Office of Society-Academia Collaboration for Innovation, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Institute of Innovative Research, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan.
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 22;10(1):6848. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63711-3.
Over the past two decades, the number of studies on work engagement has increased rapidly. Work engagement refers to a positive, affective-motivational state of high energy combined with high levels of dedication and a strong focus on work, leading to various work-related outcomes, including higher work performance. Several studies have indicated that training or coaching may increase work engagement, but other studies have shown contradicting results. These inconsistencies may be due to the indirectness between training/coaching and work engagement. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between training and brain structure as well as between brain structure and work engagement in cognitively normal participants. Brain structure was assessed using neuroimaging-derived measures, including the gray-matter brain healthcare quotient (GM-BHQ) and the fractional-anisotropy brain healthcare quotient (FA-BHQ), which are approved as the international standard (H.861.1) by ITU-T. Work engagement was assessed using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. To validate and enrich the analysis, we employed another two representative questionnaires, which are known to be close to but different from work engagement: The Social interaction Anxiety Scale and the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey to gauge the levels of human relation ineffectiveness and burnout. The latter scale is subdivided into three variables including "Exhaustion," "Cynicism," and "Professional Efficacy." The results of the present study indicate that training is associated with an increase of FA-BHQ scores, and that an increase of the FA-BHQ scores is associated with an increase in Work Engagement and a decrease in Cynicism. On the other hand, the training with coaching was associated with a decrease in Interaction Anxiety. However, no correlation was observed for training with Work Engagement or the subscales of Burnout. Likewise, no correlation was observed for FA-BHQ with Exhaustion, Professional Efficacy, and Interaction Anxiety. The results of the current research provide the possibility to use brain information to evaluate training effectiveness from the viewpoint of neuroscience.
在过去的二十年中，关于工作投入的研究数量迅速增加。工作投入是指一种积极的、情感动机的高能状态，结合高度的奉献精神和对工作的强烈关注，导致各种与工作相关的结果，包括更高的工作绩效。几项研究表明，培训或辅导可以提高工作投入，但其他研究结果则相互矛盾。这些不一致可能是由于培训/辅导与工作投入之间的间接性。因此，我们在认知正常的参与者中调查了培训与大脑结构之间的关系以及大脑结构与工作投入之间的关系。使用神经影像学衍生的测量方法评估大脑结构，包括灰质大脑健康商数（GM-BHQ）和分数各向异性大脑健康商数（FA-BHQ），这两种方法已被国际电信联盟电信标准化部门（ITU-T）批准为国际标准（H.861.1）。工作投入使用乌得勒支工作投入量表进行评估。为了验证和丰富分析，我们还使用了另外两个具有代表性的问卷，它们被认为与工作投入密切相关但又有所不同：社交互动焦虑量表和马斯拉奇倦怠量表-一般调查，以衡量人际关系无效和倦怠的程度。后一个量表分为“疲惫”、“玩世不恭”和“职业效能”三个变量。本研究的结果表明，培训与 FA-BHQ 分数的增加有关，而 FA-BHQ 分数的增加与工作投入的增加和玩世不恭的减少有关。另一方面，培训与辅导相结合与交互焦虑的减少有关。然而，培训与工作投入或倦怠的子量表之间没有相关性。同样，FA-BHQ 与疲惫、职业效能和交互焦虑之间也没有相关性。本研究的结果提供了从神经科学的角度评估培训效果的可能性，使用大脑信息。
Zotero 插件
