Since most global organizations adopted teleworking since the COVID-19 pandemic, measuring teleworking-related concepts and its implications have become vital.
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of the study consisted in the validation and the examination of the psychometric properties of the E-Work Life Scale (EWLS) which measures the relevant teleworking-related aspects: work-life interference, productivity, organizational trust, and flexibility.
METHODS:
To this aim, a group of teleworkers (N = 357; Mage = 38.90) completed the set of scales on which the study was based. The construct validity of the scale was examined by means of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the internal consistency by using Cronbach’s α, McDonald’s ω, and composite reliability (CR). Associations between the EWLS and the measures of life satisfaction, positive and negative affect and subjective well-being were also considered. A structural equation model is conducted to analyze the relationship between EWLS factors and life satisfaction.
RESULTS:
The findings obtained through CFA support the construct validity of the EWLS that is identical with the original version of the scale, which contains the four factors (χ2/df = 2.61; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.069; SRMR = 0.067). The internal consistency is good for the four factors, as well as for the total score of the scale (αs > 0.69; ωs > 0.75; CRs > 0.78). Work-life interference is the factor that is most associated with subjective well-being. The dimensions of the EWLS determine the life satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results lead us to believe that EWLS is a promising instrument for the assessment of the factors involved in teleworking.
Eurofound. Labour market change. Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide. Living, working and COVID-19, COVID-19 series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. [cited 2021 Nov 6]. Available from: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/wpef20020.pdf
3.
van der MeulenN. Does remote working really work?RSM Discovery/29 Management Knowledge. 2017;29(1):20– 2.
4.
FílardíF, deCastro RM, ZaníníMTF. Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking in Brazilian public administration: analysis of SERPRO and Federal Revenue experiences. Cadernos EBAPE. BR. 2020;18(1):28– 46.
5.
Ollo-LópezA, Goñi-LegazS, Erro-GarcésA. Home-based telework: usefulness and facilitators. Int J Manpow. 2021;42(4):644– 60.
6.
ShimazuA, NakataA, NagataT, ArakawaY, KurodaS, InamizuN, et al. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 for general workers. J Occup Health. 2020;62(1):e12132.
7.
ŞentürkE, SagaltıcıE, GenisB, TokerOG. Predictors of depression, anxiety and stress among remote workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2021;70(1):41– 51.
8.
NguyenMH. Factors influencing home-based telework in Hanoi (Vietnam) during and after the COVID-19 era. Transportation. 2021;48:3207– 38.
9.
Belzunegui-ErasoA, Erro-Garcés A teleworking in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Sustanability. 2020;12(9):3662.
10.
MigliorettiM, GragnanoA, MargherittiS, PiccoE. Not all telework is valuable. J of Work and Org Psych. 2021;37(1):11– 9.
11.
GrantCA, WallaceLM, SpurgeonPC, TramontanoC, CharalampousM. Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life scale to measure remote e-working. Empl Rel. 2019;41(1):16– 33.
12.
GrantCA, WallaceLM, SpurgeonPC. An exploration of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Empl Rel. 2013;35(5):527– 46.
13.
TabachnickBG, FidellLS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2013.
BrislinRW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WL, Berry JW, editors. Field methods in cross-cultural research. Newburry Park: Sage; 1986, pp. 137– 164.
16.
StevensJ. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. 4th ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002.
17.
DienerE, EmmonsRA, LarsenRJ, GriffinS. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71– 5.
18.
Caycho-RodríguezT, Ventura-LeónJL, García CadenaCH, Barboza-PalominM, Arias-GallegosWL, Dominguez-VergaraJ, et al. Psychometric Evidence of the Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale in Peruvian Elderly. Rev Ciencias de la Salud. 2018;16(3):488– 506.
19.
EsnaolaI, BenitoM, Antonio-AgirreI, FreemanJ, SarasaM. Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) by country, gender and age. Psicothema. 2017;29(4):596– 601.
20.
DurakM, Senol-DurakE, GencozT. Psychometric properties of the satisfaction a with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers and elderly adults. Soc Indicat Res. 2010;99(3):413– 29.
21.
VanakiZ, VagharseyyedinSA. Organizational commitment, work environment conditions, and life satisfaction among Iranian nurses. Nurs Health Sci. 2009;11:404– 9.
22.
DienerE, WirtzD, TovW, Kim-PrietoC, ChoiD-W, OishiS, Biswas-DienerR. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indicat Res. 2010;97:143– 56.
23.
TongKK, WangYY. Validation of the flourishing scale and scale of positive and negative experience in a Chinese community sample. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0181616.
24.
SumiK. Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the Flourishing Scale and the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience. Soc Indicat Res. 2014;118(2):601– 15.
25.
LiF, BaiX, WangY. The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE): Psychometric properties and normative data in a large chinese sample. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61137.
26.
DienerED. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol. 2020;55(1):34– 43.
27.
HooperD, CoughlanJ, MullenM. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res. 2008;6(1):53– 60.
28.
HuLT, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1– 55.
29.
MulaikSA, JamesLR, Van AlstineJ, BennetN, LindS, StilwellCD. Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull. 1989;105(3):430– 50.
30.
SteigerJH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2007;42(5):893– 8.
31.
ChinW, MarcolinB, NewstedP. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf Syst Res. 2003;14(2):189– 217.
32.
FornellC, LarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39– 50.
33.
MalhotraNK. Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada, 6th ed. São Paulo: Bookman; 2011.
34.
HenselerJ. Composite-based structural equation modeling: Analyzing latent and emergent variables, New York: Guilford Press; 2020.
35.
BrownTA, MooreMT. Confirmatory factor analysis. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2012, pp. 361– 79.
ChinWW. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi V, Chin W, Henseler J, Wang H, editors. Handbook of partial least squares. Berlin: Springer; 2010. pp. 655– 90.
38.
CooperCL, LuL. Excessive availability for work: good or bad? Charting underlying motivations and searching for game-changers. Hum Resours Manag. 2019;29(4):100682.
39.
RudolphCW, AllanB, ClarkM, HertelG, HirschiA, KunzeF, et al. Pandemics: Implications for research and practice in industrial and organizational psychology. Ind Organ Psychol. 2021;14(1-2):1– 35.
40.
AwadaM, LucasG, Becerik-GerberB, RollS. Working from home during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience. Work. 2021;69(4):1171– 89.
41.
VirickM, DaSilvaN, ArringtonK. Moderators of the curvilinear relation between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Hum Relat. 2010;63(1):137– 54.
42.
ArefiMF, Babaei-PouyaA, MohsenP. The Health Effects of Quarantine During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Work. 2020;67(3):523– 27.
