Suppr超能文献

鱼与熊掌兼得:工作投入的一阶、二阶和双因素模型

Having the Cake and Eating It Too: First-Order, Second-Order and Bifactor Representations of Work Engagement.

作者信息

Salamon Janos, Tóth-Király István, Bõthe Beáta, Nagy Tamás, Orosz Gábor

机构信息

Doctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.

Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 22;12:615581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615581. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Even though work engagement is a popular construct in organizational psychology, the question remains whether it is experienced as a global construct, or as its three components (vigor, dedication, absorption). The present study thus contributes to the ongoing scientific debate about the dimensionality of work engagement systematically compared one-factor, first-order, higher-order, and bifactor confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) representations of work engagement measured by the short version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). We also documented the validity evidence of the most optimal representation based on its test-criterion relationship with basic psychological need fulfillment at work, turnover intentions, work addiction, and work satisfaction. Based on responses provided by two distinct samples of employees ( = 242, = 505), our results supported the superiority of the bifactor-CFA representation including a global factor of work engagement and three co-existing specific factors of vigor, dedication, and absorption. This representation replicated well across the two samples through tests of measurement invariance. Finally, while global work engagement was substantially related to all correlates, the specific factors also demonstrated meaningful associations over and above the global levels of work engagement.

摘要

尽管工作投入是组织心理学中一个广为人知的概念,但问题仍然存在:它是被体验为一个整体概念,还是其三个组成部分(活力、奉献、专注)。因此,本研究通过系统比较由乌得勒支工作投入量表简版(UWES - 9)测量的工作投入的单因素、一阶、高阶和双因素验证性因素分析(CFA)模型,为正在进行的关于工作投入维度的科学辩论做出了贡献。我们还基于其与工作中基本心理需求满足、离职意图、工作成瘾和工作满意度的测试标准关系,记录了最优模型的效度证据。基于两个不同员工样本((n_1 = 242),(n_2 = 505))提供的回答,我们的结果支持了双因素CFA模型的优越性,该模型包括一个工作投入的整体因素以及活力、奉献和专注三个共存的特定因素。通过测量不变性测试,该模型在两个样本中都得到了很好的复制。最后,虽然整体工作投入与所有相关因素都有显著关联,但特定因素在工作投入的整体水平之上也显示出有意义的关联。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e233/8339798/80ea01d4af48/fpsyg-12-615581-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Having the Cake and Eating It Too: First-Order, Second-Order and Bifactor Representations of Work Engagement.
Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 22;12:615581. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615581. eCollection 2021.
2
Do we all agree on how to measure work engagement? Factorial validity of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale as a standard measurement tool - A literature review.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2017 Mar 30;30(2):161-175. doi: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00947. Epub 2017 Feb 17.
3
Work Engagement in Serbia: Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 16;8:1799. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01799. eCollection 2017.
4
One, two or three dimensions of work engagement? Testing the factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale on a sample of Polish employees.
Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019 Jun;25(2):241-249. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1371958. Epub 2017 Oct 11.
6
A Comparison of Three Job Engagement Measures: Examining their Factorial and Criterion-Related Validity.
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2012 Mar;4(1):67-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01059.x. Epub 2011 Oct 27.
7
The Forest and the Trees: Investigating the Globality and Specificity of Employees' Basic Need Satisfaction at Work.
J Pers Assess. 2020 Sep-Oct;102(5):702-713. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2019.1591426. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
9
Reliability and validity of the Vietnamese version of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.
J Occup Health. 2020 Jan;62(1):e12157. doi: 10.1002/1348-9585.12157.
10
Employee engagement within the NHS: a cross-sectional study.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Jan 4;4(2):85-90. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.12. eCollection 2015 Feb.

本文引用的文献

2
High-Frequency Pornography Use May Not Always Be Problematic.
J Sex Med. 2020 Apr;17(4):793-811. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.007. Epub 2020 Feb 6.
4
A Four-Factor Model of Work Addiction: The Development of the Work Addiction Risk Test Revised.
Eur Addict Res. 2019;25(3):145-160. doi: 10.1159/000499672. Epub 2019 Apr 12.
5
Happy fish in little ponds: Testing a reference group model of achievement and emotion.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2019 Jul;117(1):166-185. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000230. Epub 2019 Jan 21.
6
Myths about "The myths about work addiction".
J Behav Addict. 2018 Dec 1;7(4):858-862. doi: 10.1556/2006.7.2018.126. Epub 2018 Dec 17.
7
Differential Effects of Workaholism and Work Engagement on the Interference Between Life and Work Domains.
Eur J Psychol. 2018 Nov 30;14(4):863-879. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v14i4.1626. eCollection 2018 Nov.
8
Brazil-Portugal Transcultural Adaptation of the UWES-9: Internal Consistency, Dimensionality, and Measurement Invariance.
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 20;9:353. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00353. eCollection 2018.
9
Workplace Bullying and Work Engagement: A Self-Determination Model.
J Interpers Violence. 2020 Nov;35(21-22):4686-4708. doi: 10.1177/0886260517717492. Epub 2017 Jun 27.
10
Work Engagement in Serbia: Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES).
Front Psychol. 2017 Oct 16;8:1799. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01799. eCollection 2017.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验