Work engagement, which appeared as a positive psychological phenomenon in the fields of work and study, and is one of the positive state indicators of employees regarding work; at first became a popular concept in work and consultancy fields and is lately becoming a popular in academia (Littman-Ovadia & Balducci, 2013; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). Work engagement, a positive organizational behavior pattern, which is expressed as the opposite pole or the positive antithesis of burnout, is described as the positive approach of the mind with dedication, and regarding work (Schaufeli, Martinez, Marquez-Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Rather than a momentary state, work engagement is described as a constant emotional-cognitive state that is not fixed on any specific item, event person or behavior (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Martinez et al., 2002).Adaptation StudyUtrecht Work Engagement Scale-UWES was developed by Schaufeli, Martinez et al. (2002) based on Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), in order to measure work engagement, which is conceptualized as the worker's approach to their work with vigor, dedication and then absorption, the opposite of burnout. The first subscale of UWES is defined as the worker's absorption with and dedication to their work, and fulfilment of their responsibilities with high levels of energy, and this corresponds to the MBI-GF sub factor of exhaustion (decrease of mental energy). The second subscale of UWES is dedication, this is defined as the worker's enthusiastic approach to work and corresponds to the MBI-GF subscale of cynicism (negative attitude towards work). Exhaustion and cynicism which represent the stress dimension of exhaustion (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001) are at the focal point of burnout, while vigor and dedication is central to work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In other words, in order to talk about burnout or work engagement, these basic factors are dealt with. Conceptually, the third subscales of MBI-GF and UWES (lack of efficacy and absorption) are not evaluated as opposites of each other. Lack of efficacy in MBI-GF represents a more personal characteristics; while absorption in UWES represents a situation that is a result of vigor and dedication (Langelaan, Bakker, Van Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006) therefore they cannot be thought of as opposites (Gunduz, Capri, & Gokcakan, 2013).UWES was originally developed as 24 items, but after psychometric evaluations 7 non-functional items were removed, the final form of a scaling tool based on self-report with 17 items, consisting of the subscales vigor (6 items), dedication (5 items) and absorption (6 items) were reached (Schaufeli, Martinez et al., 2002). After another following psychometric evaluation, 2 items that were poor or non-functional were removed and a 15 item form of UWES (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) was also used in certain studies (Kutsal, 2009; Salanova, Schaufeli, Llorens, Peiro, & Grau, 2000; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Kantas, & Demerouti, 2012). At the final stage, a 9 item form of UWES-SF with 3 items in each subscale was developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004).The psychometric qualities of these developed forms were tested on over 30,000 workers in various countries like China, Finland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, The Netherlands and Turkey. It was reported in these studies that satisfactory results were achieved in the internal consistency of the scales, test and re-test, inter-item correlation and correlation between hidden variables and that the 3 factor structure was confirmed better than the single factor structure (Gunduz et al., 2013; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Salanova et al., 2000; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005; Schaufeli, Martinez et al., 2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008; Seppala et al., 2009; Shimazu et al. …
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Jan 17, 2024
Edwin Trejo-Rivera + 1
