File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Measuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

TitleMeasuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
Authors
KeywordsChinese
Reliability
Validity
Work engagement
Issue Date2011
PublisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/journal/12529
Citation
International Journal Of Behavioral Medicine, 2012, v. 19 n. 3, p. 391-397 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Work engagement is a positive work-related state of fulfillment characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Previous studies have operationalized the construct through development of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Apart from the original three-factor 17-item version of the instrument (UWES-17), there exists a nine-item shortened revised version (UWES-9). Purpose: The current study explored the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in terms of factorial validity, scale reliability, descriptive statistics, and construct validity. Method: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in 2009 among 992 workers from over 30 elderly service units in Hong Kong. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a better fit for the three-factor model of the UWES-9 than the UWES-17 and the one-factor model of the UWES-9. The three factors showed acceptable internal consistency and strong correlations with factors in the original versions. Engagement was negatively associated with perceived stress and burnout while positively with age and holistic care climate. Conclusion: The UWES-9 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, supporting its use in future research in the Chinese context. © 2011 The Author(s).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/144922
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.872
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.905
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID
References

Seligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol. 2000;55:5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Luthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2002;23(6):695–706. doi: 10.1002/job.165

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002;3:71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire—a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(4):701–16. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248

van Doornen LJP, Houtveen JH, Langelaan S, Bakker AB, van Rhenen W, Schaufeli WB. Burnout versus work engagement in their effects on 24-hour ambulatory monitored cardiac autonomic function. Stress Heal. 2009;25(4):323–31. doi: 10.1002/smi.1279

Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Kosugi S, et al. Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Appl Psychol Int Rev. 2008;57(3):510–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.x

Hakanen JJ, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J Sch Psychol. 2006;43:495–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

Balducci C, Fraccaroli F, Schaufeli WB. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): a cross-cultural analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2010;26(2):143–9. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000020

Lin CP. Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. J Bus Ethics. 2010;94(4):517–31. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6

Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96. doi: 10.2307/2136404

Ng SM, Fong TCT, Wang XL. The role of holistic care culture in mitigating burnout and enhancing engagement: a study among elderly service workers in Hong Kong. Aging Ment Health. 2011. doi:10.1080/13607863.2011.556602.

Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Meth. 1998;3:424–53. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;AC19(6):716–23. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705

Schaufeli WB, Taris TW, Van Rhenen W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl Psychol. 2008;57(2):173–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFong, TCten_HK
dc.contributor.authorNg, Smen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-21T05:43:03Z-
dc.date.available2012-02-21T05:43:03Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal Of Behavioral Medicine, 2012, v. 19 n. 3, p. 391-397en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1070-5503en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/144922-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Work engagement is a positive work-related state of fulfillment characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Previous studies have operationalized the construct through development of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Apart from the original three-factor 17-item version of the instrument (UWES-17), there exists a nine-item shortened revised version (UWES-9). Purpose: The current study explored the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in terms of factorial validity, scale reliability, descriptive statistics, and construct validity. Method: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in 2009 among 992 workers from over 30 elderly service units in Hong Kong. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a better fit for the three-factor model of the UWES-9 than the UWES-17 and the one-factor model of the UWES-9. The three factors showed acceptable internal consistency and strong correlations with factors in the original versions. Engagement was negatively associated with perceived stress and burnout while positively with age and holistic care climate. Conclusion: The UWES-9 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, supporting its use in future research in the Chinese context. © 2011 The Author(s).en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer New York LLC. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/journal/12529en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Behavioral Medicineen_HK
dc.rightsThe Author(s)en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong Licenseen_US
dc.subjectChineseen_HK
dc.subjectReliabilityen_HK
dc.subjectValidityen_HK
dc.subjectWork engagementen_HK
dc.titleMeasuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scaleen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4551/resserv?sid=springerlink&genre=article&atitle=Measuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale&title=International Journal of Behavioral Medicine&issn=10705503&date=2011-06-17& spage=1&authors=Ted Chun-tat Fong, Siu-man Ngen_US
dc.identifier.emailNg, Sm: ngsiuman@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityNg, Sm=rp00611en_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_versionen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21681564-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC3422451-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84868348222en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros207952-
dc.identifier.hkuros186301-
dc.relation.referencesSeligman MEP, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol. 2000;55:5–14.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5en_US
dc.relation.referencesLuthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2002;23(6):695–706.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1002/job.165en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002;3:71–92.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire—a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(4):701–16.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1177/0013164405282471en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):293–315.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1002/job.248en_US
dc.relation.referencesvan Doornen LJP, Houtveen JH, Langelaan S, Bakker AB, van Rhenen W, Schaufeli WB. Burnout versus work engagement in their effects on 24-hour ambulatory monitored cardiac autonomic function. Stress Heal. 2009;25(4):323–31.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1002/smi.1279en_US
dc.relation.referencesNerstad CGL, Richardsen AM, Martinussen M. Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scand J Psychol. 2010;51(4):326–33.en_US
dc.relation.referencesShimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Kosugi S, et al. Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Appl Psychol Int Rev. 2008;57(3):510–23.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.xen_US
dc.relation.referencesHakanen JJ, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. J Sch Psychol. 2006;43:495–513.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001en_US
dc.relation.referencesBalducci C, Fraccaroli F, Schaufeli WB. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): a cross-cultural analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2010;26(2):143–9.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000020en_US
dc.relation.referencesLin CP. Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. J Bus Ethics. 2010;94(4):517–31.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6en_US
dc.relation.referencesCohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.2307/2136404en_US
dc.relation.referencesNg SM, Fong TCT, Wang XL. The role of holistic care culture in mitigating burnout and enhancing engagement: a study among elderly service workers in Hong Kong. Aging Ment Health. 2011. doi:10.1080/13607863.2011.556602.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1080/13607863.2011.556602en_US
dc.relation.referencesHu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Meth. 1998;3:424–53.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424en_US
dc.relation.referencesAkaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1974;AC19(6):716–23.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchaufeli WB, Taris TW, Van Rhenen W. Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Appl Psychol. 2008;57(2):173–203.en_US
dc.relation.referencesdoi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.xen_US
dc.relation.referencesSchaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: preliminary manual. Utrecht: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University; 2003.en_US
dc.relation.referencesBakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–28.en_US
dc.relation.referencesHalbesleben JRB. A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 102–17.en_US
dc.relation.referencesZhang YW, Gan YQ. The Chinese version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: an examination of reliability and validity. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2005;13(3):268–70. In Chinese.en_US
dc.relation.referencesMaslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP. Maslach burnout inventory manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996.en_US
dc.relation.referencesMuthen LK, Muthen BO. Mplus user’s guide. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 1998–2007.en_US
dc.relation.referencesSchermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Muller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth Psychol Res. 2003;8:23–74.en_US
dc.relation.referencesSatorra A. Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In: Heijmans RDH, Pollock DSG, Satorra A, editors. Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.en_US
dc.relation.referencesNunnaly JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.spage391en_HK
dc.identifier.epage397en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1532-7558en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000307753800017-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.description.otherSpringer Open Choice, 21 Feb 2012en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFong, TCt=35181175800en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNg, Sm=7403358478en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike9445156-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats