Engagement in carers of persons with intellectual disabilities: the role of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence

Abstract

Purpose: Different research papers into various occupational groups demonstrate the importance of engagement for the wellbeing of both employees and organizational results. However, the study of this phenomenon and that of other positive factors in professional staff caring for persons with intellectual disabilities is scarce. For this reason, the objective of this work was to test a theoretical model concerning the relationship between engagement, a positive factor, and self-efficacy in carers of persons with an intellectual disability, using emotional intelligence as a mediating variable.

Materials and methods: Three hundred and eleven carers participated in the study. Self-report measures with adequate psychometric properties were provided to evaluate engagement, self-efficacy, and emotional intelligence.

Results and conclusions: The structural equation models (SEM) showed a significant relation between self-efficacy and engagement. In addition, one of the dimensions of emotional intelligence, namely the use of emotions (UOE), was a full mediator in this relationship. The other dimensions showed no relation to engagement. Thus, the UOE was a fundamental factor for self-efficacy to imply engagement. For this reason, intervention programs in wellbeing and health in the workplace should include specific training in this skill among their objectives.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Carers are very important persons in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities.

• There was a significant relationship between self-efficacy and engagement and use of emotions was a full mediator in this relationship.

• The intervention programs should include training the emotional intelligence among their objectives in order to optimize engagement.

Keywords:

• Intellectual disability
• disability support staff
• engagement
• self-efficacy
• emotional intelligence

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.