Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Job Engagement Scale: Development and Validation of a Short Form in English and French

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The original 18-item Job Engagement Scale (JES18) operationalizes a multidimensional hierarchical conceptualization by Kahn (1990) of the investment and expression of an individual’s preferred self in-role performance. Encompassing three dimensions (i.e., physical, cognitive, and emotional), job engagement is a known predictor of organizational performance and personal outcomes. Using a sample (N = 7185) of military and civilian personnel nested within 60 work units in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canadian Department of National Defence (DND), we developed and cross-validated a 9-item short-form (the JES9) of the original JES18 in English and French. Results demonstrated that both linguistic versions of the JES9 and JES18 yielded comparable psychometric properties. The scales also displayed measurement invariance as a function of participants’ sex (male/female), employee type (civilian/regular force/primary reserve), and role (supervisor/employee). Finally, the associations between scores on the JES9 and the JES18 and a series of covariates (i.e., employees’ psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, burnout, and turnover intentions) were assessed. Collectively, results highlight the strong psychometric soundness of the English and French versions of the JES9 and the JES18 for organizational practitioners and academics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We used a target length of 9 items for this short version to match the length of the short version of the UWES (UWES-9; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and to be able to achieve the local identification of all factors without having to implement arbitrary constraints. As a result, this length was conceptualized as a rigid lower bound in terms of length, but as a flexible upper bound conditional on our ability to maintain the construct coverage of all JES subscales.

  2. According to Wikipedia, French is the 15th most common native language, the 7th most spoken language, and the 2nd most frequent official language in terms of number of countries where it is spoken. French is also one of the official languages of the United Nations, the Olympics, the World Trade Organization, and the Red Cross, as well as in 29 countries located on many continents.

  3. Both solutions resulted in an acceptable level of model fit: JES18 (χ2 = 5571.477; df = 903; CFI = .940; TLI = .932; RMSEA = .027); JES9 (χ2 = 3715.264; df = 582; CFI = .942; TLI = .934; RMSEA = .027). In these solutions, the factors representing the covariates were all defined by strong loadings and satisfactory estimates of composite reliability: (a) relatedness need satisfaction (JES18 & 9: solutions: Mλ = .732; ω = .879), (b) autonomy need satisfaction (JES18 Mλ = .594; ω = .797; JES9 Mλ = .593; ω = .796), (c) competence need satisfaction (JES18 & 9 Mλ = .826; ω = .897), (d) burnout (JES18 Mλ = .728; ω = .901; JES9 Mλ = .728; ω = .902), and (e) turnover intentions (JES18 Mλ = .779; ω = .862; JES9 Mλ = .780; ω = .862).

References

  • Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2, 7–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 411–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B. O., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Bayesian Structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances. Journal of Management, 41, 1561–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Bal, M. P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology & Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Human Relations, 58, 661–689.

    Article  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 and Stress, 22, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G., Smith, T., & Courtright, S. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 111–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A.-R., Howell, G., & Comeau, C. (2020). The Defence Workplace Well-Being Survey: Defence Team Psychological Health Profiles [unpublished report]. Defence Research and Development Canada.

  • Byrne, Z. S., Peters, J. M., & Weston, J. W. (2016). The struggle with employee engagement: Measures and construct clarification using five samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1201–1227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevrier, N. (2009). Adaptation Québécoise de l’Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) [Quebec validation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI)]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Montreal, Canada: Université du Québec a Montréal.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38, 1550–1581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Empirical validation of the team work engagement construct. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 12–23.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup (2021). State of the Global Workplace: 2021 Report. Washington, DC. Retrieved on October 15, 2021 from http://www.gallup.com.

  • Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillet, N., Caesens, G., Morin, A. J. S., & Stinglhamber, F. (2019a). Complementary variable- and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of work engagement: A longitudinal investigation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28, 239–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillet, N., Morin, A. J. S., Huart, I., Colombat, P., & Fouquereau, E. (2019b). The forest and the trees: Investigating the globality and specificity of employees’ basic need satisfaction at work. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102, 702–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gillet, N., Morin, A. J. S., Jeoffrion, C., & Fouquereau, E. (2020). A person-centered perspective on the combined effects of global and specific levels of job engagement. Group & Organization Management, 45, 556–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Roma, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Bolkan, S. (2017). Workplace bullying and work engagement: A self-determination model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 4686–4708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22, 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Asplund, J. W., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2010). Causal impact of employee work perceptions on the bottom line of organizations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 378–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Høigaard, R., Giske, R., & Sundsli, K. (2012). Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 347–357.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 222–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2015). Measuring the benefits of employee engagement. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M., & Young, S.A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Maïano, C., Morin, A. J. S., Ninot, G., Monthuy-Blanc, J., Stéphan, Y., Florent, J.-F., & Vallée, P. (2008). A short and very short form of the physical self-inventory for adolescents: Development and factor validity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L., Parada, R., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B. (2005a). A short version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short form with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17, 81–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005b). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary Psychometrics (pp. 275–340). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding burnout: Definitional issues in analyzing a complex phenomenon. In W. S. Paine (Ed), Job stress and burnout, (pp. 29-40) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

  • Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., Leiter, M. P., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schwab, R. L. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15, 103–111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1970). Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 23, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J. S., & Maïano, C. (2011). Cross-validation of the short form of the physical self-inventory (PSI-18) using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 540–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A.J.S., Marsh, H.W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd Edition (pp. 395–436). Greewich, Connecticut: IAP.

  • Morin, A.J.S., Myers, N.D., & Lee, S. (2020). Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology, 4th Edition (pp. 1044–1073). London, UK. Wiley.

  • Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2019). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. G., McCarthy, D. M., MacPherson, L., & Brown, S. A. (2003). Constructing a short form of the smoking consequences questionnaire with adolescents and youth adults. Psychological Assessment, 15, 163–172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly-Shah, V. N. (2017). Factors influencing healthcare provider respondent fatigue answering a globally administered in-app survey. PeerJ, 5, e3785. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3785

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. G., Kim, J. S., Yoon, S. W., & Joo, B. K. (2017). The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well-being and job engagement: The mediating role of psychological capital. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perreira, T. A., Morin, A. J. S., Hebert, M., Gillet, N., Houle, S. A., & Berta, W. (2018). The short form of the Workplace Affective Commitment Multidimensional Questionnaire (WACMQ-S): A bifactor-ESEM approach among healthcare professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 62–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A.M., & Gruman, J.A. (2014). Waht do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 155–182.

  • Salamon, J., Tóth-Király, I., Bőthe, B., Nagy, T., & Orosz, G. (2021). Having the cake and eating it too: First-order, second-order and bifactor representations of work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 615581.

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

    Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

  • Schneider, B., Yost, A., Kropp, A., Kind, C., & Lam, H. (2017). Workforce engagement: What it is, what drives it, and why it matters for organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 462–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., McCarthy, D., & Anderson, K. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thanacoody, P. R., Newman, A., & Fuchs, S. (2014). Affective commitment and turnover intentions among healthcare professionals: The role of emotional exhaustion and disengagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 1841–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tóth-Király, I., Morin, A. J. S., Bőthe, B., Orosz, G., & Rigó, A. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of need fulfillment: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation. Structural Equation Modeling, 25, 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viljevac, A., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Saks, A. M. (2012). Investigating the validity of two measures of work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 3692–3709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., Noor, R., & Savalei, V. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the need for cognition scale. PLoS ONE, 11, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this paper was supported by grants from the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research (CIMVHR) and from the Social Science and Humanity Research Council of Canada (435-2018-0368). This article was prepared as part of the first author’s internship conducted at the Department of National Defence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Substantive-Methodological Synergy Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke W, Montreal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada

    Simon A. Houle & Alexandre J. S. Morin

  2. Department of National Defence, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Simon A. Houle & Caitlin A. Comeau

  3. California State University San Marcos, San Marcos, CA, USA

    Bruce Louis Rich

  4. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Ann-Renée Blais

Authors
  1. Simon A. Houle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce Louis Rich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caitlin A. Comeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann-Renée Blais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandre J. S. Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre J. S. Morin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The order of appearance of the first and second authors (S.A.H and B.L.R.) was determined at random: Both should be considered first authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 34.6 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Items from the JES18 and JES9
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Houle, S.A., Rich, B.L., Comeau, C.A. et al. The Job Engagement Scale: Development and Validation of a Short Form in English and French. J Bus Psychol 37, 877–896 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09782-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09782-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation