Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Academic engagement plays a crucial role in students’ learning and performance. One of the most popular measures for assessing this construct is the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S), which is based on a tridimensional conceptualization consisting of dedication, vigor, and absorption. However, prior research on its factor structure has yielded inconsistent results, and the substantial correlations between dimensions raise doubts about their empirical distinctiveness. Thus, questions remain whether academic engagement is experienced as a global construct, or as its three components. The present study addressed this issue by examining the dimensionality of both UWES-S17 and UWES-S9 using a comprehensive factor-analytic framework. One- to four-factor CFA and ESEM models, along with corresponding bifactor-CFA and bifactor-ESEM models, were tested using data from 453 Ecuadorian university students. The results indicated that ESEM yielded superior fit indices and less correlated factors compared to CFA. However, discriminant validity test did not support the distinctiveness of UWES-S factors, and bifactor analyses consistently demonstrated a strong general factor and weak or collapsed specific factors. These findings were remarkably consistent across both UWES-S versions. Collectively, the results suggest that academic engagement, as currently operationalized by the UWES-S, can be considered as a unidimensional rather than a multidimensional construct. Implications for conceptualization, measurement, and research on academic engagement are discussed.

Keywords

academic engagement bifactor model confirmatory factor analysis exploratory structural equation modeling Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alrashidi

Phan

H. P.

Ngu

B. H.

(2016). Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies, 9(12), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Furlong

M. J.

(2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303

Arias

P. R.

García

F. E.

Reivan-Ortiz

(2020). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de compromiso académico versión abreviada (UWESS-9) en estudiantes ecuatorianos [Psychometric properties of the Utrech work engagement scale for students brief version (UWESS - 9) in ecuadorian students]. Ajayu Órgano de Difusión Científica del Departamento de Psicología UCBSP, 18(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.35319/ajayu.181225

Asparouhov

Hamaker

E. L.

Muthén

(2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803

Asparouhov

Muthén

Morin

A. J. S.

(2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1561–1577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315591075

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Bader

Jobst

L. J.

Moshagen

(2022). Sample size requirements for bifactor models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(5), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.2019587

Bandalos

D. L.

(2021). Item meaning and order as causes of correlated residuals in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(6), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.1916395

Boudrias

J. S.

Morin

A. J.

Lajoie

(2014). Directionality of the associations between psychological empowerment and behavioural involvement: A longitudinal autoregressive cross‐lagged analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 437–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12056

10.

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

11.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.

12.

Brunner

Nagy

Wilhelm

(2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 796–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x

13.

Buzzai

Sorrenti

Costa

Toffle

M. E.

Filippello

(2021). The relationship between school-basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration, academic engagement and academic achievement. School Psychology International, 42(5), 497–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211017170

14.

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(9), 1201–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000124

15.

Cachón-Zagalaz

Lara-Sánchez

Zagalaz-Sánchez

M. L.

López-Manrique

González González de Mesa

(2018). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala Utrecht work engagement scale en estudiantes de educación. Suma Psicológica, 25(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n2.3

16.

Cadime

Lima

Marques Pinto

Ribeiro

(2016). Measurement invariance of the Utrecht work engagement scale for students: A study across secondary school pupils and university students. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1148595

17.

Canivez

G. L.

(2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for multidimensionality and test interpretation. In Schweizer

DiStefano

(Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247–271). Hogrefe.

18.

Çapri

Gündüz

Akbay

S. E.

(2017). Utrecht work engagement scale-student forms’ (UWES-SF) adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability studies, and the mediator role of work engagement between academic procrastination and academic responsibility. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(2), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0518

19.

Carmona-Halty

M. A.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

(2019). The Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES–9S): Factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance in a Chilean sample of undergraduate university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1), 1017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01017

20.

Chi

L. C.

Tang

T. C.

Tang

(2022). Psychometric properties of the Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES-S) in the Taiwanese context. Current Psychology, 42(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03737-0

21.

Cole

M. S.

Walter

Bedeian

A. G.

O’Boyle

E. H.

(2012). Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1550–1581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415252

22.

de la Cruz Pérez

M. A.

Chávez

J. R.

Palencia

A. R.

Aguirre

G. Á. D.

(2017). Adaptación y validación mexicana de la Utretch work engagement scale, versión para estudiantes [Adaptation and validation of the student version of the Utrecht work engagement scale in Mexico]. Psicología Iberoamericana, 25(2), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.48102/pi.v25i2.104

23.

Demerouti

Mostert

Bakker

A. B.

(2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019408

24.

Dimitriadou

Lavidas

Karalis

Ravanis

(2021). Study engagement in university students: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale with Greek students. Journal of Well-Being Assessment, 4(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41543-021-00035-7

25.

DiStefano

Liu

Jiang

Shi

(2018). Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: Evidence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394

26.

