Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advancing Research and Practice Through an Empirically Validated Short-Form Measure of Work Engagement

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Occupational Health Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Taking a multifaceted approach toward establishing validity, we present evidence from four independent samples supporting the efficacy of a short-form (three-item) version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. The measure provides a psychometrically sound instrument to facilitate both complex and longitudinal research designs on engagement, as well as in practice, where parsimony is vital. To this end, we examine the short-form measure for measurement invariance based on a large heterogeneous sample (Study 1 Sample 3), as well as temporal invariance based on six waves of data with two-week lags between assessments (Study 2). As such, to demonstrate the utility of the short measure, we provide a within-individual test of the concept of gain spirals within conservation of resources theory (Study 2) wherein we introduce the notion top-down versus bottom-up gain spirals. Collectively we present strong validity evidence for the short-form measure such that it is applicable for both practitioners and academics alike.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The modification indices, and by extension the residual error they represent, are indicative of model misfit because the noted items share residual variance not accounted for in the measurement model. These suggested modifications (i.e., correlating of error terms for given items) were not estimated as part of the model testing process and are only reported for diagnostic purposes (Stanton et al. 2002).

  2. To prevent a just-identified model (i.e., three item CFA models) we included income as an indicator variable. At an omnibus level, income correlated .08 with the short-form engagement measure, p < .01.

References

  • Afsharian, A., Zadow, A., Dollard, M. F., Dormann, C., & Ziaian, T. (2018). Should psychosocial safety climate theory be extended to include climate strength? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 496–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D. (2000). Inferring causal order from panel data. Paper prepared for presentation at the ninth international conference on panel data, 22 June. Geneva, Switzerland: SAS Institute.

  • Allison, P. D. (2005). Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data using SAS. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). AMOS (version 21.0) [computer software]. Chicago: SPSS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baethge, A., Deci, N., Dettmers, J., & Rigotti, T. (2019). “Some Days Won’t End Ever”: Working faster and longer as a boundary condition for challenge versus hindrance effects of time pressure. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24, 322–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, C. (2016). Employee engagement: Do practitioners care what academics have to say – and should they? Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.014 Advance online publication. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482216301061.

  • Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.). (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, T. W., McKibben, E. S., McFadden, A., & Kelley, C. (2013). Assessing state energy as the perceived resources available to accomplish different types of tasks. Clemson: Unpublished Manuscript, Clemson University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). Break all the rules. London: Simon & Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., Shih, C., & Chi, N. (2018). A multilevel job demands-resources model of work engagement: Antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions. Human Performance, 31, 282–304.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, L., Fineman, D., & Tsuchida, A. (2017). People analytics: Recalculating the route. In Walsch, L. and Volini, E. (Eds.), Rewriting the rules for digital age (pp. 97–106). Deloitte university press.

  • De Bruin, G. P., & Henn, C. M. (2013). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9). Psychological Reports, 112(3), 788–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South Africa Journal of Psychology, 39, 391–406.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. T., Matthews, R. A., Wooldridge, J. D., Mishra, V., Kakar, U., & Strahn, S. R. (2014). How do occupational stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 28, 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffen, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141, 415–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York: Psychology Press.

    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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heggestad, E. D., Scheaf, D. J., Banks, G. C., Hausfeld, M. M., Tonidandel, S., & Williams, E. B. (2019). Scale adaptation in organizational science research: A review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management, 45, 2596–2627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature, and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337–346.

  • Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2020). The long reach of the leader: Can empowering leadership at work result in enriched home lives? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25, 203–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Körner, A., Reitzle, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Work-related demands and life satisfaction: The effects of engagement and disengagement among employed and long-term unemployed people. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronenwett, M., & Rigotti, T. (2019). When do you face a challenge? How unnecessary tasks block the challenging potential of time pressure and emotional demands. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24, 512–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijpers, E., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & van Woerkom, M. (2020). Align your job with yourself: The relationship between a job crafting intervention and work engagement, and the role of workload. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapierre, L. M., Matthews, R. A., Eby, L. T., Truxillo, D. M., Johnson, R. E., & Major, D. A. (2018). Recommended practices for initiating and managing research partnerships with organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 543–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1381–1397.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., & Ritter, K. J. (2016). A concise, content valid, gender invariant measure of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 352–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., Kath, L. M., & Barnes-Farrell, J. L. (2010). Short, valid, predictive measures of work-family interference. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. A., Mills, M. J., Trout, R. C., & English, L. (2014). Family-supportive supervisor behaviors, work engagement, and subjective well-being: A contextually dependent mediated process. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 168–181.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonagle, A. K., Huang, J. L., & Walsh, B. M. (2016). Insufficient effort survey responding: An under appreciated problem in work and organisational health psychology research. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 65, 287–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., & Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 519–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M. J., Fleck, C. R., & Kozikowski, A. (2013). Positive psychology at work: A conceptual review, state-of-practice assessment, and a look ahead. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ousey, G. C., Wilcox, P., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Something old, something new: Revisiting competing hypotheses of the victimization–offending relationship among adolescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 53–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 25, 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams and why people follow. New York: Gallup Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reina-Tamayo, A. M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2017). Episodic demands, resources, and engagement: An experience-sampling study. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16, 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, D., Arndt, C., Lischetzke, T., & Hoppe, A. (2016). State work engagement and state affect: Similar yet distinct concepts. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 1–10.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Social support at work and affective commitment to the organization: The moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M. (2017). Translating employee engagement research into practice. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. The International Review of Social Psychology, 19, 87–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work Engagement. What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Work Engagement in Everyday Life, Business, and Academia. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 3–10.

  • Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss et al. (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). New York: Routledge.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The conceptualization and measurement of work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

    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 and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De Witte, H. (2017). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430.

  • Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265–278). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä, P., Hakanen, J., Mauno, S., Perhoniemi, R., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2015). Stability and change model of job resources and work engagement: A seven-year three-wave follow-up study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 360–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. In Perrewe, P.L. & Ganster, D.C. (Ed.) Emotional and Physiological Processes and Positive Intervention Strategies (Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 3) pp. 135-164. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  • Shuck, B., Osam, K., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2017). Definitional and conceptual muddling: Identifying the positionality of employee engagement and defining the construct. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 263–293.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. W., Kim, Y.-J., & Carter, N. T. (2020, April 9). Does it matter where you’re helpful? Organizational citizenship behavior from work and home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000.

  • Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. Konstanz: Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. P., Rupayana, D. D., Mills, M. J., Smith, M. R., Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2012). Relative importance and utility of positive worker states: A review and empirical examination. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146, 617–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffens, N. K., Yang, J., Jetten, J., Haslam, A., & Lipponen, J. (2018). The unfolding impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on burnout, work engagement, and turnover intentions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 373–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Zaborila Dumitru, C., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188–207.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Ames: Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wefald, A. J., Mills, M. J., Smith, M. R., & Downey, R. G. (2012). A comparison of three job engagement measures: Examining their factorial and criterion-related validity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 4, 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. B., Schmitt, N. W., & Highhouse, S. (2012). Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

    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 and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, The University of Alabama, 361 Stadium Drive, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, USA

    Russell A. Matthews & Maura J. Mills

  2. Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, 43403, USA

    Shelby Wise

Authors
  1. Russell A. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maura J. Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelby Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell A. Matthews.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matthews, R.A., Mills, M.J. & Wise, S. Advancing Research and Practice Through an Empirically Validated Short-Form Measure of Work Engagement. Occup Health Sci 4, 305–331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-020-00071-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-020-00071-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation