Cited by 21Stress and Burnout ResearchFamily and Disability Support ResearchMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Mediating the relation between workplace stressors and distress in ID support staff: Comparison between the roles of psychological inflexibility and coping styles

Kurz, A. Solomon, Bethay, J. Scott, Ladner-Graham, Jennifer M.·2014·Research in Developmental Disabilities

Abstract

The present study examined how different patterns of coping influence psychological distress for staff members in programs serving individuals with intellectual disabilities. With a series of path models, we examined the relative usefulness of constructs (i.e., wishful thinking and psychological inflexibility) from two distinct models of coping (i.e., the transactional model and the psychological flexibility models, respectively) as mediators to explain how workplace stressors lead to psychological distress in staff serving individuals with intellectual disabilities. Analyses involved self-report questionnaires from 128 staff members (84% female; 71% African American) from a large, state-funded residential program for individuals with intellectual and physical disabilities in the southern United States of America. Cross-sectional path models using bootstrapped standard errors and confidence intervals revealed both wishful thinking and psychological inflexibility mediated the relation between workplace stressors and psychological distress when they were included in separate models. However, when both variables were included in a multiple mediator model, only psychological inflexibility remained a significant mediator. The results suggest psychological inflexibility and the psychological flexibility model may be particularly useful for further investigation on the causes and amelioration of workplace-related stress in ID settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.06.003

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kurz, A. S., Bethay, J. S., & Ladner-Graham, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Mississippi (US)
Venue
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
35
Issue
10
Pages
2359-2370
ISSN
0891-4222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2027631822
Cited by
21
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research in Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
occupational stressors, psychological inflexibility, wishful thinking, coping styles, psychological flexibility, psychological distress, residential care staff, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Male, Intellectual Disability, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, United States, Caregivers, Workplace, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review