the endogenous variable, work engagement. Further, the model
showed that two out of three indicators of organizational commitment, three out of five indicators of personality domains and five out of
nine indicators of self-regulations have interconnection with each other.
As observed, in the index values of Table 9, only CFI= .955 had met the criterion of the data and all other indices with the
corresponding values; P-close= .001, CMIN/DF= 3.154, NFI=.936, TLI=.941, GFI=.939, RMSEA=.073 and P-value=.001, failed
to meet the acceptable ranges. Thus, this indicated a poor fit model.
Figure 3. Structural Model 2 in Standardized Solution
Legend:
aff – Affective
PD – Personality Domains
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 88
con – Continuance
gs – Goal Setting
nor – Normative
pgo – Performance Goal
OC – Organizational Commitment
Orientation
ec –Emotional Control
se – Self-evaluation
slr – Self-reaction
hs – Help-seeking
ext – Extraversion
mgo – Mastery Goal Orientation
agr – Agreeableness
si – Self-instruction
cons – Conscientiousness
neu – Neuroticism
opp – openness
SR –Self-Regulation
vig –Vigor
ded – Dedication
abs –Absorption
WE – Work Engagement
Table 9 Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 2
INDEX
CRITERION
MODEL FIT VALUE
P-Close
> 0.05
.001
CMIN/DF
0 < value < 2
3.154
P-value
> 0.05
.000
GFI
> 0.95
.939
CFI
> 0.95
.955
NFI
> 0.95
.936
TLI
> 0.95
.941
RMSEA
< 0.05
.073
Legend:
CMIN/DF- Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom
NFI- Normed Fit Index
TLI- Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI- Comparative Fit Index
GFI- Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA- Root Means Square of Error Approximation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 89
P close-P of Close Fit
P-value-Probability Level
Generated Model 3 in Figure 4 showed the Structural Equation Model in Standardized Solution of organizational commitment,
personality domains and self- regulations and work engagement.
Figure 4. Structural Model 3 in Standardized Solution
Legend: aff – Affective PD – Personality Domains
con – Continuance
gs – Goal Setting
nor – Normative
pgo – Performance Goal
OC – Organizational Commitment Orientation
ec –Emotional Control
se – Self-evaluation
slr – Self-reaction
hs – Help-seeking
ext – Extraversion
mgo – Mastery Goal Orientation
agr – Agreeableness
si – Self-instruction
cons – Conscientiousness
neu – Neuroticism
opp – openness
SR –Self-Regulation
vig –Vigor
ded – Dedication
abs –Absorption
WE – Work Engagement
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 90
This model displayed the interrelationships of the three exogenous variables and their direct causal relation to endogenous variable work
engagement. Further, it showed that two out three indicators of organizational commitment, three out of five indicators of personality
domains, and two out of nine indicators of self- regulations have strong interconnectedness with each other.
Moreover, the data shown in Table X was calculated as highly acceptable since all the indices satisfied the desired criteria. As observed,
Chi-Square divided by degrees of freedom is 1.326 with the probability level of .944. The result denoted a good model for the data. This was
strongly supported by the result of RMSEA with the value of .029 which is less than 0.05. Moreover, GFI, CFI, NFI and TLI were all greater
than 0.95 which clearly mean, they fall within the acceptable ranges. Thus, this indicated a best fit model for work engagement.
Table X Goodness of Fit Measures of Structural Model 3
INDEX
CRITERION
MODEL FIT VALUE
P-Close
> 0.05
.944
CMIN/DF
0 < value < 2
1.326
P-value
> 0.05
.112
GFI
> 0.95
.982
CFI
> 0.95
.994
NFI
> 0.95
.977
TLI
> 0.95
.991
RMSEA
< 0.05
.029
Legend:
CMIN/DF- Chi-Square/Degrees of Freedom
NFI- Normed Fit Index
TLI - Tucker-Lewis Index
CFI- Comparative Fit Index
GFI-Goodness of Fit Index
RMSEA-Root Means Square of Error Approximation
P close-P of Close Fit
P-value-Probability Level
The summary of goodness of fit measures of these structural models is reflected in Table XI.
