Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Work Satisfaction
2.2.2. Stress Overload
2.2.3. General Coping Effectiveness
2.2.4. Minor Accidents at Work
2.3. Procedures
2.4. Ethical Considerations
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participant Sample
3.2. Item Analysis
3.3. Dimensionality
3.4. Reliability
3.5. Relationship with Other Variables
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Shimazu, A.; Hakanen, J.; Salanova, M.; De Witte, H. An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 35, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maslach, C.; Leiter, M.P. The Truth about Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do about It; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Maslach, C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leiter, M.P.; Maslach, C. Burnout and engagement: Contributions to a new vision. Burn. Res. 2017, 5, 55–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory. In Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide; Chen, P.Y., Cooper, C., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J. Vocat. Behav. 2009, 74, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tadić, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Oerlemans, W.G.M. Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 88, 702–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Hakanen, J.J.; Demerouti, E.; Xanthopoulou, D. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 99, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Leiter, M.P.; Taris, T.W. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 2008, 22, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breevaart, K.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Derks, D. Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Taris, T.W.; van Rhenen, W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 173–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Halbesleben, J.R.B. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Bakker, A., Leiter, M., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 102–117. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Yan, Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores, C.; Fernández, M.; Juárez, A.; Merino, C.; Guimet, M. Entusiasmo por el trabajo (engagement): Un estudio de validez en profesionales de la docencia en Lima, Perú. Liberabit 2015, 21, 195–206. [Google Scholar]
- Grad, H.; Vergara, A.I. Cuestiones metodológicas en la investigación transcultural. Bol. Psicol. 2003, 77, 71–107. [Google Scholar]
- Merino-Soto, C.; Angulo-Ramos, M. Inducción de la validez: Comentarios al estudio de validación del compliance questionnaire on rheumatology. Rev. Colomb. Reumatol. 2020, 28, 312–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merino-Soto, C.; Calderón-De la Cruz, G.A. Validez de estudios peruanos sobre estrés y burnout. Rev. Peru. Med. Exp. Salud Pública 2018, 35, 353–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Educational Research Association [AERA]; American Psychological Association [APA]; National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Caesens, G.; Stinglhamber, F. The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 64, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Fuentes, M.D.C.; Molero Jurado, M.D.M.; Barragán Martín, A.B.; Simón Márquez, M.D.M.; Martos Martínez, Á.; Gázquez Linares, J.J. The mediating role of perceived stress in the relationship of self-efficacy and work engagement in nurses. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amirkhan, J.H. A brief stress diagnostic tool: The short stress overload scale. Assessment 2018, 25, 1001–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R.S.; Gruen, R.J.; DeLongis, A. Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 50, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Connor, D.B.; Thayer, J.F.; Vedhara, K. Stress and health: A review of psychobiological processes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2021, 72, 663–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 389–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairo, J.B.; Dutta, S.; Nawaz, H.; Hashmi, S.; Kasl, S.; Bellido, E. The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder among adult earthquake survivors in Peru. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2010, 4, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P.; Hofmann, D.A. Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wachter, J.K.; Yorio, P.L. A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alarcon, G.M.; Lyons, J.B. The relationship of engagement and job satisfaction in working samples. J. Psychol. 2011, 145, 463–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, K.; Dar, I.A.; Mishra, M. Job satisfaction and work engagement: A study using private sector bank managers. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2017, 20, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moura, D.; Orgambídez-Ramos, A.; Gonçalves, G. Role stress and work engagement as antecedents of job satisfaction: Results from portugal. Eur. J. Psychol. 2014, 10, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kunin, T. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Pers. Psychol. 1955, 8, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jäger, R.; Bortz, J. Rating scales with smilies as symbolic labels-determined and checked by methods of psychophysics. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, Leipzig, Germany, 20–23 October 2001; Sommerfeld, E., Kompass, R., Lachmann, T., Eds.; Pabst Science Publishers: Zagreb, Germany, 2001; pp. 438–443. [Google Scholar]
