A Critical Analysis of the WAQ: The Development of a Korean Form

Sudol Kang

doi:10.1177/0033294120959779

Abstract

The current study aimed to develop a simplified version of the Korean Workaholism Scale (KOWS) by determining the reliability and validity of the Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ) initially created by Aziz etal. The original scale of the WAQ was translated into Korean and then administered to 4,242 working people from a broad range of economic sectors. The nation-wide sample was a representative one from the 17th wave Korean Labor and Income Panel Study in 2014. The main body comprises two steps. First, through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as well as a reliability analysis, along with content validity examination among experts, thirteen items from the original WAQ were eliminated. The EFA yielded a four-factor solution with four items established in compulsive dependency (CD), four in illusion of control (IC), four in endurance of conflicts (EC), and four in withdrawal symptoms (WS). This process provided a succinct and convenient measure of workaholism, the KOWS with 16 items. The reliability coefficient (α) of the new scale was .90, and the split-half reliability coefficient was .72. Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed by way of structural equation modeling to validate the new construct. This KOWS showed adequate convergent validity (AVE > .5), construct reliability (CR > .7), as well as discriminant validity (AVE > ρ2). Between four subscales of the KOWS and affective commitment (AC) to organizations there proved meager correlation. In conclusion, the KOWS with 16-item psychometric properties is a valid and reliable tool to measure workaholism in South Korea.

Highlights

Since the confession of pastor William Oates (1968, 1971) that he was addicted to work, it is well known that workaholism, defined as an "uncontrollable need to work", is a very harmful disease for the person’s health and happiness, and for their social relationships (Fassel 1990; Levy 2015; Robinson 1998)
Three aspects seems critical in defining the dynamic, insidious nature of workaholism: First, the aspect of the compulsiveness or inner drive to work for identitybuilding; second, the aspect of the obsessive increase of work performance for satisfaction despite work–life conflicts, often tolerating everyday personal conflicts; and third, the aspect of withdrawal symptoms when not working
Items with pattern coefficients smaller than .50 were omitted to determine the saliency of significant items with the factors. This exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with the method of maximum likelihood (ML) and oblique factor rotation, instead of principal component analysis, as it seemed that certain correlations were existent among the components of workaholism

Summary

Introduction

Since the confession of pastor William Oates (1968, 1971) that he was addicted to work, it is well known that workaholism, defined as an "uncontrollable need to work", is a very harmful disease for the person’s health and happiness, and for their social relationships (in family, at workplace, and in larger society) (Fassel 1990; Levy 2015; Robinson 1998). If the workaholism is defined as an unmanageable intrinsic drive to work that is over time detrimental to health and relationships (Oates 1971; Robinson 1998), the essential construct of workaholism should include such components as compulsive dependency on work, illusion of control, tolerance of conflicts, denial of one’s own addiction, and withdrawal symptoms (Fassel 1990; Robinson 1998; Schaef 1988) In this respect, those WAQ-factors, such as work–life conflict and unpleasantness, are in themselves not critical aspects of workaholism.

Voluntariness Employment in Voluntary

Dependency on Work

Findings

Discussion and Implication