In identifying the best fit model, all the indices included must fall within acceptable ranges. Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom
(CMIN/DF) should be between 0 and 2, with its corresponding p-value greater than .05. Root Mean Square of Error Approximation
(RMSEA) value must be less than .05 with its P- close value that should also be greater than .05. The other indices such as Normed Fit
Index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) must be greater than .95.
Shown in Table XI are the values of data of the three hypothesized model. All the indices of the first hypothesized model do not fall within
the standard criteria. This implied a poor fit model.
The second hypothesized structural model showed a slight modification of the first with only CFI value of .955 fall within the criterion.
The model is found to be non-fitting to the standard.
The third hypothesized structural model passed the criteria in assessing the best fit model, showing a P-value of .112, with
CMIN/DF=1.326, RMSEA=.029, NFI=.977, TLI=.991, CFI=.994 and GFI=.982. Hence, model 3 is the best fit model. The best fit model
suggested that organization commitment, personality domains, and self-regulations showed a direct causal link to work engagement.
It further revealed that work engagement of public secondary schools is best anchored on organizational commitment which is
grounded on continuance commitment and normative commitment; supported by personality domains which is defined in terms of
extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism; and reinforced by self-regulations which is measured in terms of emotional control and goal
setting.
From the result, it can be drawn that normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to employment. Employees with high level of
normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Johar et al., 2019).
Organizational commitment and work engagement have a significant positive relationship, with the dedicated employee being more
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 91
engaged at work and vice versa (Arcadio et al., 2023).
For the exogenous variable personality domains, only extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism remain fitted to the model and have a
causal link with work engagement. Moreover, employees who are high on extraversion and agreeableness are found to modify their job
characteristics by increasing the number of social interactions with others at work and those with minimal neuroticism tend to be more
upbeat and handle pressure better (Laquina et al., 2024).
For the exogenous variable self-regulation, only emotional control and goal setting have the casual link with work engagement. In the
educational context, both teachers and learners face various challenges, which may trigger placements and unpleasant emotions. The way
they handle their emotions affects their academic success. Teachers can establish a pleasant emotional climate to manage their own
emotions and their students’ ones efficiently (Namaziandost et al., 2023).
Additionally, specific and effective goal setting plays a critical role in creation engagement among employees (Awan et al., 2020).
Subsequently, the following null hypotheses tested using the 0.05 level of significance that there is no significant relationship between
organizational commitment and work engagement of teachers; personality domains and work engagement of teachers; and self-
regulations and work engagement of teacher is rejected. Further, the combination of organizational commitment, personality domains,
and self-regulations do not significantly influence work engagement and there is no model that best fits work engagement is also rejected.
Table XI Summary of Goodness of Fit Measures of the Three Structural Models
Mode
l
CMIN/DF
0<value<2
P-Value
> .05
NFI>
.95
TLI
>.95
CFI
> .95
GFI >
.95
RMSEA
< .05
P-Close
> .05
1
5.922
.000
.831
.832
.855
.789
.111
.000
2
3.154
.000
.936
.941
.955
.939
.073
.001
3
1.326
.112
.977
.991
.994
.982
.029
.944
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the foregoing findings, the following conclusions are drawn: There is a high level of organizational commitment and is evident in
its indicators such as affective commitment, continuance commitment; and normative commitment among public school teachers in the
nine divisions of Region XI with the very high level of personality domains which focuses on extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism; and openness. The level of self-regulations, goal setting, intrinsic interest, performance goal orientation,
mastery goal orientation, self-instruction, emotional control, self-evaluation, self-reaction; and help seeking obtained a very high rating.
The level of work engagement is very high in vigor, dedication, and absorption.