- Elfering, A.; Grebner, S. A smile is just a smile: But only for men. Sex differences in meaning of faces scales. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 11, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Emde, M.; Fuchs, M. Exploring animated faces scales in web surveys: Drawbacks and prospects. Surv. Pract. 2012, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duan, W.; Mu, W. Validation of a Chinese version of the stress overload scale-short and its use as a screening tool for mental health status. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, A.; Wissing, M.P.; Schutte, L. Validation of the stress overload scale and stress overload scale–short form among a setswana-speaking community in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2018, 48, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, G.M.; Smith, A.P. Using single-item measures to examine the relationships between work, personality, and well-being in the workplace. Psychology 2016, 7, 753–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abbas, R.A.; Zalat, M.M.; Ghareeb, N.S.E. Non-fatal occupational injuries and safety climate: A cross-sectional study of construction building workers in Mit-Ghamr City, Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt. Open J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 3, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, K.; Mikkelsen, K. Predictive factors for self-reported occupational injuries at 3 manufacturing plants. Saf. Sci. Monit. 2007, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Free, H.; Groenewold, M.R.; Luckhaupt, S.E. Lifetime prevalence of self-reported work-related health problems among U.S. workers-United States, 2018. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (MMWR) 2020, 69, 361–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jazari, M.D.; Jahangiri, M.; Khaleghi, H.; Abbasi, N.; Hassanipour, S.; Shakerian, M.; Kamalinia, M. Prevalence of self-reported work-related illness and injuries among building construction workers, Shiraz, Iran. EXCLI J. 2018, 17, 724–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leibler, J.H.; Perry, M.J. Self-reported occupational injuries among industrial beef slaughterhouse workers in the Midwestern United States. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcum, J.L.; Chin, B.; Anderson, N.J.; Bonauto, D.K. Self-reported work-related injury or illness-Washington, 2011–2014. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. (MMWR) 2017, 66, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología. Código Ético del Psicólogo [Ethical Code of the Psychologist]; Trillas: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. With the 2016 Amendment to Standard 3.04; American Psychological Association Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mangiafico, S. Rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation (R Package Version 2.3.26.). Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Aguinis, H.; Pierce, C.A.; Culpepper, S.A. Scale coarseness as a methodological artifact: Correcting correlation coefficients attenuated from using coarse scales. Organ. Res. Methods 2009, 12, 623–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlke, J.A.; Wiernik, B.M. psychmeta: An R package for psychometric meta-analysis. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2019, 43, 415–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rupp, A.A. A systematic review of the methodology for person fit research in Item Response Theory: Lessons about generalizability of inferences from the design of simulation studies. Psychol. Test Assess. Mod. 2013, 55, 3–8. [Google Scholar]
- Dima, A.L. Scale validation in applied health research: Tutorial for a 6-step R-based psychometrics protocol. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 2018, 6, 136–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meijer, R.R.; Baneke, J.J. Analyzing psychopathology items: A case for nonparametric item response theory modeling. Psychol. Methods 2004, 9, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mokken, R.J. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis; Mouton: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Molenaar, I.W. Nonparametric models for polytomous responses. In Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory; van der Linden, W.J., Hambleton, R.K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 369–380. [Google Scholar]
- Palmgren, P.J.; Brodin, U.; Nilsson, G.H.; Watson, R.; Stenfors, T. Investigating psychometric properties and dimensional structure of an educational environment measure (DREEM) using Mokken scale analysis-a pragmatic approach. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Molenaar, I.W.; Sijtsma, K. MSP5 for Windows: A Program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polytomous Items-Version 5.0 [Software Manual]; IEC ProGAMMA: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Stochl, J.; Jones, P.B.; Croudace, T.J. Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: A non-parametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sijtsma, K.; Molenaar, I.W. Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory. Psychometrika 1987, 52, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Ark, L.A. New developments in mokken scale analysis in R. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramsay, J.O. Kernel smoothing approaches to nonparametric item characteristic curve estimation. Psychometrika 1991, 56, 611–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsay, J.O. TestGraf a Program for the Graphical Analysis of Multiple Choice Test and Questionnaire Data. Available online: http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/faculty/ramsay/ramsay.html (accessed on 12 January 2021).
- Guo, H.; Sinharay, S. Nonparametric item response curve estimation with correction for measurement error. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2011, 36, 755–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, C.M. Ramsay-curve item response theory (RC-IRT) to detect and correct for nonnormal latent variables. Psychol. Methods 2006, 11, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woods, C.M. Ramsay curve IRT for likert-type data. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2007, 31, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazza, A.; Punzo, A.; McGuire, B. KernSmoothIRT: An R package for Kernel smoothing in item response theory. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 58, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christensen, R.H.B. Ordinal-Regression Models for Ordinal Data (R Package Version 2019.12-10). Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Behrendt, S.; Lm. beta: Add Standardized Regression Coefficients to Lm-Objects. (R package Version 1.5-1). Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lm.beta (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Pena, E.A.; Slate, E.H.; Gvlma: Global Validation of linear Models Assumptions. (R package Version 1.0.0.3). Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gvlma (accessed on 1 February 2021).
