The Benefits of PROSPER‐Based Intervention for International Preschool Teachers in Hong Kong: Evidence From the EASP Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Limited research has examined the well‐being of international preschool teachers, while intervention targeting their well‐being is even rarer. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a 2‐month EASP (i.e., Early Advancement in Social‐Emotional Health and Positivity) positive psychological intervention program based on the PROSPER—which stands for positivity, relationship, outcome, strength, purpose, engagement, and resilience– framework on international preschool teachers' well‐being in Hong Kong. Eighty‐three teachers ( M age = 34.44 years, SD = 8.43, range = 19–53; female = 95.18%) were randomly assigned to the intervention ( n = 44) and waitlist control groups ( n = 39). Teachers completed survey measures of PROSPER well‐being at baseline and after the intervention. The results of the multivariate regression analyses revealed that the intervention did not have significant overall effects on the PROSPER well‐being, Wilks' lambda F (7, 56) = 1.28, p = 0.28, η 2 = 0.14. Yet, findings of univariate analyses suggested the intervention yielded significant medium effects on participants' relationship, outcome, strength and engagement ( b = 0.26 to 0.45, 95% CI [0.04, 0.95], p = 0.02 to 0.03, η 2 = 0.07 to 0.08). The findings underscore the practical utility of the PROSPER framework in supporting international preschool teachers' well‐being but, at the same time, highlight the need to further examine how cultural variations might implicate its effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".