The very high result in all indicators under organizational commitment denotes teachers are more engaged seeing that they are gratified of
what they are doing, find that their task challenging, meaningful and purposeful. Their sense of attachment and positive feeling that they
are part of the organization endowed to their strong commitment to the organization. Moreover, the very high result of indicators under
personality domains of teachers has a positive and significant effect on their work engagement. This encouraged them to do better on
their jobs. Further, the very high result in self-regulation is directing and leading the teaching process in the classroom to enhance or
achieve the teaching goals independently. Self-regulated teachers are often described as proactive agents who prompt certain educational
notion, construct suitable instructional engagement accordingly and proactively manage the teaching environment and conditions.
Finally, teachers’ high level of work engagement is vital aspect of realizing the success of school organizations. Teachers can maintain
energy and inspiration from varying activities into effective resources at work.
The correlation test revealed no significant relationship between organizational commitment and work engagement, a significant
relationship between personality domains and work engagement, and no significant relationship between self- regulation and work
engagement. These Pearson Product-Moment correlation results indicate that organizational commitment and self-regulation do not
influence work engagement, as evidenced by the lack of statistical significance in this study. This finding disapproves the theory to which
the study is anchored, as the theory posits that organizational commitment and self-regulation are critical factors influencing work
engagement. The results suggest that in this context, these variables may not play a pivotal role in driving work engagement. Instead, the
study highlights the Big Five personality traits or domains as having a significant and predictive capacity over work engagement,
emphasizing the need to focus on personality development and discipline within the educational context. This discrepancy could be
attributed to contextual factors, such as cultural or organizational dynamics, which may affect how these constructs interact. Hence, the
influence of these variables to work engagement may be explored further.
The use of structural equation modeling (SEM) strengthened the reliability and thoroughness of this research, as it involved model
specification, estimation, and evaluation. Among the three models tested, only Model 3 met the criteria for a perfectly fitting model,
identifying it as the best-suited structural model. This model indicates that organizational commitment, personality domains, and self-
regulation significantly influence work engagement among public school teachers in Region XI.
However, the success of work engagement may be linked to various other factors, some of which may have been proposed in previous
studies as indicators of work engagement in education. Additionally, other factors not included in this study may have had a more
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 92
significant impact on the respondents' work engagement.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the researcher proposes the following recommendations:
To enhance teachers' organizational commitment, the Department of Education should prioritize promotion opportunities, foster positive
relationships, and ensure supportive working conditions. Creating a pleasant environment where teachers feel valued and can express
creativity is essential. Encouraging teamwork, mutual respect, and the development of tailored teaching programs that address teachers’
strengths and needs can further promote professional growth and engagement.
Considering personality traits, schools should provide structured and engaging teaching methodologies that reduce boredom and frustration
while fostering enjoyment and motivation. Reflective practices and self-regulation courses should also be integrated into teacher training
programs to support continuous professional development. Activities that promote self-regulation and reflective learning can strengthen
teachers' work engagement and overall effectiveness. Educational policymakers and school leaders are encouraged to implement training
and seminars on organizational commitment, personality domains, and self-regulation based on the best-fit model. These initiatives will
enhance teacher engagement, improve classroom effectiveness, and ultimately contribute to better student outcomes.
To enhance work engagement among teachers, consistent orientation and reorientation on the public school’s code of ethics, as well as
DepEd’s vision and mission, should be conducted for both new and experienced teachers. Recognizing teachers’ dedication through social
media, face-to-face interactions, and other forms of acknowledgment can boost morale. Development activities should focus on
equipping teachers with 21st-century skills to adapt to modern demands. Teachers should also participate in training and seminars on
emergent technologies to improve their pedagogical approaches and deliver future-ready learning.
Professional development programs that encourage the use of student- centered practices and innovative teaching strategies are essential.
Long-term collaborations, such as mentoring networks and educator development projects can enhance professional growth.
Administrators should also explore retention programs, especially for teachers in rural areas where resources may be limited.
Comparative studies between urban and rural settings could shed light on differences in teacher engagement and job satisfaction.
Future researchers are encouraged to extend this study to other teacher populations, particularly in public schools, to validate its findings.
They may also explore additional variables or factors influencing teachers' personal effectiveness and work engagement to provide
deeper insights into enhancing the teaching profession.
References
1. Aboramadan, M. (2022). The effect of green HRM on employee green behaviors in higher education: the mediating mechanism
of green work engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(1), 7-23.
2. Aboramadan, M., & Dahleez, K. A. (2020). Leadership styles and employees’ work outcomes in nonprofit organizations: the role
of work engagement. Journal of Management Development, 39(7/8), 869-893.
3. Ahad, R., Mustafa, M. Z., Mohamad, S., Abdullah, N. H. S., & Nordin, M. N. (2021). Work attitude, organizational commitment
and emotional intelligence of Malaysian vocational college teachers. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(1), 15-21.
4. Ahuja, S., & Gupta, S. (2019). Organizational commitment and work engagement as a facilitator for sustaining higher education
professionals. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 7(6), 1846-1851.
5. Albdour A A., Altarawneh I. I. (2014). Employee engagement and organizational commitment: evidence from Jordan. Int. J.
Bus. 19 192–212.
6. Albrecht, S. L., & Marty, A. (2020). Personality, self-Efficacy and job resources and their associations with employee
engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
31, 657-681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1362660
7. Al-Jabari, B., Ghazzawi; Al-Jabari, B., & Ghazzawi, I. (2019). Organizational Commitment: A Review of the Conceptual and
Empirical Literature and a Research Agenda. In International Leadership Journal "ILJ (Vol. 11, Issue 1).
8. Alrowwad, A., Almajali, D. A., & Obeidat, B. (2020). The Role of Organizational Commitment in Enhancing Organizational
Effectiveness. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332697163
9. Anderson, C. (2021). Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in
Criminology and Criminal Justice, II (1).
10. Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-
being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279.
11. Anglim, J. Morse, G., Dunlop, P. D., Minbashian, A., & Marty, A. (2020). Predicting trait emotional intelligence from HEXACO
personality: Domains, facets, and the general factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 324-338.
12. Ansari, J. A. N. (2020). Driving employee engagement through five personality traits: an exploratory study. Metamorphosis,
19(2), 94-105.
13. Arcadio, A. C., Distor, J. S. & Diola, D. D. (2023). Work engagement and organizational commitment of employees
in Cavite, Philippines. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(7), 1- 14.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7905538
14. Awan, S. H., Habib, N., Shoaib Akhtar, C., & Naveed, S. (2020). Effectiveness of performance management system for
employee performance through engagement. SAGE Open,10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020969383
15. Aydın, Y. Ç., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2009). Development and psychometric evaluation of the high school chemistry self-efficacy
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 93
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(5), 868-880.
16. Bakker, A. B. (2022). The social psychology of work engagement: state of the field. Career Development International, 27(1),
36-53.
17. Bansal, E., Bhushan, P., & Gupta, Y. (2020). Personality traits and work engagement: A case study on Female Bank employees
in Banking Sector. Parikalpana: KIIT Journal of Management, 16(1and2), 72-83.
18. Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In Handbook of causal analysis for
social research (pp. 301-328). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
19. Buenvinida, L. P., Rodriguez, M. T. M., Sapin, S. B., Alforja, N. S., & Panopio, F. P. (2020). Senior high school teachers’
readiness in implementing 21st century learning: An input to school improvement plan. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 7(9), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.79.8967
20. Bylieva, D., Hong, J. C., Lobatyuk, V., & Nam, T. (2021). Self-regulation in e-learning environment. Education Sciences, 11(12),
785.
21. Crossman, N. D. (2018). Land in balance: The scientific conceptual framework for Land Degradation Neutrality. Environmental
Science & Policy, 79, 25-35.
22. Cusumano, M. A., Gawer, A., & Yoffie, D. B. (2021). Can self-regulation save digital plat forms? Industrial and Corporate
Change, 30(5), 1259-1285.
23. Danner, D., Lechner, C. M., Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2021). Modelling the incremental value of personality facets: The
domains-incremental facets- acquiescence bifactor show model. European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 67-84.
24. Ding, K., Zhu, L., & Yan, X. (2022). The relationship between EFL teachers' personality traits, communication strategies, and
eork Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 855837. Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538.