Dominguez-Lara

Sánchez-Villena

A. R.

Fernández-Arata

(2020). Psychometric properties of the UWES-9S in Peruvian college students. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 23(2), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.14718/ACP.2020.23.2.2

27.

Dominguez-Lara

S. A.

Fernández-Arata

Seperak-Viera

(2021). Análisis psicométrico de una medida ultra-breve para el engagement académico: UWES-3S: UWES-3S en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 13(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v13.n1.27780

28.

Farrell

A. M.

Rudd

J. M.

(2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. In Presented at the Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), Melbourne, 2009.

29.

Flores-Kanter

P. E.

Dominguez-Lara

Trógolo

M. A.

Medrano

L. A.

(2018). Best practices in the use of bifactor models: Conceptual grounds, fit indices and complementary indicators. Revista Evaluar, 18(3), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v18.n3.22221

30.

Geisinger

K. F.

(1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304

31.

Gomes

C. M. A.

Gjikuria

(2017). Comparing the ESEM and CFA approaches to analyze the Big Five factors. Avaliação Psicológica, 16(03), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2017.1603.12118

32.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

(2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In Bakker

Leiter

(Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). Psychology Press.

33.

Hambleton

R. K.

Merenda

P. F.

Spielberger

C. D.

(Eds.), (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

34.

Heene

Hilbert

Draxler

Ziegler

Bühner

(2011). Masking misfit in confirmatory factor analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024917

35.

Heinrich

Geiser

Zagorscak

Burns

G. L.

Bohn

Becker

S. P.

Eid

Beauchaine

T. P.

Knaevelsrud

(2021). On the meaning of the “P factor” in symmetrical bifactor models of psychopathology: Recommendations for future research from the bifactor-(S−1) perspective. Assessment, 30(3), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211060298

36.

L.-T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

37.

Jang

(2022). Korean version of the 17-item Utrecht work engagement scale for university students: A validity and reliability study. Healthcare, 10(4), 642. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040642

38.

Kahu

E. R.

(2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505

39.

Kenny

D. A.

(1979). Correlation and causality. Wiley.

40.

Kulikowski

(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 & Environmental Health, 30(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947

41.

Schmidt

F. L.

Harter

J. K.

Lauver

K. J.

(2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003

42.

Llorens

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012

43.

Loscalzo

Giannini

(2019). Study engagement in Italian university students: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale-student version. Social Indicators Research, 142(2), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1943-y

44.

Mansolf

Reise

S. P.

(2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.01.012

45.

Markland

(2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.023

46.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Grayson

(2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In Maydeu-Olivares

McArdle

(Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics. A festschrift for roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Erlbaum.

47.

Marsh

H. W.

Liem

G. A. D.

Martin

A. J.

Morin

A. J.

Nagengast

(2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657

48.

Marsh

H. W.

Morin

A. J. S.

Parker

P. D.

Kaur

(2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700

49.

Matz-Costa

James

J. B.

Ludlow

Brown

Besen

Johnson

(2014). The meaning and measurement of productive engagement in later life. Social Indicators Research, 118(3), 1293–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0469-6

50.

Mauno

Kinnunen

Ruokolainen

(2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002

51.

McNeish

Wolf

M. G.

(2023). Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychological Methods, 28(1), 61–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000425

52.

Medrano

L. A.

Moretti

Ortiz

(2015). Medición del engagement académico en estudiantes universitarios [Measure of academic engagement in university students]. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación - e Avaliação Psicológica, 2(40), 114–124. https://aidep.org/sites/default/files/articles/R40/Art11.pdf.

53.

Meng

Jin

(2017). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for students in a Chinese sample. Nurse Education Today, 49, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.017

54.

Mills

M. J.

Culbertson

S. S.

Fullagar

C. J. J.

(2012). Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 519–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9277-3

55.

Morin

A. J.

Arens

A. K.

Tran

Caci

(2016). Exploring sources of construct‐relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the composite scale of morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 25(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1485

56.

Morin

A. J. S.

Boudrias

J. S.

Marsh

H. W.

McInerney

D. M.

Dagenais-Desmarais

Madore

Litalien

(2017). Complementary variable-and person-centered approaches to the dimensionality of psychometric constructs: Application to psychological wellbeing at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9448-7

57.

Mostert

Pienaar

Gauche

Jackson

L. T. B.

(2007). Burnout and engagement in university students: A psychometric analysis of the MBI-SS and UWES-S. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajhe.v21i1.25608

58.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

59.

Niemelä-Nyrhinen

Leskinen

(2014). Multicollinearity in marketing models: Notes on the application of ridge trace estimation in structural equation modelling. The Electronic Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 3–15. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1310/1273.

60.

Nimon

Shuck

(2019). Work engagement and burnout: Testing the theoretical continuums of identification and energy. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21379

61.

Parra

Pérez

(2010). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de compromiso académico, UWES-S (versión abreviada), en estudiantes de psicología [Psychometric properties of utrech work engagement scale for students, UWES-S (short form), in psychology students]. Revista de Educación de Ciencias de la Salud, 7(2), 128–133. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6282640.

