The Struggle With Employee Engagement: Measures and Construct Clarification Using Five Samples
The Struggle With Employee Engagement: Measures and Construct Clarification Using Five Samples
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/apl0000124
复制
发表时间：
2016-09-01
影响因子：
9.9
通讯作者：
Weston, James W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Byrne, Zinta S.;Peters, Janet M.;Weston, James W.
在学术研究人员中，乌得勒支工作投入量表（UWES）是一种用于评估员工或工作投入的流行量表。然而，规模的有效性的挑战提出了重大关切的测量和概念化的参与作为一个结构。在4个现场样本中，我们检查了2种敬业度指标，即UWES和工作敬业度量表（JES），包括因素结构和与理论上假设的前因和后果的关系模式。在第五个现场样本中，我们检查了参与度和相关变量之间的结构级关系，同时控制了测量误差的来源（即，项目特异性因子、尺度特异性因子、随机响应和瞬态）。通过研究两个措施，每个措施来自不同的理论基础，我们提供了独特的见解的测量和建设的参与。我们的研究结果表明，虽然相关，JES和UWES是不可互换的。UWES比JES更能评估与其他工作态度重叠的敬业度，需要改进敬业度的测量。我们要引导他们，使他们能在任何时候都能做到这一点。此外，通过分离与倦怠、承诺、压力、心理意义和可用性相关的敬业度的结构与测量，我们确定：（a）敬业度结构与倦怠的对立面不一样，从而重新评估了敬业度的倦怠对立面概念;（B）心理意义感与投入高度相关，并可能存在负相关，需要对投入的自我角色表达概念进行修正。
Among scholarly researchers, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is a popular scale for assessing employee or work engagement. However, challenges to the scale's validity have raised major concerns about the measurement and conceptualization of engagement as a construct. Across 4 field samples, we examined 2 measures of engagement, the UWES and the Job Engagement Scale (JES), in both factor structure and patterns of relationships with theoretically hypothesized antecedents and consequences. In a fifth field sample, we examined the construct-level relationships between engagement and related variables, while controlling for sources of measurement error (i.e., item-specific factor, scale-specific factor, random response, and transient). By examining 2 measures, each derived from different theoretical bases, we provide unique insight into the measurement and construct of engagement. Our results show that, although correlated, the JES and UWES are not interchangeable. The UWES, more so than the JES, assesses engagement with overlap from other job attitudes, requiring improvement in the measurement of engagement. We offer guidance as to when to use each measure. Furthermore, by isolating the construct versus measurement of engagement relative to burnout, commitment, stress, and psychological meaningfulness and availability, we determined (a) the engagement construct is not the same as the opposite of burnout, warranting a reevaluation of the opposite-of-burnout conceptualization of engagement; and (b) psychological meaningfulness and engagement are highly correlated and likely reciprocally related, necessitating a modification to the self-role-expression conceptualization of engagement.