25. ] Fakhruddin, F., Ilmi, Z., & Achmad, G. N. (2020). The influence of personality and organizational commitment and work
engagement to employee satisfaction and employee performance DPRD Samarinda City. International Journal of Economics,
Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR), 4(02).
26. Fernandez, E. O., Quines, L. A. (2023). Psychological Empowerment, Work Engagement and Pay Satisfaction: A Path Model
On Retention Among Secondary School Teachers. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(12).
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v10i12.5122
27. Fernandez, S. (2020). Faculty work engagement and teaching effectiveness in a state higher education institution. International
Journal of Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-13.
28. Filstad, C. (2022). Police Leadership as Practice. 10.4324/9781003224105. Finders, J. K., McClelland, M. M., Geldhof, G. J.,
Rothwell, D. W., & Hatfield, B. E.
29. (2021). Explaining achievement gaps in kindergarten and third grade: The role of self-regulation and executive function skills.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 72-85.
30. Frazier, L. D., Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J. (2021). The MAPS model of self- regulation: Integrating metacognition,
agency, and possible selves. Metacognition and learning, 16, 297-318.
31. Gao, S., & Shao, B. (2024). Problematic Social Media Use and Employee Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review. In SAGE
Open (Vol. 14, Issue 3). SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241259158
32. Gençer, H. (2019). Group dynamics and behaviour. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(1),223–229.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070128
33. Greenier, V., Derakhshan, A., & Fathi, J. (2021). Emotion regulation and psychological well-being in teacher work engagement:
a case of British and Iranian English language teachers. System, 97, 102446.
34. Güçlü Nergiz, H., Unsal-Akbiyik, B. S. (2024). Job Crafting, Task Performance, and Employability: The Role of Work
Engagement. SAGE Open, 14(3).
35. Guhao, E. S. (2019). Organizational commitment of public school teachers: a structural equation modeling analysis. Malaysian
Online Journal of Educational Management (MOJEM) (Vol. 7, Issue 1). http://mojem.um.edu.my57
36. Guo, J., Qiu, Y., & Gan, Y. (2022). Workplace incivility and work engagement: The mediating role of job insecurity and the
moderating role of self‐perceived employability. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(1), 192-205.
37. Hameli, K., Ukaj, L., & Çollaku, L. (2023). The role of self-efficacy and psychological empowerment in explaining the relationship
between emotional intelligence and work engagement.
38. Euro Med Journal of Business, (11), https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-08-2023-0210
39. Hayes, A. (2020). Stratified random sampling. Dotdash. retrieved 5th January from
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/stratified_random_sampling.asp
40. He, Y., Donnellan, M. B., & Mendoza, A. M. (2019). Five-factor personality domains and job performance: A second order meta-
analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103848.
41. Hirschfeld, R. R., & Thomas, C. H. (2008). Representations of trait engagement: integration, additions, and mechanisms.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 63–66. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434. 2007.00011.
42. Inzlicht, M., Werner, K. M., Briskin, J. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Integrating models of self-regulation. Annual Review of
Psychology, 72, 319-345.
43. Iwal, J. T., & Arenga, J. B. (2024). School heads’ support and teaching engagement among newly hired elementary school
teachers. Indonesian Journal of Education (INJOE), 4(2), 382–411.Retrieved from
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 94
https://www.injoe.org/index.php/INJOE/article
44. Johar, E. R., Mat Nor, N., Hassan, R., & Musa, R. (2019). Examining the effect of motivation on the influence of human
resource practices and normative commitment among SMEs in Selangor. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal
(APMAJ), 14(1), 179-200.
45. Johari, N. S. B., Saad, N., & Kasim, M. (2022). Teacher collaboration: Significant influence on self-efficacy of secondary
school teachers. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(4), 1873–1880.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22921
46. Jung, H. S., Song, M. K., & Yoon, H. H. (2021). The effects of workplace loneliness on work engagement and organizational
commitment: moderating roles of leader-member exchange and coworker exchange. Sustainability, 13(2), 948.