- International Labour Organization. ISCO-08 Structure, Index Correspondence with ISCO-88. 2017. Available online: www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/index.htm (accessed on 22 December 2020).
- Lance, C.E.; Butts, M.M.; Michels, L.C. The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 2006, 9, 202–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, D.; Lee, T.; Maydeu-Olivares, A. Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2019, 79, 310–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González del Pozo, R.; García-Lapresta, J.L. Managing the smiley face scale used by Booking.com in an ordinal way. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stange, M.; Barry, A.; Smyth, J.; Olson, K. Effects of smiley face scales on visual processing of satisfaction questions in web surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2018, 36, 756–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toepoel, V.; Vermeeren, B.; Metin, B. Smileys, stars, hearts, buttons, tiles or grids: Influence of response format on substantive response, questionnaire experience and response time. Bull. Sociol. Methodol./Bull. Méthodol. Sociol. 2019, 142, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Engelhard, G. Historical perspectives on invariant measurement: Guttman, Rasch, and Mokken. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 2008, 6, 155–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Association and Scalability | Frequency of Responses for the Options | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Uwes1 | Uwes2 | Uwes3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
Uwes1 | 0.90 | 0.79 | 0 | 5 | 23 | 31 | 61 | 63 | 18 | |
Uwes2 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0 | 8 | 20 | 29 | 57 | 52 | 35 | |
Uwes3 | 0.77 | 0.85 | 1 | 11 | 17 | 31 | 55 | 56 | 30 | |
External criteria | ||||||||||
Work sat. | 0.57 a | 0.60 a | 0.52 a | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
SOS-S | −0.60 a | −0.59 a | −0.59 a | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
GCE | 0.33 a | 0.35 a | 0.36 a | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Minor acc. | −0.27 a | −0.22 a | −0.21 a | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Descriptive statistics | ||||||||||
M | 5.03 | 5.14 | 5.07 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
SD | 10.23 | 10.35 | 10.38 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Sk | −0.46 | −0.46 | −0.51 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Ku | −0.44 | −0.51 | −0.43 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
AD | 7.19 | 5.87 | 6.06 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
H (se) | Monotone Homogeneity | Manifest Invariant Item Ordering (IIO) | ritc | rps | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
#v | Crit | #v | Crit | ||||
Uwes1 | 0.85 (0.02) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.85 | 0.93 |
Uwes2 | 0.88 (0.02) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.91 | 0.96 |
Uwes3 | 0.83 (0.03) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.84 | 0.93 |
Total | 0.85 (0.02) | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Ordinal Regression (Predictor: UWES-3) | Linear Regression (Criteria: UWES-3) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Minor Acc. | Work Sat. | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
R2McFadden | 0.03 | 0.16 | ||
LR test | 11.73 | 20.69 ** | ||
Sex | ||||
Beta | −0.45 | −0.34 | ||
OR | 0.63 | 0.7 | ||
Age | ||||
Beta | 0.0 | 0.02 | ||
OR | 0.99 | 1.02 | ||
UWES-3 | ||||
Beta | −0.12 ** | 0.34 ** | ||
OR | 0.88 | 1.41 | ||
R2 | - | - | 0.4 | 0.11 |
F (3.197) | - | 44.65 ** | 8.78 ** | |
Sex | - | - | ||
Beta | - | - | 0.02 | −0.01 |
Age | - | - | ||
Beta | - | - | 0.01 | 0.0 |
SOS-S | - | - | ||
Beta | - | - | −0.138 ** | |
(Beta)2 | - | - | 0.76 ** | |
GCE | - | - | ||
Beta | - | - | 0.34 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Merino-Soto, C.; Lozano-Huamán, M.; Lima-Mendoza, S.; Calderón de la Cruz, G.; Juárez-García, A.; Toledano-Toledano, F. Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020890
Merino-Soto C, Lozano-Huamán M, Lima-Mendoza S, Calderón de la Cruz G, Juárez-García A, Toledano-Toledano F. Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(2):890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020890
Chicago/Turabian StyleMerino-Soto, César, Milagros Lozano-Huamán, Sadith Lima-Mendoza, Gustavo Calderón de la Cruz, Arturo Juárez-García, and Filiberto Toledano-Toledano. 2022. "Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 2: 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020890
APA StyleMerino-Soto, C., Lozano-Huamán, M., Lima-Mendoza, S., Calderón de la Cruz, G., Juárez-García, A., & Toledano-Toledano, F. (2022). Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020890