Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:34:59.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural and Predictive Validity of the Spanish Short Version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in Educational Institutions Workers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

Zuleima Santalla-Banderali Open the ORCID record for Zuleima Santalla-Banderali [Opens in a new window]  and
Jesús M. Alvarado Open the ORCID record for Jesús M. Alvarado [Opens in a new window]
Zuleima Santalla-Banderali*
Affiliation:
Universidad Espíritu Santo (Ecuador)
Jesús M. Alvarado
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zuleima Santalla-Banderali. Universidad Espíritu Santo. Escuela de Psicología. Km. 2.5 Vía a Samborondón, Cantón Samborondón. Provincia de Guayas, Ecuador. E-mail: zuleymasantalla@gmail.com Phone: +593–979461980.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we evaluate the factorial validity of the Spanish short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES–9) and assess its predictive validity with respect to self-assessed work performance. A total of 229 employees from educational institutions in Ecuador participated. Using a model comparison analysis, the unidimensional model exhibited an excellent goodness of fit, χ2 = 26.176 (24), p = .344; CFI =1.000; TLI = 1.000; RMSEA = .020; SRMR = .034; it was not improved by more complex models, Three-factor model: χ2 = 22.148 (21), p = .391; CFI =1.000; TLI = 1.000; RMSEA = .016; SRMR = .033. Two-factor model: χ2 = 26.080 (23), p = .297; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.000; RMSEA = .025; SRMR = .034). Therefore, it is justified as a unidimensional instrument of work engagement. However, upon analyzing the correlation patterns of the overall score and the work engagement dimensions in relation to the task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive behaviors, we conclude that, while the unidimensional model exhibits a good fit, the three-factor theoretical approach is substantively superior in that it maintains differential predictive validity for each theoretical dimension.

Keywords

construct validityUtrecht Work Engagement ScaleUWES–9work engagement
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 25 , 2022 , e10
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: None.