47. Jyoti, J., Sharma, P., Kour, S., & Kour, H. (2020). The role of job involvement and career commitment between person–job fit
and organizational commitment: a study of higher education sector. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1),
109-130.
48. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
49. Karatepe, T., Ozturen, A., Karatepe, O. M., Uner, M. M., & Kim, T. T. (2022). Management commitment to the ecological
environment, green work engagement and their effects on hotel employees’ green work outcomes. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 34(8), 3084-3112.
50. Kawiana, I., Dewi, L. K. C., Hartati, P. S., Setini, M., & Asih, D. (2021). Effects of leadership and psychological climate on
organizational commitment in the digitization era. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(1), 1051-1062.
51. Khan, N. A., Khan, A. N., & Moin, M. F. (2021). Self-regulation and social media addiction: A multi-wave data analysis in
China. Technology in Society, 64, 101527.
52. Kim, L. E., Jörg, V., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality on Teacher Effectiveness
and Burnout. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2.
53. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. The SAGE handbook of innovation
in social research methods, 562-589.
54. Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2019). Work engagement interventions can be effective: a systematic review. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 348-372.
55. Kusumaningtyas, H., & Laksono, E. W. (2021). A Comparative Study on High School Students’ Self-Efficacy Towards
Chemistry. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 54(1).
56. Laguía, A., Topa, G., Pocinho, R. F. D. S., & Muñoz, J. J. F. (2024). Direct effect of personality traits and work engagement on
job crafting: a structural model. Personality and Individual Differences, 220, 112518.
57. Layek, D., & Koodamara, N. K. (2024). Impact of contingent rewards and punishments on employee performance: the interplay
of employee engagement. F1000Research, 13, 102. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.144019.1
58. Loan, L. J. M. S. L. (2020). The influence of organizational commitment on employees’ job performance: The mediating
role of job satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 10(14), 3307-3312.
59. Loan, L. T. M. (2020). The influence of organizational commitment on employees’ job performance: The mediating role of job
satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 10(14), 3307–3312. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.007
60. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2005). Educational administration: concepts and practices. Australia: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.218
61. Lyon, K. A., Elliott, R., Ware, K., Juhasz, G., & Brown, L. J. E. (2021). Associations between facets and aspects of big five
personality and affective disorders: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 288, 175-
188.
62. Makikangas, A., Juutinen, S., Makiniemi, J. P., Sjoblom, K., & Oksanen, A. (2022). Work engagement and its antecedents in
remote work: A person-centered view. Work & Stress, 36(4), 392-416.
63. Meng, F., Wang, Y., Xu, W., Ye, J., Peng, L., & Gao, P. (2020). The diminishing effect of transformational leadership on the
relationship between task characteristics, perceived meaningfulness, and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
585031.
64. Meyer, J. & P., Allen, N. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
65. Monje-Amor, A., Vázquez, J. P. A., & Faíña, J. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and work engagement: Exploring the
mediating role of structural empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1), 169-178.
66. Namaziandost, E., Heydarnejad, T., & Azizi, Z. (2023). The impacts of reflective teaching and emotion regulation on work
engagement: Into prospect of effective teaching in higher education. Teaching English Language, 17(1), 139-170.
67. Namood-e-Sahar, Naqvi, I. (2020). Psychological determinants of relapse prevention. Pakistan Journal of Psychological
Research, 35(35), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2020.35.2.20
68. Ober, T. M., Cheng, Y., Jacobucci, R., & Whitney, B. M. (2021). Examining the factor structure of the Big Five Inventory-2
personality domains with an adolescent sample. Psychological Assessment, 33(1), 14.
69. Ononye, U. H., Ojieh, M., & Ofune, K. (2023). Navigating the Digital Workplace: The Impact of Social Media Use on Thriving and
Job Performance with a Focus on Self-Regulation. Vidyodaya Journal of Management, 9(II).
https://doi.org/10.31357/vjm.v9iii.6591
70. Orongan, R. C. (2007). Structural model of cognitive, affective and demographic factors on tertiary students’ performance in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIII, Issue XII, December 2024
www.ijltemas.in Page 95
introductory statistics at Central Mindanao University, Bukidnon, Philippines. Unpublished Dissertation. Central Mindanao
University, Bukidnon Philippines
71. Park, J., & Hess, T. M. (2020). The effects of personality and aging attitudes on well- being in different life domains. Aging &
Mental Health, 24(12), 2063-2072.
72. Rahim, N. B. (2022). The interaction between teaching competencies and self-efficacy in fostering engagement amongst
distance learners: a path analysis approach. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 31–57.
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.1.2
73. Rahmawati, D. (2021). Self-Efficacy, Teacher Leadership and Teacher Professionalism in Secondary School. Jurnal Iqra’:
Kajian Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(2). 1-12.
74. Rai, A., & Maheshwari, S. (2020). Exploring the mediating role of work engagement between the linkages of job characteristics
with organizational engagement and job satisfaction. Management Research Review, 44(1), 133-157.
75. Rau, R., Carlson, E. N., Back, M. D., Barranti, M., Gebauer, J. E., Human, L. J., ... & Nestler, S. (2021). What is the structure of
perceiver effects? On the importance of global positivity and trait-specificity across personality domains and judgment contexts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 745.
76. Saravanan, P., & Vasumathi, A. (2015). The impact of demographic profile on strategic HRM practices and its challenges faced
by HR managers in IT firm, India: An empirical study. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 9(9),
3214-3223.
77. Saucier, G., Lurino, K., & Thalmayer, A. G. (2020). Comparing predictive validity in a community sample: High–dimensionality
and traditional domain–and– facet structures of personality variation. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1120-1137.
78. Scharp, Y. S., Bakker, A. B., & Breevaart, K. (2022). Playful work design and employee work engagement: A self-
determination perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavio134, 103693.
79. Schumacker, R. Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling 2nd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
80. Sezen-Gultekin, G., Bayrakcı, M., & Limon, İ. (2021). The mediating role of organizational commitment on the relationship
between emotional labor and work engagement of teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 648404.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648404
81. Shu, K. (2022). Teachers’ Commitment and self-efficacy as predictors of work engagement and well-being. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13, 850204.
82. Soares, M. E., & Mosquera, P. (2019). Fostering work engagement: The role of the psychological contract. Journal of Business
Research, 101, 469-476.
83. Songcog, J. M., & Guhao, E. S. (2020). A Structural Equation Model on Job Satisfaction among Non-Teaching Personnel in
Private Higher Education Institution in Region XII, Philippines.
84. Sudibjo, N. & Riantini, M. G. D. (2023). Factors affecting teachers' work engagement: The case of private school teachers in
Jakarta Metropolitan, Indonesia. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación,21(1),119-137.
https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2023.21.1.006
85. Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., & Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job performance and mental health: the mediating
role of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109644.
86. Tsaur, S. H., & Hsieh, H. Y. (2020). The influence of aesthetic labor burden on work engagement in the hospitality industry: The
moderating roles of employee attributes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 90-98.
87. Vitale, V., & Bonaiuto, M. (2024). The role of nature in emotion regulation processes: An evidence-based rapid review. In
Journal of Environmental Psychology (Vol.96). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102325
88. Wang, C., Xu, J., Zhang, T. C., & Li, Q. M. (2020). Effects of professional identity on turnover intention in China's hotel
employees: The mediating role of employee engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
45, 10-22.
89. Wang, Y., Derakhshan, A., & Azari Noughabi, M. (2022). The interplay of EFL teachers’ immunity, work engagement, and
psychological well-being: Evidence from four Asian countries. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-17.
90. Zhou, G., Gul, R., & Tufail, M. (2022). Does servant leadership stimulate work engagement? The moderating role of trust in the
leader. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 925732.
91. Zúñiga, C., Aguado, D., & Cabrera-Tenecela, P. (2022). Values that work: Exploring the moderator role of protestant work ethics
in the relationship between human resources practices and work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.
Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 11
