Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 326-333

  Nerstad, Christina G L ^a   Richardsen, Astrid M ^a   Martinussen, Monica ^b  

^a BI NORWEGIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

Construct validity; Factorial invariance; Factorial validity; Multi group analysis; Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; Work engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SATISFACTION; VALIDATION STUDY; WORK; WORKPLACE; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; WORK; WORKPLACE;

EID: 77955139539     PISSN: 00365564     EISSN: 14679450     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00770.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bakker A B, Demerouti E, Verbeke W. Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management 2004, 43:83-104.
2. Bakker A B, Hakanen J J, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99:274-284.
3. Bakker A B, Schaufeli W B. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2008, 29:147-154.
4. 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.
5. Bentler P M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 1990, 107:238-246.
6. Bentler P M. EQS structural equations program manual 1995, Encino, CA, Multivariate Software
7. Bollen K A. Structural equations with latent variables 1989, New York, Wiley
8. Brannick M T. Critical comments on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior 1995, 16:201-213.
9. Brown T A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research 2006, New York, Guilford Press
10. Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-162. Bollen K A, Long J S., Newbury Park, CA, Sage
11. Byrne B M. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 1998, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
12. Byrne B M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 2001, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
13. Campbell D T, Fiske D W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 1959, 56:81-105.
14. Chen F F. Sensitivity of goodness-of-fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2007, 14:464-504.
15. Cheung G W, Rensvold R B. Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management 1999, 25:1-27.
16. Christian M S, Slaughter J E. Work engagement: A meta-analytic review and directions for research in an emerging area 2007, August, Paper presented at the Sixty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA
17. Cronbach L J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
18. Cudeck R, Brown K W. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 1-9. Long J S, Bollen K A., Newbury Park, CA, Sage
19. Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw J A. Introducing LISREL a guide for the uninitiated 2000, London, Sage
20. Fineman S. On being positive: concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review 2006, 31:270-291.
21. French B F, Finch W H. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2006, 13:378-402.
22. French B F, Finch W H. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis: Locating the invariant referent sets. Structural Equation Modeling 2008, 15:96-113.
23. Gonzalez-Roma V, Schaufeli W B, Bakker A B, Lloret S. Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior 2006, 68:165-174.
24. Hakanen J J, Bakker A B, Schaufeli W B. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology 2006, 43:495-513.
25. Hakanen J J, Schaufeli W B, Ahola K. The Job-Demands Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress 2008, 22:224-241.
26. Halbesleben J R B, Wheeler A R. The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress 2008, 22:242-256.
27. Hallberg U E, Schaufeli W B. " Same Same" but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist 2006, 11:119-127.
28. Hu L, Bentler P M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 1998, 3:424-453.
29. Jöreskog K G. Testing structural equation models. Testing structural equation models 1993, 294-316. Bollen K ALong J S., Newbury Park, CA, Sage
30. Jöreskog K G, Sörbom D. LISREL 8: Users guide 1993, Chicago, IL, Scientific Software
31. Leiter M P, Maslach C. Burnout and health. Handbook of Health Psychology 2001, 415-426. Baum A, Revenson T ASinger J E., Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
32. Llorens S, Schaufeli W, Bakker A, Salanova M. Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior 2007, 23:825-841.
33. Macey W H, Schneider B. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008, 1:3-30.
34. Maslach C. Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. Professional Burnout: Recent developments in theory and research 1993, Schaufeli W BMaslach CMarek T. In, Eds, Washington, DC, Taylor & Francis
35. Maslach C, Jackson S E, Leiter M P. Maslach burnout inventory manual 1996, 3rd edn, Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press
36. Maslach C, Leiter M P. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it 1997, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass
37. Newman D A, Harrison D A. Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct " wines" ? Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2008, 1:31-35.
38. Nunnally J C, Bernstein I H. Psychometric theory 1994, 3rd edn, New York, McGraw-Hill
39. Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff N P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88:879-903.
40. Richardsen A M, Burke R J, Martinussen M. Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management 2006, 13:555-574.
41. Richardsen A M, Martinussen M. The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Factorial validity and consistency across occupational groups in Norway. Journal of Occupational Psychology 2004, 77:377-384.
42. Schaufeli W B, Bakker A B. UWES - Utrecht work engagement scale: test manual 2003, http://www.schaufeli.com, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Available at
43. Schaufeli W B, Bakker A B, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2006, 66:701-716.
44. Schaufeli W B, Martínez I, Marques-Pinto A, Salanova M, Bakker A B. Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2002a, 33:464-481.
45. Schaufeli W, Salanova M. Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. Research in social issues in management (Volume 5): Managing social and ethical issues in organizations 2007, 135-177. Gilliland S W, Steiner D DSkarlicki D P., Greenwich, CT, Information Age Publishers
46. Schaufeli W B, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker A B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 2002b, 3:71-92.
47. Schimazu A, Schaufeli W B, Kosugi S, Suzuki A, Nashiwa H, Kato A, Sakamoto M, Irimajiri H, Amano S, Hirohata K, Goto R. Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review 2008, 57:510-523.
48. Sonnentag S. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88:518-528.
49. Spector P E. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 2006, 9:221-232.
50. Steenkamp J-B E M, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 1998, 25:78-90.
51. Tabachnick B G, Fidell L S. Using multivariate statistics 2001, 4th edn, Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon
52. Vandenberg R J, Lance C E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 2000, 4:4-70.