This study aims at delineating the recent worldwide developments in the factorial structure of popular work engagement measure, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and exploring its psychometric properties in terms of factorial validity, scale reliability, descriptive statistics and discriminant validity in an Indian sample of working population. The study is based on cross-sectional questionnaire survey responses from 304 Indian employees working in ITES. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to compare the fit of a three-factor model to that of an alternative one-factor model of UWES-9 followed by an analysis of discriminant validity of UWES-9 in relation to organisational citizenship behaviour questionnaire (OCBQ) and organisational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) using chi-square difference tests. A comprehensive review of validation studies of UWES across other nations of the world in different time, culture and context represents instability of its factorial structure. Empirical evidences demonstrate a better fit of multidimensional structure of UWES-9 in comparison to that of unidimensional solution for the construct in the Indian context and support the discriminant validity of UWES-9 against OCQ and OCBQ. The study provides first direct evidence for the psychometric properties and unique identification of the UWES-9 in the Indian context.
AndersonJames C.NarusJames A. (1984). A model of the distributor’s perspective of distributor-manufacturer working relationships. Journal of Marketing, 48(1), 62–74.
2.
AndrewO.C.SofianS. (2011). Engaging people who drive execution and organizational performance. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(3), 569–575.
BakkerA.B.SchaufeliW.B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154.
5.
BakkerA.B.SchaufeliW.B.LeiterM.P.TarisT.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 2(3), 187–200.
6.
BalducciC.FraccaroliF.SchaufeliW.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.
7.
ByrneB.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
ChinW.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
9.
ChristianM.S.GarzaA.S.SlaughterJ.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
10.
CohenJ. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualisation of organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336–354.
11.
EdwardsJ.R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.
12.
ExtremeraN.Sánchez-GarcíaM.DuránM.A.ReyL. (2012). Examining the psychometric properties of the Utrecht work engagement scale in two Spanish multi-occupational samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1), 105–110.
13.
FieldL.K.BuitendachJ.H. (2011). Happiness, work engagement and organisational commitment of support staff at a tertiary education institution in South Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1–10.
14.
FineS.HorowitzI.WeiglerH.BasisL. (2009). Is good character good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 73–84.
15.
FlemingJ.H.AsplundJ. (2007). Human sigma: Managing the employee–customer encounter. New York: Gallup Press.
16.
FongT.C.NgS. (2012). Measuring engagement at work: Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 391–397.
17.
FrankF.D.FinneganR.P.TaylorC.R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12–25.
18.
HallbergU.SchaufeliW.B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?European Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127.
19.
HoyleR.H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In HoyleR.H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
20.
HuL.T.BentlerP.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
21.
JacksonL.T.B.RothmannS.Van de VijverF.J.R. (2006). A model of work-related well-being for educators in South Africa. Stress and Health, 22(4), 263–274.
22.
JöreskogK.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychomertika, 36(2), 206–409.
MaslachC.SchaufeliW.B.LeiterM.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
31.
MayD.R.GilsonR.L.HarterL.M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
32.
MeyerJ.P.AllenN.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. London: SAGE.
33.
MeyerJ.AllenN.J.SmithC.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
34.
Muilenburg-TrevinoE.M. (2009). Psychometric study of work engagement in an American sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University. Retrieved from https://www.ou.edu/content/tulsa/carnpo/dissertations_andtheses.html
35.
OrganD.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
36.
PodsakoffP.M.MacKenzieS. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Working paper, Indiana University Bloomington.
37.
RobinsonD.PerrymanS.HaydayS. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. Falmer, Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
38.
SaksA.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
39.
SchaufeliW.BakkerA. (2003). UWES—Utrecht work engagement scale. Preliminary manual (Version 1, November2003). Utrecht University: Occupational Health Psychology Unit.
40.
SchaufeliW.B.MartinezI.Marques PintoA.SalanovaM.BakkerA.B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: Across national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.
41.
SchaufeliW.B.MaslachC.MarekT. (1993). Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
42.
SchaufeliW.B.SalanovaM.Gonzalez-RomaV.BakkerA.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
43.
SchaufeliW.B.TarisT.W.BakkerA.B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In BurkeR. (Ed.), Work hours and work addiction (pp. 193–252). Northampton, MA: Elgar.
44.
SegarsA. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121.
45.
SeppäläP.MaunoS.FeldtT.HakanenJ.KinnunenU.TolvanenA., . (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 459–481.
46.
ShimazuA.SchaufeliW.B.KosugiS.SuzukiA.NashiwaH.KatoA., . (2008). Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 510–523.
47.
ShuckB.ReioT.G.RoccoT.S. (2011). Employee engagement: An examination of antecedents and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 13(4), 419–428.
48.
ShuckB.WollardK. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
49.
SilvermanM. (2004). Non-financial recognition: The most effective of rewards. Brighton, UK: Institute of Employment Studies.
50.
SolingerO.N.OlffenW.RoeR.A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70–83.
51.
StormK.RothmannS. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale in the South African police service. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
52.
ViljevacA.Cooper-ThomasH.D.SaksA.M. (2012). An investigation into the validity of two measures of work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3692–3709.
53.
WagnerR.HarterJ.K. (2006). The great elements of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.
54.
WefaldA.J.DowneyR.G. (2009). The construct dimensionality of engagement and its relationship with satisfaction. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 143(1), 91–111.
55.
WefaldA.J.MillsM.J.SmithM.R.DowneyR.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.
56.
WefaldA.J.ReichardR.J.SerranoS.A. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(4), 522–537.
57.
WelchM. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346.
58.
WijheC.PeetersM.SchaufeliW.HoutM. (2011). Understanding workaholism and work engagement: The role of mood and stop rules. Career Development International, 16(3), 254–170.
59.
WollardK.K. (2011). Quiet desperation: Another perspective on employee engagement. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 526–537.
