法官工作倦怠情况及其相关因素

Job Burnout of Judges and Its Relevant Factors

目的:探讨法官工作倦怠状况及其与工作应激、应对方式的关系。方法:采用中式工作倦怠量表、工作应激量表和简易应对方式量表对247名法官施测,并通过结构方程模型考察工作倦怠与工作应激、应对方式的关系。结果:不同年龄法官工作倦怠量表各分量表评分差异有显著性(F=1.89、2.49、3.83,P<0.05)。情绪耗竭分量表:20—30岁得分最低(17.6±6.8),31-40岁得分最高(20.5±7.1),41—50岁及50岁以上者评分分别为19.9±5.5、19.6±7.2。人格解体分量表:50岁以上法官评分均高于50岁以下的三组法官(16.0±6.4/12.7±5.6/12.1±5.3/12.0±6.3,P<0.05)。成就感降低分量表:20—30岁和31-40岁法官评分均高于41岁以上的二组法官(15.9±5.5、15.8土5.4/13.7±5.8、12.2±4.5,P<0.05)。回归分析显示:以情绪耗竭为因变量时,奖赏不足、工作负荷和消极应对进入回归方程(Beta= 0.289、0.180、0.173);以人格解体为因变量时,共同体瓦解和价值观冲突进入回归方程(Beta=0.170、0.309);以成就感降低为因变量时,共同体瓦解和缺乏控制进入回归方程(Beta=0.229、0.232)。结论:不同年龄的法官其工作倦怠程度不同;工作应激和应对方式均对工作倦怠产生影响,但作用的方式和大小不同,应对方式是工作应激与工作倦怠的中介因素。

Objective： To study the job burnout of judges and its relationship with work stress and coping styles. Methods： The Chinese Burnout Inventory, work stress scale and coping styles inventory were used to measure those index of 247 judges. Results： The job burnout showed difference on age （ F = 1.89, 2.49, 3.83, P 〈0. 05 ） . On emotional exhaustion, judges from 20 to 30 showed lowest （ 17. 6 ±6. 8）, and those frem31 -40 showed highest （20± 5 ＋7. 1 ）, scores of those from 41 -50 and older than 50 were respectively 19.9 ±5. 5, 19. 6 ±7. 2. On depersonalization, judges older than 50 were higher than the other three groups younger than 50 （ 16. 0 ± 6.4/12.7 ± 5.6/ 12. 1 ± 5. 3/12. 0 ± 6. 3, P 〈 0. 05 ） . On reduction of personal accomplishment, people from 20 to 30 and from 31 to 40were higher thanthe twogroups older than41 （15.9±5.5, 15.8±5.4/13.7±5.8, 12.2±4.5, P〈0. 05） . For work stress and coping styles＇ prediction effect on job burnout, regression analysis showed： deficiency of prize, working load and negative coping could explain 23.0% （ R2 ） variance of emotional exhaustion, the multiple correlated coefficient was 0. 480 （ R）, and working load mainly had positively direct impact （ standard coefficient =0. 181 ）, also had some positively indirect impact （standard coefficient = 0. 022 ） through negative coping. Breakdown of community and value conflict also had positive indirect impact on emotional exhaustion （ standard coefficient = 0. 023 / 0. 040 ） through negative copingative Breakdown of community and value conflict could explain 0. 158 （ R2 ） of variance of depersonalization, and the multiple correlated coefficient was 0. 397 （ R ）, the impacts were all positively direct （ standard coefficient =0. 170/0. 309 ） ; Breakdown of community and lack of control could explain 14.8% （ R2 ） variance of reduced accomplishment , and the multiple correlated coefficient was 0. 385 （ R）, and their impact were positively direct （standard coefficient =0. 229/0. 232） . Conclusion： Judges＇burnout have age difference. Coping styles are the partial mediate variable between work stress and job burnout.