ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Examining Predictors and Outcomes of Decent Work among Korean Workers.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The associations of decent work with wellbeing and career capabilities: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Identifying the personal characteristics of decent work perception for nursing students in China using latent profile analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The Relationship between Career Calling and Resilience among Rural-Oriented Pre-Service Teachers: The Chain Mediating Role of Career Adaptability and Decent Work.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Decent Work and Workplace Deviance Among Chinese Physicians: A Relative Deprivation Perspective.Psychology research and behavior management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of the present study is to examine the psychology of working framework/theory with a sample of Korean workers. This study examined the structural model of sociocultural factors (i.e., economic constraints and social marginalization), psychological variables (i.e., work volition and career adaptability), and outcomes of decent work based on the psychology of working framework. This study assumed that decent work helps all workers attain a sense of self-respect, dignity, experience freedom and security in the work environment and provides an opportunity for workers to contribute to society. Data were collected from 420 Korean workers, with an average age of 39.13 years (SD = 9.26). We used a hypothesis model that did not assume a direct path from economic constraints and social marginalization to decent work and work volition and career adaptation to job satisfaction and life satisfaction. We also employed an alternative model that assumed all of its paths and compared the models' goodness of fit based on prior studies. Results indicated that alternative models have higher goodness of fit than hypothesis models. All path coefficients were significant except for the direct path from social marginalization to work volition and career adaptability to life satisfaction. Additionally, work volition and career adaptability mediated both the relationship between social marginalization and job satisfaction and between marginalization and life satisfaction. This study enabled the comprehensive examination of the relevance of various social environments and psychological and occupational characteristics that should be considered when exploring job or life satisfaction in the process of career counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.