Parikalpana: KIIT Journal of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Structural validity of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the Indian Context


Affiliations
1 Doon University, Dehradun Uttarakhand, Dehradun, India
2 School of Management, Doon University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001, India
 

The present study assesses the structural validity of four different measurement models of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the Indian context. Data were collected from 300 banking professionals from private-sector banks. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the structural validity of the instruments, and internal consistency was also examined. Confirmatory factor analyses results showed a superior fit of the two-factor structure (vigor and dedication) over and above the one-factor and three-factor structure of UWES-9 items. While theoretical defined three-factor structure of UWES-9 also demonstrated adequate goodnessof- fit estimates on the Indian sample. Based on the findings, it was suggested that a two-factor structural model (vigor and dedication) could be a cost-effective and viable alternative to measure work engagement in the Indian context.

Keywords

Structural validity, factorial validity, work engagement, engaged workers, UWES
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H. & Saks, A.M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices, and competitive advantage: an integrated approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(1), 7-35.

  • Alok, K. (2013). Work Engagement in India: A Factorial Validation Study of UWES-9 Scale. Management and Labour Studies, 38(1-2), 53–62. Bakker, A.B. & Albrecht, S HYPERLINK “https://www.emerald.com/insight/ search?q=Simon%20Albrecht”.L. (2018). Work engagement: current trends. Career Development International, 23 (1), 4-11.

  • Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2008).Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International 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.

  • Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, R., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): a cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143–149.

  • Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21( 2) , 230-258. Byrne, B.M. (2010).Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York, NY.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  • Hallberg, Ulrika E.; Schaufeli, & Wilmar B. (2006). “Same Same” But Different?. European Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127.

  • Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: Aconceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.

  • Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Hu, L.t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

  • Hu, L.T, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

  • 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.

  • Kulikowski, K. (2019). One, two, or three dimensions of work engagement? Testing the factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale on a sample of Polish employees. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 25(2), 241-249.

  • Lathabhavan, R., Balasubramanian, S.A. and Natarajan, T. (2017).A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the Indian banking sector. Industrial and Commercial Training,49(6) 296-302.

  • Lekutle, M. & Nel, J.A. (2012). Psychometric Evaluation of The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) within a Cement Factory. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(4), 641-647.

  • Nerstad, C. G., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2010). Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 51(4), 326–333.

  • Nunnally, J.O. (1978). Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,

  • NY. Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES—Utrecht work engagement scale. Preliminary manual (Version 1.1, December 2004). Occupational Health Psychology Unit: Utrecht University.

  • 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.

  • Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20, 39- 46.


Abstract Views: 240

PDF Views: 0




  • Structural validity of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the Indian Context

Abstract Views: 240  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Ajanta Giri
Doon University, Dehradun Uttarakhand, Dehradun, India
Reena Singh
School of Management, Doon University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001, India

Abstract


The present study assesses the structural validity of four different measurement models of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the Indian context. Data were collected from 300 banking professionals from private-sector banks. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the structural validity of the instruments, and internal consistency was also examined. Confirmatory factor analyses results showed a superior fit of the two-factor structure (vigor and dedication) over and above the one-factor and three-factor structure of UWES-9 items. While theoretical defined three-factor structure of UWES-9 also demonstrated adequate goodnessof- fit estimates on the Indian sample. Based on the findings, it was suggested that a two-factor structural model (vigor and dedication) could be a cost-effective and viable alternative to measure work engagement in the Indian context.

Keywords


Structural validity, factorial validity, work engagement, engaged workers, UWES

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.23862/kiit-parikalpana%2F2022%2Fv18%2Fi2%2F216391