Funding Statement: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Afacan-Findikli, M. M. (2015). Exploring the consequences of work engagement: Relations among OCB–I, LMX and team work performance. Ege Academic Review, 15(2), 229–238. http://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2015217988Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/codeGoogle Scholar
Asún, R. A., Rdz-Navarro, K., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Developing multidimensional Likert scales using item factor analysis: The case of four-point items. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/ 0.1177/0049124114566716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES–9). A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bothma, F. C., & Roodt, G. (2012). Work-based identity and work engagement as potential antecedents of task performance and turnover intention: Unravelling a complex relationship. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(1), Article 893. http://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v38i1.893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The measurement of state work engagement. A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & van den Heuvel, M. (2015). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd Ed.). Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D., Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687–732). Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). Psychometric evaluation of UTRECHT Work Engagement Scale in an Indian sample. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 8(3), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X1200800314CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). The relative importance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E295–E325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01017.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.03.PR0.112.3.788-799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, T. C. T, & Ho, R. T. H. (2015). Dimensionality of the 9–item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Occupational Health, 57, 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.15-0057-OACrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabini, S., & Salessi, S. (2016). Validación de la Escala de Rendimiento Laboral individual en trabajadores argentinos [Validation of the Job Performance Scale in argentinean workers]. Evaluar, 16, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v16.n1.15714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez Garbero, L., Labarthe, J., Ferreira-Umpiérrez, A., & Chiminelli-Tomás, V. (2019). Evaluación del engagement en trabajadores de la salud en Uruguay a través de la Escala Utrecht de Engagement en el Trabajo (UWES) [Assessment of health workers´ engagement in Uruguay using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)]. Ciencias Psicológicas, 13 (2), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v13i2.1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutermann, D., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Boer, D., Born, M., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). How leaders affect followers’ work engagement and performance: Integrating leader−member exchange and crossover theory. British Journal of Management, 28, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same Same” but different?: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera-Franco, G., Montalván-Burbano, N., Mora-Frank, C., & Bravo-Montero, L. (2021). Scientific research in Ecuador: A bibliometric analysis. Publications, 9, Article 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9040055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287Google Scholar
Karanges, E., Beatson, A., Johnston, K., & Lings, I. (2014). Optimizing employee engagement with internal communication: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Business Market Management, 7(2), 329–353.Google Scholar
Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). Work engagement in India: Validation of the Utrecht Work Engagement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/2319510X13519322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3) 248–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klassen, R. M., Aldhafri, S., Mansfield, C. F., Purwanto, E., Siu, A. F. Y., Wong, M. W., & Woods-McConney, A. (2012). Teachers’ engagement at work: An international validation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(4), 317–337. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.678409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H.C.W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014a). Construct validity of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014b). Measuring individual work performance: Identifying and selecting indicators. Work, 48(3), 229–238. http://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Lerner, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Work, 53, 609–619. http://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet Henrica, C. W, & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance. A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856–866. http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2013). Development of an Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28. http://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulikowski, K. (2017). Do we all agree on how to measure work engagement? Factorial validity of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale as a standard measurement tool – A literature review. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947Google ScholarPubMed
Lorente, L., Salanova, M., Martínez, I. M., & Vera, M. (2014). How personal resources predict work engagement and self-rated performance among construction workers: A social cognitive perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12049Google ScholarPubMed
Lovakov, A. V., Agadullina, E. R., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Russian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES–9). Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 10(1), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2017.0111Google Scholar
Lupano Perugini, M. L., & Waisman, S. (2018). Work engagement y su relación con la performance y la satisfacción laboral [Work engagement and its relation to performance and job satisfaction]. Psicodebate, 18(2), 77–89. http://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v18i2.808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motyka, B. (2018). Employee engagement and performance: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Management and Economics, 54(3), 227–244. http://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2018-0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller Gilchrist, G., Pérez Villalobos, C. E., & Ramírez Fernández, L. (2013). Estructura factorial y consistencia interna de la Utrech Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 17 entre trabajadores sanitarios de Chile [Factorial structure and internal consistency of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) 17 among health workers of Chile]. Liberabit, 19(2), 163–171.Google Scholar
Ondé, D., Alvarado, J. M., Sastre, S., & Azañedo, C. M. (2021). Application of S–1 bifactor model to evaluate the structural validity of TMMS–24. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, Article 7427. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147427CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pongton, P., & Suntrayuth, S. (2019). Communication satisfaction, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and job performance in higher education institutions. ABAC Journal, 39(3), 90–110.Google Scholar
Qodariah, Akbar, M., & Mauluddin, M. (2019). Effect of work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment to employee performance. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S4), 815–822. http://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1164.0782S419Google Scholar
Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., Barrada, J. R., Fernández-del-Río, E., & Koopmans, L. (2019). Assessing job performance using brief self-report scales: The case of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a21Google Scholar
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Montalbán, R., Sánchez-Cardona, I., & Martínez Lugo, M. (2014). Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas de la Utrecht Work Engagement Scale en una muestra de trabajadores en Puerto Rico [Analysis of psychometric properties of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in a sample of workers in Puerto Rico]. Universitas Psychologica, 13 (4), 1255–1266. http://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.UPSY13-4.appuCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2014). The lavaan tutorial. Ghent University.Google Scholar
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80. http://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619. http://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanova-Soria, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). El engagement de los empleados: Un reto emergente para la dirección de los recursos humanos [Employee engagement: An emerging challenge for human resources management]. Estudios Financieros, 62, 109–138.Google Scholar
Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Llorens, S., Peiró, J. M., & Grau, R. (2000). Desde el “burnout” al “engagement”: ¿una nueva perspectiva? [From "burnout" to "engagement": a new perspective?]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 16(2), 117–134. https://journals.copmadrid.org/jwop/files/63236.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W.B. (2013). What is engagement? In Truss, C., Alfes, K., Delbridge, R., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). General engagement: Conceptualization and measurement with the Utrecht General Engagement Scale (UGES). Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 1, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-017-0001-xCrossRefGoogle 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(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.515981CrossRefGoogle 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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), Article 459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311410840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuck, B. (2013). Invited reaction: Further observations on the relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3) 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312470804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2011). The employee engagement landscape and HRD: How do we link theory and scholarship to current practice? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422311431153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vazquez, A. C. S., Magnan, E. d. S., Pacico, J. C., & Hutz, C. S. (2017). Adaptation and validation of the Brazilian version of the UTRECHT Work Engagement Scale. Psico-USF, 20(2), 207–217. http://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712015200202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tampubolon, H. (2016). The relationship between employee engagement, job motivation, and job satisfaction towards the employee performance. Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(2), 473–477. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv13i2c2p9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trizano-Hermosilla, I., Gálvez-Nieto, J. L., Alvarado, J. M., Saiz, J. L., & Salvo-Garrido, S. (2021). Reliability estimation in multidimensional scales: Comparing the bias of six estimators in measures with a bifactor structure. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 508287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.508287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villotti, P., Balducci, C., Zaniboni, S., Corbière, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2014). An analysis of work engagement among workers with mental disorders recently integrated to work. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713487500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151CrossRefGoogle 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(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01059.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widyastuti, T., & Hidayat, R. (2018). Adaptation of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) into Bahasa Indonesia. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 7(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2018.3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willmer, M., Westerberg Jacobson, J., & Lindberg, M. (2019). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in a multi-occupational female sample: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2771. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yusoff, R. B. M., Ali, A. M., Khan, A., & Bakar, S. A. (2013). Psychometric evaluation of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale among academic staff in universities of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1555–1560.Google Scholar