The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) in an Indian sample. The UWES was administered to a total of 450 employees from both public and private sector manufacturing and service organisations in India. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the three-factor model demonstrated a better fit when compared to one-factor model for both, the original 17-item and 9-item shortened versions of UWES. However, due to very high inter-correlation between the three dimensions, exploratory factor analyses resulted in two- and one-factor solutions for the 17-item and 9-item versions, respectively. Though the internal consistencies for sub-scales were acceptable, internal consistencies of the complete scales were found to be higher than that for the three sub-scales. The shortened UWES was found to display better psychometric properties than the original 17-item UWES.
BentlerP.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
3.
BrownM.W.CudeckR. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230– 258.
4.
ChaudharyR.RangnekarS.BaruaM.K. (2011). Relation between human resource development climate and employee engagement: Results from India. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 7(4), 664–685.
5.
HallbergU.SchaufeliW.B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but different: Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?European Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 119–127.
6.
HeckR.H.ThomasS.L. (2000). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
HensonR.K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 177–189.
KlineR.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
10.
KularS.GatenbyM.ReesC.SoaneE.TrussK. (2008). Employee engagement: A literature review. Kingston University: Kingston Business School. Retrieved 17 December 2010, from http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/4192/1/19wempen.pdf
11.
MacCallumR.C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL.B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504.
12.
PatiS.P.KumarP. (2010). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational support and supervisor support. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 126–137.
13.
SalanovaM.AgutS.PeiroJ.M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227.
14.
SchaufeliW.B.MaslachC.MarekT. (1993). Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
15.
SchaufeliW.B.SalanovaM.Gonzalez-RomaV.BakkerA.B. (2002a). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
16.
SchaufeliW.B.MartinezI.Marques PintoA.SalanovaM.BakkerA.B. (2002b). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross national study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.
17.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Retrieved 24 January 2011, from www.schaufeli.com
18.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.
19.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
20.
SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In BakkerA.B.LeiterM.P. (Eds), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York: Psychology Press.
21.
ShimazuA.SchaufeliW.B.KosugiS.SuzukiA.NashiwaH.KatoA.. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 510–523.
22.
ShuckB.ReioT.G.Jr (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.
23.
SonnentagS. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.
24.
StormK.RothmannI. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
25.
WegenerD.T.FabrigarL.R. (2000). Analysis and design for non-experimental data addressing causal and noncausal hypotheses. In ReisH.T.JuddC.M. (Eds), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412–450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
XanthoupoulouD.BakkerA.B.KantasA.DemeroutiE. (in press). The measurement of burnout and work engagement: A comparison of Greece and the Netherlands. New Review of Social Psychology.
27.
Yi-WenZ.Yi-QunC. (2005). The Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: An examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13(3), 268–270.