62.

Portalanza-Chavarría

C. A.

Grueso-Hinestroza

M. P.

Duque-Oliva

E. J.

(2017). Propiedades de la Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-S 9): Análisis exploratorio con estudiantes en Ecuador [Properties of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-S 9): Exploratory analysis of students in Ecuador]. Innovar: Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, 27(64), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v27n64.62374

63.

Rastogi

Pati

S. P.

Kumar

Dixit

J. K.

Pradhan

(2018). Student engagement in Indian context: UWES-S validation and relationship with burnout and life satisfaction. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 9(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWOE.2018.091340

64.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). Invited paper: The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

65.

Reise

S. P.

Moore

T. M.

Maydeu-Olivares

(2011). Target rotations and assessing the impact of model violations on the parameters of unidimensional item response theory models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(4), 684–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410378690

66.

Rios

Wells

(2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.260

67.

Rodriguez

Reise

S. P.

Haviland

M. G.

(2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249

68.

Römer

(2016). The Korean Utrecht work engagement scale-student (UWES-S): A factor validation study. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 23(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM23.1.5

69.

Ropovik

(2015). A Cautionary note on testing latent variable models. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1), 1715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01715

70.

Salamon

Tóth-Király

Bõthe

Nagy

Orosz

(2021). Having the cake and eating it too: First-order, second-order and bifactor representations of work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(1), Article 615581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615581

71.

Sánchez-Cardona

Rodríguez-Montalbán

Toro-Alfonso

Moreno-Velázquez

I. M.

(2016). Psychometric properties of the Utrecht work engagement scale-student (UWES-S) in university students in Puerto Rico. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 33(2), 121–134.

72.

Saris

W. E.

Satorra

van der Veld

W. M.

(2009). Testing structural equation modeling or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433

73.

Schaufeli

De Witte

(2017a). Work engagement in contrast to burnout: Real or redundant? Burnout Research, 5(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.06.001

74.

Schaufeli

Salanova

(2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery concept. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.515981

75.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Test manual for the Utrecht work engagement scale. [unpublished manuscript]. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University.

76.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(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/10.1177/0013164405282471

77.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Martínez

I. M.

Pinto

A. M.

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003

78.

Serrano

Andreu

Murgui

Martínez

(2019). Psychometric properties of Spanish version student Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES–S–9) in high-school students. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22(2), Article E21. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2019.25

79.

Shao

Elahi Shirvan

Alamer

(2022). How accurate is your correlation? Different methods derive different results and different interpretations. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(2), Article 901412. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.901412

80.

Shi

Lee

Maydeu-Olivares

(2019). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(2), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530

81.

Shrestha

(2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-8-2-1

82.

Silva

J. O. M. d.

Pereira Junior

G. A.

Coelho

I. C. M. M.

Picharski

G. L.

Zagonel

I. P. S.

(2018). Engajamento entre estudantes do ensino superior nas ciências da saúde (validação do questionário Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-S) com estudantes do ensino superior nas ciências da saúde). Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 42(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v42n2RB20170112

83.

Smith

N. D.

Suldo

Hearon

Ferron

(2020). An application of the dual-factor model of mental health in elementary school children: Examining academic engagement and social outcomes. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 4(1), 49–68. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jppw/article/view/61.

84.

Smits

I. A. M.

Timmerman

M. E.

Barelds

D. P. H.

Meijer

R. R.

(2015). The Dutch symptom checklist-90-revised: Is the use of the subscales justified? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000233

85.

Soper

D. S.

(2022). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

86.

Tarka

(2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality and Quantity, 52(1), 313–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0469-8

87.

Tay

(2017). Correlation, variance inflation and multicollinearity in regression model. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 12(1), 2006–2015. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.12.2006

88.

Tayama

Schaufeli

Shimazu

Tanaka

Takahama

(2019). Validation of a Japanese version of the work engagement scale for students. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(4), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12229

89.

Tourangeau

Rasinski

K. A.

Bradburn

D’Andrade

(1989). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(5), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90030-9

90.

Trógolo

M. A.

Morera

L. P.

Castellano

Spontón

Medrano

L. A.

(2020). Work engagement and burnout: Real, redundant, or both? A further examination using a bifactor modelling approach. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 29(6), 922–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1801642

91.

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: A review of empirical research. European Psychologist, 18(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000143

92.

Wefald

A. J.

Downey

R. G.

(2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112

93.

Wickramasinghe

N. D.

Dissanayake

D. S.

Abeywardena

G. S.

(2018). Validity and reliability of the Utrecht work engagement scale-student version in Sri Lanka. BMC Research Notes, 11(1), 277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3388-4

94.

Wolters

Taylor

(2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engagement. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 635–651). Springer.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.57 MB

Resolving Dimensionality Issues of the Utretch Work Engagement Scale for Students Using an Integrative Data-Analytic Framework

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material