Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

The Structure of Work Engagement

A Test of Psychometric Properties of the Lithuanian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

Published Online:November 13, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000545

Abstract

Abstract. The aim of this study was to validate the Lithuanian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-17), developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003), and the newly developed UWES-3 (Schaufeli et al., 2019). The data were derived from a sample of Lithuanian employees that was surveyed longitudinally. At Time 1, a total of 475 employees were surveyed. At Time 2, 166 employees completed the survey for a second time. Confirmatory factor analyses provided more support for unidimensional solution of the UWES-17. Moreover, the internal consistency of both versions was sufficiently high (α varied between .76 and .90), and the test-retest reliability with an interval of 8 months was .70 and .69 for the long and the ultra-short version respectively. Furthermore, the one-factor structure of the UWES-17 and UWES-3 was invariant across job status and time. Finally, as expected, the correlation analysis showed work engagement to be positively related to job resources. Based on the Lithuanian employee sample, this study replicates previous findings on the dimensionality of work engagement as measured by the UWES and adds evidence on the validity of its scores. In this way, it contributes to international effort aimed at studying this construct and validating its measures.

References

  • Albrecht, S. L. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Arbuckle, J. (2013). AMOS 22 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B. (2014). The Job Demands–Resources Questionnaire. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus University. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K. S. CameronG. M. SpreitzerEds., The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 178–189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.515 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000020 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. HoyleEd., Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling (pp. 361–379). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Bruin, G. P., & Henn, C. M. (2013). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES–9). Psychological Reports, 112, 788–799. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. Retrieved from https://sites.education.uky.edu/apslab/resources/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Extremera, N., Sánchez-García, M., Durán, M. A., & Rey, L. (2012). Examining the psychometric properties of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in two Spanish multi‐occupational samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 105–110. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039139 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22, 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802379432 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A.B. BakkerM.P. LeiterEds., Work engagement: A Handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press: New York, NY. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Journal of Psychology, 11, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. BollenJ. S. LongEds., Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lai, J. S., Crane, P. K., & Cella, D. (2006). Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1179–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-0060-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-Resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378–391. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lovakov, A. V., Agadullina, E. R., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Russian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 10, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2017.0111 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nerstad, C. G., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2010). Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00770.x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2014). What is engagement?. In C. TrussR. DelbridgeK. AlfesA. ShantzE. SoaneEds., Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). London, UK: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Work engagement in Europe: Relations with national economy, governance, and culture. Belgium, KU Leuven: Research Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning (internal report). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Utrecht, NL: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. BakkerM. P. LeiterEds., Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3. Validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 4, 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well‐being? Applied Psychology, 57, 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Seppälä, P. (2013). Work engagement: Psychometrical, psychosocial, and psychophysiological approach. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., Sakamoto, M., Irimajiri, H., Amano, S., Hirohata, K., & Goto, R. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology, 57, 510–523. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Skakon, J., Kristensen, T. S., Christensen, K. B., Lund, T., & Labriola, M. (2011). Do managers experience more stress than employees? Results from the Intervention Project on Absence and Well-being (IPAW) study among Danish managers and their employees. Work, 38, 103–109. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v29i4.129 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. ReiseR. A. RevickiEds., Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Kantas, A. (2012). Measuring burnout and work engagement: Factor structure, invariance, and latent mean differences across Greece and the Netherlands. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 7, 40–52. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zecca, G., Györkös, C., Becker, J., Massoudi, K., de Bruin, G. P., & Rossier, J. (2015). Validation of the French Utrecht Work Engagement Scale and its relationship with personality traits and impulsivity. European Review of Applied Psychology, 65, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.10.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar