THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

SCALE: INITIAL EVIDENCE

FOR CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY
AND PRACTICE
BRAD SHUCK, JILL L. ADELSON,
AND THOMAS G. REIO JR.

Interest in the employee engagement construct has gained increasing attention

in recent years. Measurement tools focused on nuanced areas of engagement
(i.e., job engagement and organizational engagement) have been offered; how-
ever, no measure of employee engagement has been advanced despite persistent
calls in the research. We present the development, method, and results of a three-
dimensional employee engagement measurement tool developed for use in the
human resource and management fields of study. Across four independent stud-
ies, the employee engagement scale (EES) was found to consist of three subfac-
tors (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral) and a higher-order factor (employee
engagement). Across a series of four studies, we explored the factor structure
and reliability of the EES (Study 1), then refined the scale, confirmed the factor
structure, and examined reliability and both convergent and nomological validity
evidence (Study 2). Next (Study 3), we completed a final reduction in scale items
and examined additional evidence of reliability and nomological validity as well
as evidence of discriminant validity. Finally (Study 4), we tested for evidence
of incremental validity. In the implications for theory and practice section, we
discuss the importance of an employee engagement measure aligned alongside
an agreed-upon definition and framework. Limitations and future directions for
research—such as the need for further psychometric testing and exploring issues
of measurement invariance—are discussed. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: employee engagement, human resource, human resource develop-

ment, human resource management, scale development

Correspondence to: Brad Shuck, University of Louisville, CEHD, ELEOD, Louisville, KY 40292, Phone: 502-852-7396,
E-mail: brad.shuck@louisville.edu.

Human Resource Management, November–December 2017, Vol. 56, No. 6. Pp. 953–977
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21811
954 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
T
he psychological construct of employee
engagement has garnered mounting
interest in the human resource (Saks &
Gruman, 2014; Sarti, 2014) and man-
agement fields (Christian, Garza, &
Slaughter, 2011). Engaged employees are believed
to bring their full selves into their work roles—
they are cognitively attentive, emotionally vested,
and physically energetic in their work environ-
ment (Kahn, 1990; Rich, LePine, & Crawford,
2010). Currently, there exists a range of theories
(i.e., social exchange theory; Saks, 2006; Saks &
Gruman, 2014) and models (the job demands–
resources model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) that
assist researchers in conceptualizing the phenom-
enon of engagement.
In the 2010 Handbook of Employee Engagement,
Albrecht posed the question, “So, how best to
measure engagement” (p. 9)? Over the past
decade, several measures of engagement-like
states have been forwarded (i.e.,
Merely having choice work engagement, job engagement,
organizational engagement; for a
was insufficient; comprehensive listing, see Christian
et al., 2011). Scholars and practitio-
rather, having scale ners have choices when it comes
items with a clear to measuring the many variants
of engagement constructs (Cole,
linkage to an agreed- Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2011;
Saks & Gruman, 2014). Albrecht
upon definition would (2010) suggested, however, that
be particularly useful merely having choice was insuffi-
cient; rather, having scale items with
in both scholarship a clear linkage to an agreed-upon
definition would be particularly
and practice. useful in both scholarship and prac-
tice (also see Fletcher & Robinson,
2014; Purcell, 2014). While most
engagement-like measures are grounded in lit-
erature, few scales that purport to measure some
aspect of an engagement-like state also combine
the robustness of a parallel definition and pre-
ceding conceptual framework to accompany the
scale in practice. Notwithstanding, while scales
such as the job engagement scale (JES; Rich et al.,
2010), the Utrecht work engagement scale (9- and
17-item versions; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, &
Bakker, 2002), and the intellectual, social, and
affective engagement scale (Soane, Truss, Alfes,
Shantz, Rees, & Gatenby, 2012) are choices schol-
ars may choose to utilize, no measure with clear
linkage to an agreed-upon definition and concep-
tual framework has been proposed for the more
unique, broad-spectrum experience of employee
engagement, specifically—despite appeals from
scholars to do so (Saks & Gruman, 2014).
Accordingly, the purpose of our work was to
present the development, method, and results
of a 12-item, three-dimensional employee
engagement measurement tool. As a first step in
responding to Albrecht (2010), Shuck and Reio
(2011), and Shuck, Twyford, Reio, and Shuck
(2014) provided a detailed theoretical framework
for employee engagement aimed at both scholars
and practitioners. Their work was well grounded
in, and built upon, Kahn’s (1990) original con-
ceptualization of personal engagement, modified to
reflect the more employee-focused experience of
employee engagement (cf. Shuck & Reio, 2011;
Shuck et al., 2014). We drew heavily from Shuck
et al.’s (2014) existing framework (and invite
interested readers to those articles for further
exploration and detail) in addition to the defini-
tion previously forwarded by Shuck & Wollard
(2010). Items that made up the final version of
the employee engagement scale (EES) were theo-
retically grounded in Kahn’s original conceptu-
alization of personal engagement as well as the
more employee-focused experience of employee
engagement offered by Shuck and Reio (2011)
and Shuck et al. (2014). The remainder of the
article unfolds as follows: (1) defining and posi-
tioning employee engagement, (2) distinguishing
employee engagement from similar constructs,
(3) development and validation of scales, (4) dis-
cussion, and (5) limitations and implications.
Defining and Positioning Employee
Engagement
Employee engagement is defined as an active,
work-related positive psychological state (Nimon,
Shuck, & Zigarmi, 2016; Parker & Griffin, 2011;
Shuck, Nimon, & Zigarmi, 2016; Shuck et al.,
2014) operationalized by the intensity and direc-
tion of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
energy (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). In addition to
employee engagement, several other engage-
ment-like constructs are noted in the research
literature including work engagement, job engage-
ment, organizational engagement, and intellec-
tual/social engagement. For each construct, the
originating citation, definition, distinguishing
unique focal points, and example scale items are
provided in Table I. We urge scholars to note the
distinguishing unique focal points for each state
of engagement as a means to differentiate both
theoretical and practical distinction. For exam-
ple, work engagement is operationalized as the
opposite of exhaustion, cynicism, and professional
efficacy (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006). Schaufeli
et al. (2002) defined work engagement as the
“positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
 TABLE I Overview of Engagement-like Constructs, Definitions, Focal Points, and Sample Questions
Construct or Originating Distinguishing Unique
Subdimension Source Definition Focal Point Sample Questions
Work Engage- Schaufeli et al. Positive, fulfilling, work-related state of Work activity and work When I get up in the morning I feel
ment (2002)a mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and itself like going to work.
absorption To me my job is challenging.
Job Engage- Rich et al. (2010) Multidimensional motivational concept reflect- Job activity and job I work with intensity on my job.
ment ing the simultaneous investment of an individ- I am excited about my job.
ual’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energy
in active, full work performance
Organizational Saks (2006) Extent to which an individual is psychologically Organizational identifica- Being a member of this organization

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Engagement present in a particular organizational role tion and presence is very captivating.
Being a member of this organization
is exhilarating for me.
Social/Intellec- Soanne et al. The extent to which one is intellectually Work activity and align- I share the same work values as my
tual Engage- (2012) absorbed in work, experiences a state of ment with colleagues colleagues.
ment positive affect relating to one’s work role, and I am enthusiastic about my work.
socially connected to with the working envi-
ronment and shares common values with
colleagues
Employee Shuck et al. Active, work-related positive psychological Active role and full spec-
Engagement (2014) state operationalized by the intensity and direc- trum experience of work-
tion of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral ing
energy
Cognitive Intensity of mental energy expressed toward I am really focused when I am work-
Engagement positive organizational outcome ing.
I give my job responsibility a lot of
attention.

Emotional Intensity and willingness to invest emotionality Working at <my current organiza-
Engagement toward positive organizational outcome tion> has a great deal of personal
meaning to me.
I feel a strong sense of belonging to
my job.

Behavioral Psychological state of intention to behave in I am willing to put in extra effort

Engagement a manner that positively affects performance without being asked.
and/or positive organizational outcome I really push myself to work beyond
what is expected of me.
a
In their article, Schaufeli et al. (2002) originally used the term engagement to refer to what they later called work engagement.
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 955
956 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorp-
tion” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). Theoretically,
work engagement is grounded in the burnout
literature (e.g., work engagement is the positive
antithesis of burnout; Shuck, 2011) and has been
positioned as the antipode to the experience of
burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The primary
focus of work engagement is work activity (i.e.,
“When I get up in the morning I feel like going to
work”; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employee engage-
ment is nonetheless markedly different in both
focus and definition. Specifically and grounded
in Shuck et al. (2014), employee engagement is
reflective of an active psychological state and
inclusive of the full spectrum of the immediate
work experience (i.e., work, job, team, and the
active experience of working).
The focus of job engagement, defined as a
“multi-dimensional motivational concept reflect-
ing the simultaneous investment of an indi-
vidual’s physical, cognitive, and
emotional energy in active, full
Employees bring a full work performance” (Rich et al.,
2010, p. 619), is job activity. In the
range of cognitive,
JES (Rich et al., 2010), participants
emotional, and are asked to respond to a series of
questions—each with the postfix at
physical energies my job (e.g., I feel energetic at my
job; see Table I). Thus, job engage-
into their work
ment describes the degree to which
roles that combine a person is engaged with his or her
job only, whereas employee engage-
to distinguish the ment focuses toward the fuller expe-
rience of employees active roles
experience of being
within the experience of their work,
engaged. including their work, job, team,
and organization. Organizational
engagement, defined as “the extent
to which an individual is psychologically present
in a particular organizational role” (Saks, 2006, p.
604), is focused toward organizational identifica-
tion. Organizational engagement describes how
captivating and exhilarating a person experiences
their organization (cf. Saks, 2006 [italics appear
in the original]) while employee engagement is
inclusive of an attachment-like state to the orga-
nization, but is not specifically defined by it—a
limitation of the organizational engagement scale
(OES; Saks, 2006).
Similar to the JES (Rich et al., 2010) and OES
(Saks, 2006), the more condition-oriented ISA con-
struct (intellectual, social, and affective engage-
ment; Soane et al., 2012) is focused toward social
engagement, an often overlooked and relational
component of the engagement experience (Kahn
& Heaphy, 2014). Employee engagement, while
encompassing how people experience and respond
to their coworkers, is also focused on a host of
other important areas (as previously noted) and
remains decidedly unique in conceptualization.
Employee engagement has been routinely
defined and theoretically positioned as a unique
construct (Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shuck et al.,
2014). Resultantly, employee engagement is not a
substitute for work engagement, job engagement,
organizational engagement, or intellectual/social
engagement. Rather differences between terms,
their focus, and those nuances that impact con-
ceptualization and precise measurement should
be documented and differentiated (See Table I).
Employee engagement is also not an umbrella term,
but a distinct term, which has its own unique the-
oretical framework and definitional content (cf.
Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shuck et al., 2014, 2016).
At present, the specificity of current mea-
surement tools falls decidedly short for measur-
ing employee engagement (Albrecht, 2010; Saks
& Gruman, 2014; Shuck et al., 2014). As Kahn
(1990) aptly noted, employees bring a full range
of cognitive, emotional, and physical energies
into their work roles that combine to distinguish
the experience of being engaged. Connected,
researchers (Christian et al., 2011; Rurkkhun &
Bartlett, 2012) have openly advocated opera-
tionalizing the experience of employee engage-
ment as a three-dimensional construct grounded
through Kahn’s personal engagement framework.
Investment of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
energies is understood as an indicator of indi-
vidual performance representative of motivation
(and movement) as a distinct, work-related posi-
tive, psychological experience (Shuck et al., 2014).
The intensity of simultaneously directed energy
proportionately indicates the extent to which
an employee is engaged (e.g., employee engage-
ment). In the following, we briefly detail each
subdimension of employee engagement (and we
direct interested readers toward more comprehen-
sive theoretical and conceptual reviews including
Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shuck, 2011; Shuck et al.,
2014).
Cognitive Engagement
The subdimension of cognitive engagement is
defined as the intensity of mental energy expressed
toward positive organizational outcomes (Rich
et al., 2010; Shuck et al., 2014). Cognitively
engaged employees are attentive and concen-
trated in their workplace and they dispense men-
tally laden energy toward work-related activities.
Building from Kahn’s (1990) early conceptualiza-
tion, cognitive engagement is characterized by
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

the ways in which an employee directs cognitive
energy in both direction and proportion, char-
acterized by an employee’s expression of focus
and attention as well as concentration toward
work-related tasks, experiences, and contexts. A
cognitively engaged employee would be propor-
tionately concentrated, focused, and attentive
toward work-related experiences (i.e., his or her
work, his or her job, or within the active role of
working).
Emotional Engagement
The subdimension of emotional engagement is
defined as an employee’s intensity and willing-
ness to invest emotionality toward positive orga-
nizational outcomes (Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Shuck et al., 2014). Tangibly, emotional engage-
ment is the offering of emotionally connected,
personal resources, such as believing in, feeling
a sense of personal meaning toward, and being
emotionally connected, to a situation, person,
or context within the full experience of work.
This subdimension demonstrates a deep, active,
and emotional connection to the active work-
ing experience. Emotionally engaged employees
express affect that is directed toward a variety of
work-focused targets that relate to the present
momentary experience. For example, emotion-
ally engaged employees would say they believe in
the mission and purpose of their organization and
that the organization has a great deal of personal
meaning to them.
Behavioral Engagement
The subdimension of behavioral engagement is
defined as the psychological state of intention to
behave in a manner that positively affects per-
formance (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich et al.,
2010). Tangibly, behaviorally engaged employees
are willing to put in extra effort, work harder for
their team and organization, and to do more than
is expected. Macey and Schneider (2008) referred
to this state of engagement as proactive engage-
ment—because it was a forward moving, psycho-
logical state that manifested as behavior—but was
not yet materialized in action. In other words,
behavioral engagement represents a psychologi-
cal state and is not yet action-related behavior
(which differentiates it from performance, or
other related constructs such as organizational cit-
izenship behavior, which is the actual behavior).
It is not enough to just work harder; behaviorally
engaged employees see themselves as psychologi-
cally willing to give more and often going above
and beyond in a way that characterizes their for-
ward movement.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 957
Distinguishing Employee Engagement from
Similar Constructs
To distinguish employee engagement from simi-
lar constructs, we reviewed previous research that
had examined the conceptual overlap of engage-
ment in relation to similar constructs—mainly,
distinctions between engagement and job satis-
faction, engagement and organizational commit-
ment, and engagement and job involvement (cf.
Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013, for addi-
tional information).
Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction
Employee engagement and job satisfaction seem
cut from the same cloth as the two are clearly
linked in both practice and measurement. In
our view, however, employee engagement repre-
sents an active psychological state, whereas sat-
isfaction, a valuation of satiation “resulting from
the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences,”
is stationary (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Certainly,
employee engagement is associated with job
satisfaction, in that employees who are highly
engaged are likely also to be satisfied. Job satisfac-
tion, however, has often been focused at the job
level, consequently positioned as a temporal, gen-
eral indicator of employee sentiment that is static
rather than forward moving (Brief & Weiss, 2002).
That is, satisfaction may reflect an employee who
is satisfied in general but may not also be actively
motivated (Macey & Schneider, 2008). In distin-
guishing the two, scholars have juxtaposed con-
ceptual and empirical distinctions between static
descriptions of satisfaction and active descriptions
of engagement (Cooper-Thomas, Leighton, Xu,
Knight-Turvey, & Albrecht, 2010; Xanthopoulou,
Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009) suggesting
job satisfaction (when defined as satiation rather
than confounding the construct with affect) is
largely grounded in statements of the individual’s
sense of fulfillment with, and through, aspects of
the general work environment. This positions job
satisfaction as an indicator of fulfillment rather
than a motivational psychological state (Yalabik,
Popaitoon, Chowne, & Rayton, 2013).
Theoretically, job satisfaction may develop
under similar conditions as employee engagement.
In this regard, job satisfaction has been conceptu-
alized in terms of a job attitude (Newman, Joseph,
Sparkman, & Carpenter, 2011) that can co-occur
within components of that attitude (intracom-
ponent satisfaction) or alongside components of
other attitudes such as job involvement, organi-
zational commitment, and employee engagement
(intercomponent satisfaction). Within the human
958 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
resource and management literature, however, the
focus of job satisfaction has primarily served as an
evaluative context, composed of conditional sum-
mary statements concerning the job or work (e.g.,
“I am satisfied with my work”). In other words,
satisfaction refers to a global, general, work-related
perception focused toward satiation of the work
experience (Nimon et al., 2016; Shuck et al., 2013,
2016). As noted previously, employee engagement
is notably different as engagement manifests itself
as an active, motivational state contextualized by
the psychological interpretation of the working
experience composed of meta-focused sources of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral energy (as
described above).
Employee Engagement and Organizational
Commitment
Organizational commitment may
seem part and parcel to employee
While engaged
engagement on the surface. In addi-
employees likely tion, organizational commitment
has been routinely operational-
identify with their ized as the far more affect-oriented
overlapping construct (Gruman &
role in work, the
Saks, 2011; Guest, 2014) position-
limiting capacity ing employee engagement more
closely to affective organizational
of job involvement commitment as opposed to norma-
tive or continuance commitment
as a primarily
(although we note the potential
cognitive function relation between all three forms of
commitment). Researchers routinely
demonstrates a suggest that engagement contains a
component of organizational com-
decided distinction
mitment embedded within the con-
between the two. struct (Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Shuck et al., 2013, 2016). When
experienced, engaged employees
are also likely to be organizationally committed
employees. Scholars, however, have positioned
organizational commitment as “the relative
strength of an individual’s identification with
and involvement in a particular organization”
(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226). While
often used in research as a focal perspective of
work (e.g., how committed an employee is), organi-
zational commitment is positioned as an outcome
of engagement, not a unique focal perspective of
the work experience (Shuck et al., 2014).
The degree to which employees are orga-
nizationally committed is representative of
their relative attachment to the organization.
Organizational commitment is something that
happens to an employee (i.e., he or she becomes
affectively committed—e.g., attached). Thus, orga-
nizational commitment represents a pledge to act
in some way toward the organization resultant
of attachment and is not an indicator of senti-
ment toward the working experience itself, while
employee engagement describes an active motiva-
tional state encapsulating the full working expe-
rience. Conceptually, employee engagement may
be positively associated with higher levels of orga-
nizational commitment, especially affective com-
mitment—a cycle that is likely to be self-fulfilling
over time, but the constructs remain decidedly
distinct in contextual positioning. We maintain
that it is possible for organizational commitment
and employee engagement to be mentalized dif-
ferently, yet practically co-occur simultaneously
(cf. Shuck et al., 2016).
Employee Engagement and Job
Involvement
Job involvement and employee engagement likely
share similar conceptual space, yet the two con-
structs focus toward different attentions in appli-
cation. Job involvement for example is “the degree
to which a person is identified psychologically
with his work, or the importance of work in his
total self image” (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965, p. 24).
Consequently, job involvement is related to ego
involvement (Lawler & Hall, 1970; Vroom, 1962)
and positioned primarily as an identity-related
construct (Kanungo, 1982; Kühnel, Sonnentag,
& Westman, 2009), whereas employee engage-
ment is a motivational psychological state. This
conceptual positioning is supported in theoretical
propositions advocated by Shuck et al. (2013), and
research by Shuck et al. (2014 and 2016) suggest-
ing job involvement and employee engagement
were tied primarily at the cognitive level, only. In
support, Macey and Schneider (2008) posited that
engagement and job involvement likely shared
some level of construct overlap, citing definitions
that specifically mentioned facets of employee
engagement linked with job involvement. Scrima,
Lorito, Parry, & Falgares (2013) further demon-
strated this distinction empirically. In their work,
job involvement and engagement (as well as
affective commitment) were differentiated con-
ceptually in both focus and feature, and engage-
ment fully mediated the relationship between
job involvement and affective commitment (cf.
Scrima et al., 2013). Engagement, though, is not
only identity focused, but also a present-focused
state looking toward the future encompassing
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects.
That is, while engaged employees likely identify
with their role in work, the limiting capacity of
job involvement as a primarily cognitive function
demonstrates a decided distinction between the
two.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Development and Validation of Scales
As a first step in establishing a more comprehen-
sive instrument, an initial research team made up
of two human resource professionals and research-
ers was used to generate items and establish con-
tent validity around an employee engagement
measurement tool. The first member was a human
resource/organizational development scholar-
practitioner at a large multinational hospitality
company, and the second was a human resource
faculty member at a large, public, research-
intensive university. Both were located in the
southern portion of the United States. The research
team operationalized employee engagement in tri-
part focus (as previously defined, e.g., cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral), specifically as that
energy an employee directed toward positive orga-
nizational outcomes during his or her experience
of work (i.e., see Shuck et al., 2014, for a compre-
hensive overview). The EES was developed out of
the need to assess each dimension of the employee
engagement experience as well as serve as a higher-
order factor for the three lower-order factors. The
sum of those dimensions was believed to frame the
full experience of employee engagement.
The research team used the aforementioned
definition developed from the literature—specifi-
cally, that employee engagement was an active,
work-related positive psychological state opera-
tionalized by the intensity and direction of cog-
nitive, emotional, and behavioral energy—as a
starting point to assure content coverage of the
construct (Shuck et al., 2014; Shuck & Wollard,
2010). Care was taken to ensure that each item
was consistent with the definition of the research
variable (i.e., logical validity) in question and that
the vocabulary was appropriate for the intended
respondents.
In a series of four studies, we first explored
the factor structure of the EES and reliability of its
scales (Study 1). After refining the instrument, in
a new sample (Study 2), we confirmed the factor
structure and examined evidence of reliability and
initial levels of nomological and convergent valid-
ity. Next (Study 3), we completed a final reduction
in scale items, confirmed the factor structure of
the tighter, more parsimonious scale, examined
additional evidence of reliability and nomological
validity, and examined evidence of discriminant
validity. In our final sample (Study 4), we tested
for evidence of predictive incremental validity. We
sought out different samples as a means to increase
external validity and demonstrate the behavior of
the scale items across varying samples. In the fol-
lowing section, we detail the process used for item
generation and each of the four separate studies.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 959
Criteria for Item Development and Support
for Item Inclusion
First, a multiphase, content review process was
employed to aid in the development of ini-
tial items. Several databases were explored for
content, to include the following: PsycInfo,
ABI/Inform, Proquest, Jstor, the Academy of
Management database, and all four Academy of
Human Resource Development journals (Advances
in Human Resource Development, Human Resource
Development Review, Human Resource Development
International, and Human Resource Development
Quarterly). Additionally, Amazon.com and Google
Scholar were used as data collection sources for
available scholarly books. The reviews of litera-
ture helped each member of the team understand
the positionality and distinction of the employee
engagement construct but did not
result in a list of items or previously
used scales that described the full The reviews of
experience of employee engage-
literature helped
ment, consistent with the detailed
theoretical grounding and defini- each member of the
tional precision we sought. After
exhaustive and comprehensive team understand
reviews of existing literature and
the positionality
following a similar protocol detailed
by Nimon, Zigarmi, Houson, Witt, and distinction
and Diehl (2011), items were devel-
oped independently by each team of the employee
member to be included in the initial
engagement
version of the EES.
Second, post review, the construct.
research team met in person to dis-
cuss items generated, independent
dimensions, and total scale. This process yielded
45 items total, 15 for each dimension. Third, to
acquire another measure of logical validity, items
were pilot tested with a small sample of profes-
sionals, faculty experts, and students (N = 12). The
pilot group, which included seven women and
five men with a range of experience (i.e., scholars
well established in their field, early career schol-
ars, and practitioners), completed the 45-item
measure that included a definition of employee
engagement. Post pilot test, the research team
received verbal feedback on the scale and each
item independently. Participants suggested that
many of the items overlapped, were redundant,
or were too long. Participants also suggested the
45-items induced survey fatigue and that the
instrument was cumbersome.
Because possible overlap, divergence, and
commonality were noted, to better ensure con-
tent validity and concept coverage, rater agree-
ment for each item was subsequently evaluated
960 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
regarding whether each item was either essential,
useful but not essential, or not necessary (Lawshe,
1975). Under Lawshe’s system, a content validity
ratio (CVR) is used to generate a content valid-
ity coefficient for each item. With less than eight
panelists (we had two), for an item to be retained,
there had to be a minimum CVR value of .99 (99
percent interrater agreement) to ensure that agree-
ment was unlikely due merely to chance. Content
coverage and thus content validity related to the
development of new instruments has been shown
to be viable with as few as two expert panelists
(Waltz, Strickland, & Lenz, 2005). This evaluation
process shortened the overall instrument, leav-
ing 14 total items (4 for cognitive engagement, 5
for emotional engagement, and 5 for behavioral
engagement). The initial 14 items were deployed
in Study 1.
Study 1
Purpose
The purpose of the first study was exploratory,
defining range and measurement reliability. Of
central importance was examining the underlying
psychometric structure of the 14-item EES using
exploratory factor analyses.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample for Study 1 was recruited from a large,
diverse sampling of organizations of a regional
professional affiliation. The sample (N = 283)
consisted of workers in the service (n = 97), man-
ufacturing (n = 9), professional (n = 106), and non-
profit (n = 32) industries. Thirty-nine individuals
did not report their industry. Of the 283 partici-
pants, 54 percent of the sample was female, and
most participants identified as Caucasian (n =
134) or Hispanic (n = 91). Several indicated they
worked as a frontline team member (n = 111), 27.2
percent indicated being in a supervisory or man-
agement capacity, and 18.4 percent were at an
executive level. Finally, the largest age group was
between 30 and 39 (n = 70), followed closely in
size by the 50–59 (n = 67), and 40–49 (n = 66) age
groups. Tenure and size of company varied across
the sample.
An Internet-based self-report survey was
used as the data collection tool. Dillman, Smyth,
and Christian’s (2009) four-stage method and
interval scheduling framework was used to pre-
pare the survey for distribution. The survey was
placed online for administration. Participation
was strictly voluntary. Each survey was assigned
a unique URL linked to the survey instrument.
No significant issues were encountered with
distribution.
The EES
The initial version of the EES contained 14 items:
4 items for the cognitive engagement subscale, 5
items for the emotional engagement subscale, and
5 items for the behavioral engagement subscale.
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Analysis Procedure
Following Nimon et al. (2011), exploratory fac-
tor analysis (EFA) was employed (Preacher &
MacCallum, 2003). We conducted the EFA using
principal axis factoring because it is the “clas-
sic factor analytic approach” (Pett, Lackey, &
Sullivan, 2003, p. 103). Prior research (e.g., Rich
et al., 2010; Wildermuth, Vaughan, & Christo-
Baker, 2013) indicated the hypothesized factors
of cognitive engagement, emotional engagement,
and behavioral engagement were related; there-
fore, we used oblimin rotation, as it permitted
correlations among factors. The measures of sam-
pling adequacy, specifically Barlett’s test of sphe-
ricity (χ2 = 2125.55, df = 1, p < .001), the diagonals
of the anti-image correlation matrix (all > .80),
and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy (.898) suggested the data were suitable
for EFA (Pett et al., 2003).
We considered several criteria to determine
the number of factors to extract: the Kaiser-
Guttman rule of retaining as many factors as there
are eigenvalues greater than 1.0, the elbow of the
scree plot, and parallel analysis with principal
components analysis (both the mean criterion
and the 95th percentile criterion). All of these cri-
teria suggested three factors.
Factor Analysis Results
Table II displays the pattern matrix, structure
matrix, and extraction communalities. We used
the following criteria for retaining items: (1) pat-
tern coefficient was at least .4 (a criterion fre-
quently used to determine salience of variables;
Thompson, 2004), (2) pattern coefficients for non-
relevant factors were less than .3, and (3) pattern
coefficients for nonrelevant factors were at least
.2 less than the pattern coefficient on the relevant
factor. Item 3 (“I am rarely distracted mentally
when I am working”) did not meet the first cri-
terion (pattern coefficient = .382) or the third cri-
terion (pattern coefficient for nonrelevant factor
= .188). Item 4 (“Time passes quickly when I am
working”) did not meet the second criterion (pat-
tern coefficient for nonrelevant factor = .399) or
the third criterion (pattern coefficient for relevant
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
 TABLE II Exploratory Factor Analysis Results from Study 1
Pattern Coefficients Structure Coefficients

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Item EE BE CE EE BE CE h2
8. I believe in the mission and purpose of my company. .802 –.172 .795 –.443 .111 .682
7. I am proud to tell others that I work for my current organization. .798 .824 –.455 .244 .662
5. Working at my current organization has a great deal of personal meaning to me. .768 .150 .797 –.384 .383 .656
6. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my job. .756 .213 .817 –.420 .449 .707
9. I care about the future of my company. .627 –.199 .697 -.582 .171 .518
13. I often go above what is expected of me to help my team be successful. –.945 .410 –.923 .289 .855
10. I do more than is expected of me. –.829 .371 –.799 .157 .645
14. I work harder than expected to help my company be successful. –.820 .102 .407 –.836 .333 .707
12. I am willing to put in extra effort without being asked. .157 .774 .563 –.874 .354 .793
11. I really push myself to work beyond what is expected of me. .148 –.725 .513 –.806 .288 .668
1. Performing my job at work is so absorbing that I forget about everything else. –.134 .595 .102 –.203 .580 .351
2. I often think about other things when I am working. .515 .179 –.180 .524 .275
4. Time passes quickly when I am working. .399 .490 .534 –.298 .604 .496
3. I am rarely distracted mentally when I am working. .188 .382 .317 –.221 .447 .234
Note: Pattern coefficients in boldface have values of .40 or greater and signify items primarily with that factor. Pattern coefficient values less than .1 were suppressed. EE = emotional engagement; BE =
behavioral engagement; CE = cognitive engagement; h2 = communalities of the measured variables. Direct quartimin rotation was used.
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 961
962 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
factor = .490). The pattern coefficients for all other
criteria were met.
As displayed in Table II, the proportion of vari-
ance in the items that was explained by the fac-
tors (h2) was stronger for items loading on Factor
1 (emotional engagement) than the other factors,
with the items on Factor 3 (cognitive engagement)
having the lowest communalities (in addition to
the two problematic items). The items loading on
the three factors operationally defined the three
intended constructs of emotional engagement (five
items), behavioral engagement (five items), and
cognitive engagement (four items, two of which
were problematic). These three factors explained
58.93 percent of the common variance. The two
scales that did not have problematic items, emo-
tional engagement and behavioral engagement,
had a moderate correlation of .49.
Cognitive engagement had a weaker
The researchers correlation with the other scales (.32
generated refined with emotional engagement and .29
with behavioral engagement).
items independently,
then met to discuss Internal Consistency Reliability
Analyses for Study 1 and
overlap and Resulting Decisions
divergence using the We examined the internal consis-
tency reliability for each of the three
results from Study
factors. Cronbach’s alpha was above
1 to develop a more the acceptable level of .80 recom-
mended by Clark and Watson (1995)
informed set of items. for the emotional engagement scale
(α = .89) and the behavioral engage-
Care was taken to
ment scale (α = .92). However,
develop items that Cronbach’s alpha for the cogni-
tive engagement scale was below
were grounded in the an acceptable threshold (α = .63).
Removing any single item would
essence of cognitive
not increase alpha, and according
engagement. to the Spearman-Brown prophecy
formula, we would need to add six
comparable items to the scale (for
a total of 10 items) to increase the reliability to
the minimally acceptable level of .80—too many
for practical deployability. Although the aver-
age interitem correlations for the emotional and
behavioral engagement scales were .62 and .72,
respectively, the average interitem correlation for
the cognitive engagement scale was only .30, with
a range of .23 to .36. The standard deviation of the
interitem correlations was .05, suggesting homo-
geneity of item variance and that the interitem
correlations were all similarly weak. This could
have been due to the complexity and latent struc-
ture of assessing the phenomenon of cognition
and the simultaneous challenge of developing
cognitively grounded questions without the bias
of affect (Nimon et al., 2011). Because the scores
on this scale did not exhibit adequate reliability or
adequate interitem correlations, new items were
generated.
To refine the cognitive engagement measure,
the original two-member research team revisited
findings from the initial review and researched
databases for updated literature. Following the
protocol from Study 1, the researchers gener-
ated refined items independently, then met to
discuss overlap and divergence using the results
from Study 1 to develop a more informed set of
items. Care was taken to develop items that were
grounded in the essence of cognitive engagement
(i.e., being attentive, focused, and concentrating)
as well as to include statements that emphasized
the full experience of work and thinking about
how employees might direct their energy at work.
Seven additional items were agreed upon unani-
mously (Lawshe, 1975) that covered the cogni-
tive engagement construct and pilot tested with
a small sample (N = 9). The makeup of the pilot
group included three women and six men with
a range of professional and academic experience
(i.e., scholars well established in their field and
currently practicing human resource practitio-
ners). Post pilot test, the research team received
verbal feedback on the scale and each item inde-
pendently. No significant changes were advised.
The seven refined items were deployed in Study 2
alongside the emotional engagement and behav-
ioral scales used in Study 1 (17 items total).
Study 2
Purpose
The purpose of Study 2 was to confirm the fac-
tor structure and improve the overall model as
well as establish initial levels of nomological and
convergent validity of the revised scale. Factor
and reliability analyses were conducted with the
intent to reduce the item set from 17 items to 15
(5 items per scale). Nomological validity is estab-
lished when scores on a given measure behave as
expected with respect to other constructs to which
it is theoretically related (Kelley, 1927; Shuck
et al., 2016), while evidence of convergent valid-
ity is established when scores on a measure corre-
late with scores on another measure evaluating a
similar construct. Nomological validity was tested
by correlating EES scores to a measure of cogni-
tive work appraisal developed for use in Study 2.
Convergent validity was tested by correlating EES
scores to the JES (Rich et al., 2010).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample (N = 241) for Study 2 was recruited
from a large, national sampling of employees
working in the health care field. Ninety-two
percent (n = 200) of the sample was female, and
most of the participants were Caucasian. A great
majority of participants indicated they worked as
a frontline team member (n = 176; 81.5 percent),
although 11.1 percent (n = 24) indicated being in
a supervisory or management capacity. Finally,
the largest age group was between 30 and 39 (n =
71; 32.9 percent), and about a third (n = 72; 33.3
percent) were between the ages of 20 and 29 (n =
70), followed by the 40–49 (n = 33, 16.0 percent),
and 50–59 (n = 28, 13.0 percent) age groups. To
ensure representation of the sample, we compared
the research sample to the general population
of our study group. Gender, position within the
organization, and age was roughly equivalent for
the targeted population. Tenure and size of orga-
nization varied across the sample.
Similar to Study 1, Dillman et al.’s (2009) four-
stage method and interval scheduling framework
was used to prepare the survey for distribution.
The survey was placed online for administration.
Participation was strictly voluntary and partic-
ipants were able to opt out of the study at any
point. No significant issues were encountered
with distribution.
The EES
The revised set of items detailed in Study 1 formed
the base of the EES instrument deployed in Study
2. As a result of findings from Study 1, seven new
items were developed for the cognitive engage-
ment scale. No changes were made to the emo-
tional or behavioral engagement scales. All items
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
The Cognitive Work Appraisal Scale-11
(CWAS-11)
The CWAS-11 was developed for Study 2 to test
for nomological validity. Consistent with Shuck,
Adelson, and Reio (2015) and grounded in the
research literature on the antecedents of employee
engagement (cf. Wollard & Shuck, 2011), the
CWAS-11 was developed by systematically explor-
ing literature linked to antecedental conditions
of employee engagement. In keeping with long-
standing theory, preliminary findings from Shuck,
Adelson, and Reio (2015) demonstrated support
for the use of antecedental conditions in predict-
ing employee engagement, linking antecedental
conditions of work such as perceived meaning in
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 963
work, perceptions of safety, adequate resources,
and supportive coworkers with higher levels of
employee engagement (e.g., Kahn, 1990; Saks,
2006; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Shuck et al., 2011;
Wollard & Shuck, 2011). Theoretically, and con-
sistent with previous research findings (Shuck,
Adelson, & Reio, 2015; Shuck, Reio, & Rocco,
2011), the antecedental conditions of engage-
ment were theorized to be predictive of employee
engagement (e.g., the demonstration of nomolog-
ical validity).
The protocols described in
Study 1 were used to generate items Preliminary findings
in Study 2. For example, the initial
set of 30 items for the CWAS was from Shuck, Adelson,
reduced to 11 through expert feed-
and Reio (2015)
back, calculating CVR coefficients
(coefficients less than .99 were demonstrated
deleted; Lawshe, 1975), pilot testing
(N = 9), and semantic refinement. support for the use
We took seriously that many differ-
of antecedental
ent antecedents had been linked to
engagement and worked to develop conditions in
a brief measure that captured the
most distal and empirically linked predicting employee
antecedental conditions of engage-
engagement, linking
ment (cf. Kahn, 1990; May, Gilson,
& Harter, 2004; Wollard & Shuck, antecedental
2011). In our final version of the
CWAS-11, there were 11 items rated conditions of work
on a 5-point Likert scale. In our sam-
such as perceived
ple, the items had an internal con-
sistency reliability of .87. Additional meaning in work,
psychometric properties (including
factor structure) of the CWAS-11 perceptions of
are detailed below. All items were
safety, adequate
measured on a 5-point Likert scale,
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = resources, and
strongly agree.
supportive coworkers
The Job Engagement Scale
with higher levels
The JES (Rich et al., 2010) was used
as a measure of convergent validity. of employee
The JES is a widely deployed engage-
ment measurement tool composed engagement.
of 18 items with three subscales (6
items for cognitive engagement, 6
items for emotional engagement, and 6 items for
physical engagement). Items are focused toward
the job and are job specific. All items were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
CFA Models
We tested the three-factor solution from the EFA,
but with the refined items for the cognitive engage-
ment scale. We used Mplus version 7.1 (Muthén
964 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017

& Muthén, 1998), which allowed us to treat the
data as categorical (using the WLSM-V estimation
method), to test the CFA model with three latent
variables representing the three factors identified
by the EFA: cognitive engagement, emotional
engagement, and behavioral engagement. The 17
observed variables were the survey items, and we
permitted the factors to correlate with each other.
All the unstandardized regression weights (or path
coefficients) were statistically significant, and the
standardized regression weights were all very
strong. The three factors were statistically signifi-
cantly, moderately, and positively related to one
another (emotional and behavioral engagement:
r = .57; emotional and cognitive engagement: r
= .59; behavioral and cognitive engagement: r
= .73). Both the comparative fit index (CFI, .98)
and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI, .98) indicated
good model fit (Preacher & MacCallum, 2003).
The mean chi-squared (χ2) was 422.40 with 116
degrees of freedom (p < .001), although Yu (2002)
found that this statistic has inflated Type I error
rate with WLSM-V estimation.
We also tested a higher-order factor model
with employee engagement as the higher-order
latent construct. Because the model had three
lower-order factors previously correlated, this
was a statistically equivalent model to the initial
model with the same model fit. The difference
between the models was that rather than correla-
tions among the three factors, we now had regres-
sion weights (path coefficients) for each factor
measuring employee engagement. All three were
statistically significant and strong (standardized
regression weights: emotional engagement = .68,
behavior engagement = .84, cognitive engage-
ment = .87).
Finally, based on factor loadings, overlap, and
expert review of our scale, we eliminated 2 of the 7
cognitive engagement scale questions (questions
2 and 3, respectfully). This brought the final scale
to 15 questions (5 total questions for each sub-
scale). See Table III for the standardized regression
weights for the final 15 items.
Internal Consistency Reliability Analyses for the
Final Full Instrument
All three of the final scales had strong internal
consistency reliability. Alpha for the cognitive
engagement scale was .93, .91 for the emotional
engagement scale, and .92 for the behavioral
engagement scale.
Scores on items in each scale were summed
to obtain the scale score. When interpreting scale
scores, it should be kept in mind that a 5-point
Likert scale was used; as such, the range of possible

TABLE III Final Standardized Regression Weights for Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Study 2
Cognitive Emotional Behavioral
Item Engagement Engagement Engagement
CE1. I am really focused on my job when I am working. .960 — —
CE2. I concentrate on my job when I am at work. .958 — —
CE3. When working, I think a lot about how I can give my best. .788 — —
CE4. At work, I am focused on my job. .962 — —
CE5. When I am at work, I give my job a lot of attention. .981 — —
EE1. Working at my current organization has a great deal of — .896 —
personal meaning to me.
EE2. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my job. — .943 —
EE3. I am proud to tell others that I work for my current — .890 —
organization.
EE4. I believe in the mission and purpose of my company. — .821 —
EE5. I care about the future of my company. — .942 —
BE1. I do more than is expected of me. — — .895
BE2. I really push myself to work beyond what is expected of me. — — .883
BE3. I am willing to put in extra effort without being asked. — — .972
BE4. I often go above what is expected of me to help my team be — — .928
successful.
BE5. I work harder than expected to help my company be — — .850
successful.
Note: Parameter estimates “fixed” to be 0 are reported as dashes (“—”).

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


TABLE IV Final Standardized Regression Weights for the CWAS-11 for Study 2
Item
CWAS1. The work I do on this job is important.
CWAS2. I feel safe at work.
CWAS3. The work I do is meaningful to me.
CWAS4. I have the resources I need to complete my work.
CWAS5. I feel a sense of responsibility to complete my work.
CWAS6. I feel supported by my supervisor.
CWAS7. The work I do makes a contribution to the organization I work for.
CWAS8. I enjoy doing my work.
CWAS9. I have the time I need to do my job well.
CWAS10. I feel supported by my coworkers.
CWAS11. My work has just the right amount of challenge.
scores for the cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioral engagement scales (five items each) was 5 to
25. On the cognitive engagement scale, the CFA
sample had a mean of 12.68 (SD = 3.63; range =
5–25). On the emotional engagement scale, the
CFA sample had a slightly lower mean score of 9.27
(SD = 3.37; range = 5–25), indicating moderate lev-
els of emotional engagement. On the behavioral
engagement scale, the CFA sample had a mean of
9.02 (SD = 3.06; range = 5–25), indicating similar
reporting patterns as emotional engagement.
Nomological and Convergent Validity
To provide further validity evidence, we exam-
ined relationships between our scale scores and
two other measures. First, we explored the CWAS-
11, which was developed for use in the second
study as a general indicator of the antecedents of
employee engagement and used to test for nomo-
logical validity. After establishing acceptable psy-
chometric properties for the CWAS-11 (see below),
in keeping with previous research findings (cf.
Shuck, Adelson, & Reio, 2015; Wollard & Shuck,
2011), we hypothesized that the CWAS-11 would
predict employee engagement (the higher-order
factor that our scale measured). Second, to test
for convergent validity, we hypothesized that our
scales of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
engagement from the EES would moderately cor-
relate with the cognitive, emotional, and physical
engagement scales, respectively, of the JES (Rich
et al., 2010)—one of the more recent measures of
job engagement (e.g., Fletcher & Robinson, 2014;
Shuck & Reio, 2013).
Because we had developed the CWAS-11 for
this study, we examined construct validity by run-
ning a CFA using WLSM-V estimation to account
for the categorical nature of the data. Table IV
provides the standardized regression weights. The
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 965
Estimate
.944
.642
.882
.781
.825
.771
.825
.877
.457
.577
.545
model fit was adequate, with a CFI of .95 and a TLI
of .94 (Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). The mean
χ2 was 247.68 with 44 degrees (p < .001), although
this statistic has inflated Type I error rate with
WLSM-V estimation (Yu, 2002). The reliability of
the CWAS-11 was strong (α = .87).
When we ran a model in which employee
engagement (the higher-order factor measured by
our three scales) was regressed on
CWAS (a factor measured by the 11
items on the scale), the standardized When we ran a model
regression weight was .78 (SE = .03;
p < .001), indicating that for every in which employee
1-SD increase in cognitive work engagement (the
appraisal, employee engagement is
predicted to increase .78 SDs. This higher-order factor
was theoretically and practically
consistent with previous research measured by our
between antecedents of engagement three scales) was
and the experienced psychologi-
cal state of employee engagement regressed on
(cf. Kahn, 1990; Wollard & Shuck,
2011), demonstrating initial levels CWAS (a factor
of nomological validity. measured by the 11
The JES was used as a paral-
lel measure of job engagement items on the scale),
grounded in Kahn’s (1990) opera-
tionalization of personal engage- the standardized
ment. The JES exhibited strong regression weight
internal consistency reliability is
each of its scales (cognitive engage- was .78 (SE = .03;
ment: α = .93; emotional engage-
ment: α = .90; physical engagement: p < .001).
α = .91). To determine whether our
instrument demonstrated con-
vergent validity, we attempted a CFA to exam-
ine the correlations among the scales in the two
surveys. We first attempted to analyze a CFA in
which each of the six scales: cognitive, emotional,
966 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017

TABLE V Correlations among the Six Scales from the Employee Engagement Scale (EES) and the Job
Engagement Scale (JES) (Study 2)
EES JES
CE EE BE CE EE PE
EES CE — .591 .727 .832 .800 .849
EE — — .573 .493 .721 .549
BE — — — .707 .695 .779
JES CE — — — — .770 .811
EE — — — — — .819
PE — — — — — —
Note: EE = emotional engagement; BE = behavioral engagement; CE = cognitive engagement; PE = physical engagement. All scales were
modeled as latent factors except the CE scale from the JES, which was modeled as an observed sum score due to a nonpositive definite
residual covariance matrix.

and behavioral from the EES; and the cogni- Study 3

tive, emotional, and physical engagement from
the JES. The model yielded a residual covariance
matrix that was not positive. Of particular note,
there were problems with several items from the
JES cognitive engagement scale: the sample cor-
relations between items 2 and 3, items 3 and 4,
and items 4 and 6 were .99. Although the JES’s
cognitive engagement scale exhibited significant
methodological problems with our sample, given
its use in the literature, particularly as sum scores,
we next created sum scores for that
scale and included it in the model
Our intent was to rather than treating it as a latent
factor (Adelson, 2012)—the model
produce a short,
estimation terminated normally
easily deployable without further warnings.
Table V provides the correlations
scale that would among the five latent constructs
and one observed sum score. The
appeal to both
three scales on the EES had moder-
scholars and ate correlations, exhibiting greater
discriminant validity than the three
practitioners, all the scales on the JES. As one would
expect, our emotional engagement
while maintaining
scale was most highly correlated
robust psychometric with Rich et al.’s (2010) emotional
engagement scale, and the behav-
properties. ioral engagement scale was most
highly correlated with Rich et al.’s
(2010) physical engagement scale.
Interestingly, our cognitive engagement scale
was highly correlated with all three of Rich et al.’s
(2010) scales, with a slightly stronger correlation
with the physical engagement scale. This could
be due to the operational and narrower measure
of job-specific engagement alongside the more
holistic construct of employee engagement, pro-
viding further evidence of the need for a measure
that captures the full range of energies employees
bring into their work experience.
Purpose
The purpose of Study 3 was to complete a final
reduction of items from 15 to 12 (4 for each sub-
scale, respectively), confirm the factor structure
of the shorter scale, and establish additional
evidence of reliability and nomological validity,
as well as discriminant validity. Our intent was
to produce a short, easily deployable scale that
would appeal to both scholars and practitioners,
all the while maintaining robust psychometric
properties. Guided by research, scale scores from
the EES were correlated to items from established
scales to add to the evidence of nomological and
convergent validity established in Study 2. To
establish additional levels of nomological valid-
ity, we added a set of expected outcomes previ-
ously linked to the construct of engagement.
Specifically, recent research had demonstrated
empirical linkages between engagement and job
satisfaction (Brunetto, Teo, Shacklock, & Farr-
Wharton, 2012; Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, &
LeBreton, 2012; Saks, 2006), discretionary effort
(Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, & Bhargava, 2012;
Shuck, Zigarmi, & Owen, 2015), psychologi-
cal well-being (Shuck & Reio, 2013), and intent
to turn over (Bhatnagar, 2012; Saks, 2006; Shuck
et al., 2014). Finally, through model comparisons
using these measures, we examined evidence of
discriminant validity.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample (N = 1067) for Study 3 was recruited
from a large, regional sampling of employees
who worked in the financial services field across
16 independent work units (i.e., community
relations, human resources, insurance, opera-
tions, risk, and wealth management, among

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


others). Roughly 74 percent (n = 788) of the sam-
ple was female, and most participants identified as
Caucasian. The majority of participants indicated
that they worked in some form of production or
service role (n = 333) followed closely by manager
(n = 246) and administrative/clerical (n = 129). The
largest age group was between age 50 and 59 (n =
242), followed by 40–49 (n = 233) and 30–39 (n =
242). Tenure and size of work unit varied across
the 16 independent work units. Similarly to Study
2, to ensure representation of the sample, we com-
pared the research sample to the general popula-
tion of our study group. Gender, position within
the organization, and age was roughly equivalent
for the targeted population.
Using the same procedures followed in the
first two studies, Dillman et al.’s (2009) four-stage
method and interval scheduling framework was
used to prepare the survey for distribution. The
survey was placed online for administration.
Participation was strictly voluntary, and partic-
ipants were able to opt out of the study at any
point. No significant issues were encountered
with distribution.
Following the same protocol as Study 2, based
on factor loadings, overlap, and expert review of
our scale, we eliminated one question from each
of the three subscales to reduce the overall scale
to 12 items from 15 to deploy the most parsimo-
nious and psychometrically robust scale possible.
This brought the final scale to 12 questions (4
total questions for each subscale).
The EES
Using factor and reliability analysis as well as
expert evaluation, we reduced the 15-item version
of the EES from Study 2 to 12 final items to be
deployed in Study 3. The final version of the scale
was composed of 4 items for each subscale (cog-
nitive engagement, emotional engagement, and
behavioral engagement). Slight semantic tweaks
were made in the cognitive engagement scale
items for ease of readability. All items were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
CWAS-11
The 11-item CWAS from Study 2 was used. Each
question within the scale was designed to tap into
an antecedental dimension of employee engage-
ment. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert
scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item
job satisfaction scale (JSS) developed by Luthans,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 967
Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007). A higher total
score on the JSS represented heightened levels of
participants’ satisfaction with their job. All items
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Discretionary Effort
Discretionary effort was measured using a six-item
discretionary effort scale (DES; Lloyd, 2008). A
higher total score on the DES represented a partic-
ipant’s intention to go above normal job-related
duties. All items were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree.
Psychological Well-Being
Psychological well-being was measured using the
Schwartz outcome scale-10 (Blais et al., 1999). A
higher total score represented heightened levels
of participants’ general well-being. All items were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Intent to Turn Over
Intention to turn over was measured using the
three-item intention to turnover scale (ITS;
Colarelli, 1984). A higher total score on the ITS
represented heightened levels of intention to
leave one’s place of work. All items were measured
on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly dis-
agree and 5 = strongly agree.
CFA Models
We tested the three-factor solution with the
reduced scales (four questions per scale) using
Mplus version 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998)
and WLSM-V estimation. The CFA model had
three latent variables (cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral engagement), which we permitted to
correlate with each other. Both the CFI (.99) and
the TLI (.99) indicated good model fit (Preacher
& MacCallum, 2003). The mean χ2 was 459.89
with 51 degrees of freedom (p < .001), although
Yu (2002) found that this statistic has an inflated
Type I error rate with WLSM-V estimation. All the
unstandardized regression weights (or path coeffi-
cients) were statistically significant, and the stan-
dardized regression weights (Table VI) were all very
strong. The three factors were statistically signifi-
cantly, moderately, and positively related to one
another (emotional and behavioral engagement:
r = .67; emotional and cognitive engagement: r
= .59; behavioral and cognitive engagement: r =
.74).
As in Study 2, we also tested a higher-order
factor model with employee engagement as the
higher-order latent construct. Because the model
968 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
TABLE VI Final Standardized Regression Weights for Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Study 3
Item
CE1. I am really focused when I am working.
CE2. I concentrate on my job when I am at work.
CE3. I give my job responsibility a lot of attention
CE4. At work, I am focused on my job.
EE1. Working at <my current organization> has a great deal of
personal meaning to me.
EE2. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my job.
EE3. I believe in the mission and purpose of <my company>.
EE4. I care about the future of <my company>.
BE1. I really push myself to work beyond what is expected of me.
BE2. I am willing to put in extra effort without being asked.
BE3. I often go above what is expected of me to help my team be
successful.
BE4. I work harder that expected to help <my company> be
successful.
Note: Parameter estimates “fixed” to be 0 are reported as dashes (“—”).
had three lower-order factors previously corre-
lated, this was a statistically equivalent model to
the initial model with the same model fit. The dif-
ference between the models was that rather than
correlations among the three factors, we once
again had regression weights (path coefficients)
for each factor measuring employee engage-
ment. All three were statistically significant and
strong (standardized regression weights: cognitive
engagement = .81, emotional engagement = .73,
and behavior engagement = .92).
Internal Consistency Reliability Analyses for the
Final Full Instrument
All three of the final subscales had strong
internal consistency reliability. Alpha for the
emotional engagement scale was .88, for the
behavioral engagement scale was .91, and for the
cognitive engagement scale was .94.
Scores on items in each scale were summed
to obtain the scale score. The range of possible
scores for the cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioral engagement scales (four items each) was 5
to 20, as each scale had four items measured on
a 5-point Likert scale. The sample for this study
had high levels of engagement. On the cogni-
tive engagement scale, the mean was 17.94 (SD
= 2.15; range = 4–20); on the emotional engage-
ment scale, the mean score was 16.92 (SD = 2.78;
range = 4–20); and on the behavioral engagement
scale, the mean score was 17.84 (SD = 3.06; range
= 5–25).
Emotional Behavioral Cognitive
Engagement Engagement Engagement
.948 — —
.963 — —
.994 — —
.904 — —
— .885 —
— .863 —
— .902 —
— .942 —
— — .932
— — .973
— — .928
— — .868
Nomological and Discriminant Validity
To provide further validity evidence for this short-
ened format of the survey, we examined relation-
ships between our scale and several other measures.
First, we again explored the CWAS-11. After again
establishing acceptable psychometric properties
for the CWAS-11 within the sample for Study 3
(see below), in concert with findings detailed in
Study 2, we hypothesized that the CWAS-11 would
again predict employee engagement (the higher-
order factor that our scales measured). We also
hypothesized that employee engagement would
be positively related to job satisfaction, discretion-
ary effort, and well-being and negatively related
to intent to turn over in keeping with longstand-
ing, well documented research on engagement
(cf. Bhatnagar, 2012; Rich et al, 2010; Saks, 2006;
Shuck & Reio, 2013; Shuck, Zigarmi et al., 2015).
Because the CWAS-11 had been developed
for use in Study 2 as an exploratory tool, we
examined construct validity for a second time
by running a CFA using WLSM-V estimation to
account for the categorical nature of the data.
The model fit was adequate, with a CFI of .94
and a TLI of .93 (Preacher & MacCallum, 2003).
The mean χ2 was 1229.19 with 44 degrees (p <
.001), although this statistic has inflated Type I
error rate with WLSM-V estimation (Yu, 2002).
Additionally, the internal consistency for the
CWAS was .91.
When we ran a model in which employee
engagement (the higher-order factor measured by
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

TABLE VII Latent Construct Correlations between Employee Engagement Scale (EES) and Four Validity
Measures (Study 3)
Job Satisfaction
Engagement .77
Emotional Eng. .75
Cognitive Eng. .65
Behavioral Eng. .52
Note: All correlations significant at p < .001. “Engagement” was a higher-order factor measured by the three engagement subscales.
our three scales) was regressed on CWAS (a factor
measured by the 11 items on the scale), the stan-
dardized regression weight was 0.83 (SE = 0.01; p
< .001), indicating that for every 1-SD increase in
cognitive work appraisal, engagement is predicted
to increase 0.83 SDs, which was very similar to the
findings in Study 2.
Next, guided by research, we correlated
employee engagement as a higher-order factor
measured by our three scales and each individual
scale with job satisfaction, intent to turn over,
discretionary effort, and well-being, treating each
construct as a latent variable. Table VII provides
correlations for each of the constructs and our
measure of employee engagement. As hypoth-
esized, employee engagement had a moderate to
large positive correlation with job satisfaction,
discretionary effort, and well-being (r = .77, .89,
and .62, respectively). As might be expected, the
behavioral engagement subscale had the greatest
correlation with discretionary effort (r = .89) and
emotional engagement had the greatest correla-
tion with job satisfaction (r = .75).1 All three scales
had nearly the same correlation with well-being
(r = .50 to .54). Also as hypothesized, employee
engagement had a moderate negative correlation
with intent to turn over (r = –.54), such that the
more engaged an employee was, the less likely the
employee would intend to leave his or her place of
work. The most strongly correlated scale with ITS
was emotional engagement (r = –.62), with only
small correlations for the cognitive and behav-
ioral subscales (r = –.32 and –.29, respectively).
Due to concerns regarding the distinctiveness
between the outcomes related to the deployed
scales, and as further evidence of employee engage-
ment performing as a distinct construct, we com-
pared three structural models. Model 1 was our
hypothesized model (employee engagement as a
higher-order factor correlated with job satisfac-
tion, intent to turn over, discretionary effort, and
well-being). To test our hypothesis that those mea-
sures would be correlated, we compared Model 1
with Model 2, which was the same as our hypoth-
esized model except that factor correlations were
set at 0. If Model 2 were to have less model-data
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 969
Intent to Turn Over Discretionary Effort Well-Being
-.54 .89 .62
–.62 .55 .54
–.32 .68 .50
–.29 .89 .51
misfit than Model 1, evidence would indicate
that the deployed measures were not correlated,
whereas if Model 1 were to have less model-data
misfit than Model 1, evidence would indicate that,
as hypothesized, those measures are correlated.
Finally, to test whether employee engagement was
a distinct construct from the other
factors in the model (i.e., CWAS,
job satisfaction, discretionary effort, We correlated
psychological well-being, and inten-
employee
tion to turn over), we compared
our hypothesized model (Model 1) engagement as a
with Model 3, which introduced
one higher-order factor measured by higher-order factor
all the constructs. For both model
measured by our
comparisons, we used the DIFFTEST
option in Mplus. Results suggested three scales and
that employee engagement was in
fact correlated with the other factors each individual scale
(χ2 correlated w, p < .001, favoring
with job satisfaction,
Model 1), which was in line with pre-
vious research, yet the factors were intent to turn over,
distinct and could not be treated as
one construct (χ2(5) = 271.48, p < discretionary effort,
.001, favoring Model 1). To provide
and well-being,
further evidence of the distinctness
of the construct (i.e., discriminant treating each
validity), we compared our hypothe-
sized model with one factor predict- construct as a latent
ing all items. Again, results indicated
variable.
that the model with distinct factors
exhibited better model fit (χ2(1035)
= 49607.25, p < .001, favoring Model 1).
To go further, because model-data misfit
might be at play in one factor and not others,
we conducted similar analyses with each factor
independently. We first specified a model with
employee engagement as a higher-order factor
measured by our three scales and with one of the
other individual scales (job satisfaction, intent to
turn over, discretionary effort, or well-being) as
a latent variable. Then we compared that model
with: (1) a model with one factor for all items on
the two scales and (2) a model with the separate
factors but uncorrelated. For all eight model com-
parisons, we found that the original hypothesized
970 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
model had better model fit (p < .001), indicating
the employee engagement was correlated to job
satisfaction, discretionary effort, psychological
well-being, and intent to turn over but performed
as a distinct construct, as measured by those
instruments deployed in this study.
As an additional assessment of discrimi-
nant validity, we calculated several heterotrait-
monotrait (HTMT) ratios of the correlations
(Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015), which is an
alternative approach to the Fornell-Larcker crite-
rion and the examination of cross-loadings and
is based on the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
The HTMT is “the average of the heterotrait-het-
eromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of
indicators across constructs measuring different
phenomena), relative to the average of the mono-
trait-heteromethod correlations (i.e.,
the correlations of indicators within
Evidence of the same construct)” (Henseler et al.,
2015, p. 121). We used the HTMT to
incremental validity
examine the discriminant validity of
is established when the three constructs within the EES
and also to examine the discrimi-
scores on a measure nant validity between the EES and
job satisfaction, intent to turn over,
explain variance over
discretionary effort, well-being, and
and above a second cognitive work appraisal.
The HTMT is an estimate of the
measure evaluating correlation between constructs, so if
the value is smaller than 1.0, then
a similar construct
the true correlation between the
or with a construct constructs is most likely different
from one, indicating they are differ-
that is theoretically ent constructs (i.e., they exhibit dis-
criminant validity). As our criterion,
related.
we used a threshold of .85 because it
is the most likely approach to indi-
cate a lack of discriminant validity (Henseler et al.,
2015). When comparing the three subscores of the
EES, all three had an HTMT value less than .85,
with emotional having the lowest value (.48) and
cognitive having the highest value (.78). When
comparing the EES to job satisfaction, intent to
turn over, discretionary effort, well-being, and
cognitive work appraisal, the HTMT values ranged
from .51 (for intent to turn over) to .76 (for cog-
nitive work appraisal). Thus, all values indicated
discriminant validity among the subscores of the
EES and between the EES and the other measures
deployed in this study.
Study 4
Purpose
The purpose of Study 4 was to test for evidence
of predictive incremental validity. Evidence of
incremental validity is established when scores
on a measure explain variance over and above
a second measure evaluating a similar construct
or with a construct that is theoretically related.
Incremental validity was tested looking at the
variance explained by the EES compared to the
variance explained by the engaged teacher scale
(ETS; Klassen, Yerdelen, & Durksen, 2013)—a mea-
sure of teacher-specific engagement within the
context of the education field alongside measures
of job satisfaction and intention to turn over, in
keeping with the theory that engagement would
be positively related to job satisfaction and nega-
tively related to intention to turn over.
Method
Participants and Procedure
For our final sample (N = 490), participants were
recruited from a sampling of employees in the
education field and who were participating in a
larger study on teacher retention. Of the 490, 67
percent (n = 333) of the sample was female and
most participants identified as Caucasian (n =
382). The largest age groups fell between 36 and
50 years in age (n = 231), followed by 18–35 (n
= 137). Similarly to the previous three studies, to
ensure representation of our sample, we compared
the research sample to the general population of
our study group. Gender and age were roughly
equivalent for the targeted population.
As deployed in the previous studies, the
survey was placed online for administration.
Participation was strictly voluntary and partic-
ipants were able to opt out of the study at any
point. As with the previous studies, no significant
issues were encountered with distribution.
The EES
The 12-item version of the EES from Study 3
was used. The final scale consisted of three sub-
scale dimensions with four items each: cognitive
engagement (e.g., “I am really focused when I am
working”), emotional engagement (e.g., “I feel a
strong sense of belonging to my job”), and behav-
ioral engagement (e.g., “I am willing to put in
extra effort without being asked”). Each subscale
is composed of four questions. All items were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
The Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS)
The ETS was used as a specific measure of teacher
engagement due to the occupational context of
this study. Deployed as a 16-item measure spe-
cific to the engagement level of educators and
those in the education field, the ETS was used a
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

context specific measure of engagement to deploy
alongside the EES to explore incremental valid-
ity. The ETS is composed of four subscales: cog-
nitive engagement, emotional engagement, social
engagement with students, and social engage-
ment with colleagues. In previous work (Klassen
et al., 2013), the ETS was found to correlate highly
with the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2006), a widely
utilized measure of work engagement. All items
were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
CWAS-11
The 11-item CWAS from Studies 2 and 3 was
used for this study. Each item on the CWAS was
designed to tap into an antecedental dimension
of employee engagement and was measured on a
5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree. The researchers realized
that one item had a stem with two components
to it (Item 4: “I have the support and resources
I need to complete my work”). Given that two
other items tapped into “support,” the researchers
slightly modified this one item to be “I have the
resources I need to complete my work.” With this
sample and the modified item, the CWAS-11 con-
tinued to demonstrate strong internal consistency
(α = .87) and acceptable model fit (CFI = .93; TLI =
.91; χ244 = 741.17, p < .001).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a three-item
JSS developed by Luthans et al. (2007) (the same as
in Study 3). All items were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree.
Intent to Turn Over
Intention to turn over was measured using the
3-item ITS (Colarelli, 1984) (the same as in Study
3). All items were measured on a 5-point Likert
scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.
Results
To test for predictive incremental validity of the
EES, we examined the proportion of variance
explained in the CWAS-11, the JSS, and the ITS
by the EES and ETS. Initially, we sought to com-
pare the subscales of the two measures. However,
the subscales of the ETS were found to exhibit a
discriminant validity issue (two subscale correla-
tions were ≥ .85), resulting in a nonpositive defi-
nite variance-covariance matrix. Therefore, we
modeled the ETS as all items loading on one con-
struct, while we modeled the EES as a hierarchical
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 971
TABLE VIII Proportion of Variance Explained (R2) in
Three Outcomes to Demonstrate Incre-
mental Validity (Study 4)
CWAS-11 JSS ITS
ETS scale only .58 .36 .16
ETS and EES scales .82 .54 .25
EES scale only .81 .53 .24
Note: CWAS-11 = cognitive work appraisal scale-11; ITS = intention to turno-
ver scale; ETS = engaged teacher scale; EES = employee engagement scale.
model (one higher-order construct measured by
the three subscale constructs). First, we examined
the proportion of variance explained by the ETS.
Then, we added the EES to the model to deter-
mine the proportion of variance the EES explains
above and beyond the ETS (i.e., incremental valid-
ity, or unique variance explained). As a final step,
we also ran a model with just the EES predicting
the outcomes to compare the pro-
portion of variance explained by
the EES compared to the proportion The EES explained
of variance explained by the ETS.
an additional 9 to 24
In all models, each scale, including
the three outcomes, was treated as percent of variance
a latent construct. (Note, because
the three outcomes were correlated, when added to the
they were included in one model.)
ETS. Remarkably,
As shown in Table VIII, the EES
explained an additional 9 to 24 per- the ETS exhibited
cent of variance when added to the
essentially no
ETS. Remarkably, the ETS exhibited
essentially no incremental validity
incremental validity
over the EES, with the EES explain-
ing 24 to 81 percent of the variabil- over the EES, with
ity in the outcomes.
the EES explaining
Discussion
24 to 81 percent of
Findings from the four independent
studies indicated that the EES was the variability in the
composed of three subfactors (cog-
nitive, emotional, and behavioral) outcomes.
and that the instrument yielded
a higher-order factor—employee
engagement—supported by the three lower-order
factors. We provided evidence of internal consis-
tency and reliability as well as convergent, nomo-
logical, discriminant, and incremental predictive
validity over the course of the four studies includ-
ing job satisfaction, psychological well-being, job
engagement, teacher engagement, and intention
to turn over, in addition to our measure of ante-
cedents, the CWAS-11, which was developed for
use across three simultaneous studies. In the fol-
lowing sections, we detail several implications for
both theory and practice.
972 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
Implications for Theory and Practice in
Human Resources
The major contribution of our work is that
the EES is the first measure designed to mea-
sure employee engagement—not job engage-
ment (JES; Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006), work
engagement (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2006), orga-
nizational engagement (Saks, 2006), or intel-
lectual and/or social engagement (Soane et al.,
2012)—grounded in previously documented
theory and definition. While the JES, UWES,
ISA, and Saks (2006) measures of job and orga-
nizational engagement are robust measures for
nuanced foci, the EES was specifically grounded
in a definition and theoretical framework (cf.
Shuck et al., 2014) focused for unpacking and
explaining the more full spectrum experience
of employee engagement, specifi-
cally (Shuck et al., 2014; Shuck &
The EES provides
Wollard, 2010). As we have previ-
a psychometrically ously noted, scholars have called for
a more detailed understanding of
strong measurement employee engagement as a means
to refine and improve understand-
operationalization
ing of the employee engagement
of that phenomenon construct. The EES provides a psy-
chometrically strong measurement
with strong, grounded operationalization of that phenom-
enon with strong, grounded theo-
theoretical roots,
retical roots, directly responding to
directly responding calls in both theory and practice. In
light of other measures of engage-
to calls in both theory ment-like states, the EES advances
the field forward and contributes
and practice.
to emerging engagement theory by
way of precise measurement and
construct focus (instead of construct entangle-
ment with those measurement tools that may
not fully capture the employee engagement
experience, cf. Shuck, 2011).
For example, as we have mentioned, the JES,
which we used to show convergent validity in
Study 2, uses the postfix “my job” at the end
of every question on the scale (i.e., I work with
intensity on my job [italics added]). The postfix
potentially influences a participant to answer
only to the context of their job—an important
but limited context of the full work experi-
ence. In comparison, only two questions on the
EES end with the postfix “my job.” While job
engagement is important, the employee engage-
ment phenomenon is presented as a broader,
more full experience influenced by environ-
ment conditions, experiences, and interpreta-
tions of in-the-moment occurrences that capture
the complete work experience. To be clear, our
position is that the JES is a sound, psychomet-
rically established measure of job engagement.
Scholars looking for evidence about levels of job
engagement should be encouraged to use mea-
sures such as the JES. However, the JES may not
capture the more broad, unique experiences of
employee engagement. Notwithstanding, in
the Saks (2006) measures of both job and orga-
nizational engagement, participants are asked
to respond to a series of questions concerning
“my job” and “this organization” (p. 617; e.g.,
“I really ‘throw’ myself into my job and being a
member of this organization is very captivating”
[italics added for emphasis]). While the EES does
ask questions about the job and the organiza-
tion, it also seeks information about the team,
doing more than expected, and how someone cares
about their organization. See Table VI.
In support for developing the EES, Saks and
Gruman (2014) lamented, “a top priority is to
develop a valid measure of employee engage-
ment that is truly distinct from other constructs”
(p. 178). They go on to suggest “future research
should focus on the development of new mea-
sures that have their basis in Kahn’s (1990) con-
ceptualization and theory of engagement” (Saks
& Gruman, 2014, p. 178). Purcell (2014) sug-
gested that to move the concept of employee
engagement forward, we must “build on the
key advantage of the focus on employees, their
beliefs, values, behaviors, and experiences at
work in a way not seen before the mainstream”
(Purcell, 2014, p. 251). The development of the
EES responds directly to these calls for the further
refinement, as well as those of Albrecht (2010)
and Cole et al. (2011), who both advocated for
further psychometric exploration of Kahn’s origi-
nal conceptualization of engagement and the
three-dimensional model of engagement (i.e.,
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral; Shuck &
Wollard, 2010). The EES is theoretically grounded
in Kahn’s (1990) original conceptualization and
rooted in theory that supported Kahn’s “theory
generating ethnographic research” (Rich et al.,
2010, p. 618).
We also note that previous work on employee
engagement has almost exclusively relied on the
UWES for the measurement of engagement as evi-
denced by continued mounting citations and ref-
erences in emerging research and doctoral work
across the globe (see for example, Sarti, 2014).
This is troubling given that several independent
research reports have called into question the use
of the UWES on the grounds of concept redun-
dancy (Cole et al., 2011; Nimon et al., 2016; Saks
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

& Gruman, 2014). As for the EES, we believe that
employee engagement represents something
unique—an independent phenomenon—that
connotes positive energy directed toward some
target and that this happens cognitively, emo-
tionally, and behaviorally, not as the opposite
of something. Certainly, scholars and practitio-
ners who wish to study the burnout perspective
of engagement, or work engagement specifically,
should be encouraged to use a measure such as
the UWES if it fits their purpose, scope, and beliefs
about what engagement is. Notwithstanding, the
UWES measures work engagement, not employee
engagement and the EES measures employee
engagement, not work engagement (in the same
way that the JES measures job engagement).
Further, based on the results of Study 4 and the
discriminant validity issues we encountered with
the ETS, we recommend administering the EES
in place of and not in addition to the ETS when
studying engagement within the occupational
contexts of education.
Finally, we note the introduction of the
CWAS-11, a secondary focus of our work, meant
to connect more broadly to those resources and
antecedents of engagement alluded to by Saks
and Gruman (2014) in their developing theory
of employee engagement and connected to pre-
vious work by Wollard and Shuck (2011). Before
moving forward, we note the much more com-
prehensive work cognition inventory (WCI;
Nimon et al., 2011) and work cognition inven-
tory-revised (WCI-R; Nimon & Zigarmi, 2014)
as a robust, more nuanced battery of anteceden-
tal factors connected to the influencing condi-
tions of employee engagement. The CWAS-11 is
not meant to be an exhaustively comprehensive
tool, but rather an easily deployable measure of
those antecedental conditions often referred to
in the research literature but hard to capture due
to survey fatigue and increasingly complex mod-
els. Similar in function to other short, anteceden-
tal scales (e.g., the Gallup Q12; Harter, Schmidt,
& Hayes, 2002), the CWAS-11 scale connects
conceptually and theoretically with the WCI
(Nimon et al., 2011) as well as research on the
antecedental conditions of engagement targeted
in research (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990;
Saks, 2006; Wollard & Shuck, 2011). More spe-
cifically, the coupling of the CWAS-11 and the
EES connects the first two pieces of the engage-
ment puzzle that Nimon et al. (2011) discussed
in their work—the appraisal and the phenom-
enon. The presentation of these data represents
one of the first empirical testings of this puzzle
simultaneously.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 973
Limitations and Implications for Future
Research
No measure in its initial presentation is devoid of
limitations. In the following, we highlight three
major limitations of our work and potential impli-
cations for future research.
Issues of Validity and Reliability
First, there is a need for further psychometric test-
ing of the EES including additional evidence of
convergent, discriminant, and nomological valid-
ity. For example, although we established a level
of nomological and convergent validity with the
CWAS-11 and the JES (Rich et al., 2010), we wonder
how the EES might perform alongside other mea-
sures of engagement (the ISA; Soane et al., 2012;
organizational engagement; Saks,
2006), as well as measures of satisfac-
tion, commitment, and involvement The CWAS-11 is
(as a means to test for nomologi-
not meant to be
cal validity). We would advocate
the use of the EES alongside other an exhaustively
constructs commonly associated
with employee engagement, such comprehensive tool,
as affective commitment, job fit,
but rather an easily
well-being, and psychological work-
place climate, among others. There deployable measure
is an exhaustive list of variables that
could be explored alongside the EES of those antecedental
presenting fruitful implications for
conditions often
future research.
Also, we recommend that future referred to in the
studies focus on developing addi-
tional levels of criterion evidence research literature
related to the validity of the EES
but hard to capture
scale. This could include further
validation work (e.g., examining for due to survey fatigue
evidence of measurement invari-
ance across groups; Nimon & Reio, and increasingly
2011), reliability, and test-retest
complex models.
applications. Future research might
also focus on the development of a
short form of the EES. Such a short form should
be administered stand-alone to examine whether
the psychometric properties as well as exter-
nal validity evidence uphold. Further, although
consistent with prior instrument development
research (Waltz et al., 2005), an additional limita-
tion regarding future scale development may have
been the use of only two expert panelists for the
CVR (Lawshe, 1975) technique used in Study 1.
Lawshe (1975) suggested that five or more par-
ticipants was ideal for using the CVR and conse-
quently, future research that works to shorten the
EES could deploy a more robust practice of the
974 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017

CVR in determining which items to retain and Connecting Measures of Performance

which to discard.
Independent Sample Characteristics
Second, although the four samples from this study
came from unique sample pools, we cannot ensure
that the samples were completely independent, as
we did not track unique identifiers across studies
that would have indicated this level of informa-
tion. Similarly, although we did ask participants
about their industry, we cannot make any claims
related to any one specific industry or market,
level of position, or other demographic. This is a
limitation of our work, but also a future research
opportunity. Scholars who chose to use the EES
might establish very specific connections to work
groups, industries, and cultures that could high-
light the applicability of the EES in
a variety of settings, with a variety
We recommend of locations, and in multiple cul-
tures. We also have no longitudinal
scholars apply
data to display that would indicate
a variety of how the EES might operate over
time. Again, this is a limitation of
performance related our work but also a possible oppor-
tunity for future research. The lack of
constructs to the
longitudinal data represents a fourth
EES as means to issue—common method variance—
that we must attend to. To reduce
extend the known the likelihood of CMV, we took both
procedural and statistical approaches
boundaries of the EES
following the guidance of Reio (2010)
as well as to deploy and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and
Podsakoff (2003). The steps we took
the EES in a variety of included assuring participants of
anonymity and that there were no
contexts and settings.
right or wrong answers as well as
using Harman’s one-factor diagnos-
tic. There was no evidence of CMV
bias in Study 1 or Study 2, although we note the
issue of CMV is rarely fully mitigated (Reio, 2010).
Finally, this initial work did not link the EES to
any distal measures of performance. Connecting
to measures such as turnover, effort, and/or
production rates would be telling for engage-
ment scholars in establishing the psychometric
limitations of the EES. This is a fruitful oppor-
tunity for scholars to take the next steps in
establishing the usability of the EES. We recom-
mend scholars apply a variety of performance
related constructs to the EES as means to extend
the known boundaries of the EES as well as to
deploy the EES in a variety of contexts and set-
tings. Connecting measures of performance
with the EES could help practitioners allocate
strategic resources toward certain measurement
of performance influenced by higher levels of
engagement.
Authors’ Note
The employee engagement scale (EES) and cogni-
tive work appraisal scale-11 (CWAS-11) are per-
mitted for broad use in noncommercial settings,
including but not limited to academically focused
research to include dissertations and theses and
original works of scholarship and grant activity
within the limitations of the publication copy-
right, so long as this work is  appropriately  and
correctly cited. To use either instrument in a
commercial or for-profit setting, or for questions
regarding permission of use, please contact Brad
Shuck at brad.shuck@louisville.edu. An earlier ver-
sion of this manuscript was presented at the 2015
AHRD International Conference.
Note
1. Previous research (e.g., Nimon et al., 2016) has indi-
cated that the construct of job satisfaction could con-
tain high levels of affect.

BRAD SHUCK is associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Evalua-

tion, and Organizational Development at the University of Louisville. His primary areas of
research include the application, meaning, and measurement of employee engagement,
emerging areas of positive psychology, and leader development. His research has appeared
in refereed journals such as  Leadership and Organizational Studies, the Journal of Happi-
ness Studies, Human Resource Development Review, Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, Human Resource Development
International, Group and Organizational Management, Journal of Children’s Health Care, and
the Journal of Management Development; and his work has been highlighted in interna-
tional media outlets including Forbes, The Washington Post, and TIME. Shuck was named
the 2016 Early Career Scholar by the Academy of Human Resource Development and has
received several awards for his work including the AHRD Excellence in Scholarly Practice

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

 THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 975

(2016), the Child-Life Council Research-to-Practice Award (2015), the E. F. Holton III Outstand-
ing Article of the Year (2013 and 2015) and the Advances in Developing Human Resources
Outstanding Issue of the Year  (2011). He holds faculty affiliate status with the Department
of Counseling and Human Development (University of Louisville) and the US Army Cadet-
Command. He is director of the Leadership, Engagement, and Development Lab (LEADLab),
a multidisciplinary research team focused on understanding how human beings interact with
their places of work.

JILL L. ADELSON is an associate professor in the educational psychology, measurement, and

evaluation program at the University of Louisville. She earned her doctorate in educational
psychology with a joint emphasis in measurement, evaluation, and assessment and in gifted
education at the University of Connecticut. As a translational methodologist, Her research
involves applying advanced methods, including multilevel modeling and structural equation
modeling, to study important substantive issues in a variety of fields as well as methodologi-
cal dissemination.

THOMAS G. REIO JR. is professor of adult education and human resource development and
associate dean of graduate studies at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. He
is a past editor of Human Resource Development Review and is currently associate editor
of Human Resource Development Quarterly. His research concerns curiosity and risk-taking
motivation, workplace socialization processes, workplace incivility, and workplace learning.
His work has been published in leading journals in education, business, and psychology,
including Personality and Individual Differences, Journal of School Psychology, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Human Resource Development
International, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and the Journal of School Psychology.

References Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychologi-

Adelson, J. L. (2012). Examining relationships and effects
in gifted research: An introduction to structural equa-
tion modeling. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 47–55. doi:
0.1177/0016986211424132
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S.
(2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and
turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engage-
ment. Career Development International, 17, 208–230. doi:
10.1108/13620431211241063
Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement:
Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham,
England: Edward Elgar.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008), Toward a model of
work engagement. Career Development International, 13,
209–223. doi: 10. 1108/130 62043081080478
Bhatnagar, J. (2012). Management of innovation: Role of
psychological empowerment, work engagement and
turnover intention in the Indian context. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 928–951.
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2012.651313
Blais, M. A., Lenderking, W. R., Baer, L., de Lorell, A., Peets,
K., Leahy, L., & Burns, C. (1999). Development and initial
validation of a brief mental health outcome measure.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 359–373. doi:
10.1207/S15327752JPA7303_5
Brief, A. K., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior:
Affect and the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 279–307.
cal climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
358–368. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.81.4.358
Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T., Shacklock, K., & Farr-Wharton, R.
(2012). Emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being
and engagement: Explaining organisational commitment
and turnover intentions in policing. Human Resource
Management Journal, 22, 428–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1748
-8583.2012.00198.x
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work
engagement: A quantitative review and test of its rela-
tions with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 89–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010
.01203.x
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic
issues in objective scale development. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and
mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 633–642.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H.
(2011). Job burnout and employee engagement:
A meta-analytic examination of construct prolif-
eration. Journal of Management, 38, 1550–1581. doi:
10.1177/0149206311415252
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Leighton, N., Xu, J., & Knight-Turvey,
N., 2010. Measuring change: Does engagement flour-
ish, fade, or stay true? In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of
employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

976 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2017
and practice (pp. 87–97). Northhampton, MA: Edward
Elgar.
Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M.
(2012). The relative importance of employee engagement,
other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job
performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42,
295–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01017.x
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Inter-
net, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design
method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fletcher, L., & Robinson, D. (2014). Measuring and under-
standing engagement. In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge,
A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in
theory and practice (pp. 273–290). New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Gruman, J., & Saks, A. (2011). Performance management
and employee engagement. Human Resource Manage-
ment Review, 21, 123–136. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004
Guest, D. (2014). Employee engagement: Fashionable fad or
long-term fixture? In C. Truss, K. Alfes, R. Delbridge, A.
Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in the-
ory and practice (pp. 221–235). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-
unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. doi:
10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new crite-
rion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 692–724. doi: 10.2307/256287
Kahn, W., & Heaphy, E. (2014). Relational contexts of
personal engagement at work. In C. Truss, K. Alfes,
R. Delbridge, A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee
engagement in theory and practice (pp. 82–96). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341
Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measure-
ments. New York, NY: World Book.
Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T. L. (2013). Measur-
ing teacher engagement: Development of the engaged
teachers scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2),
33–52.
Kühnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. (2009). Does work
engagement increase after a short respite? The role of job
involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 575–594.
Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job char-
acteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305–312.
doi: 10.1037/h0029692 10.1037/h0029692
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content
validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. doi: 10.1111/
j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Lloyd, R. (2008). Discretionary effort and the performance
domain. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organi-
zational Psychology, 1, 22–34.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfac-
tion. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and meas-
urement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 49, 24–33. doi: 10.1037/h0021692
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and rela-
tionship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology, 60, 541–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007
.00083.x
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of
employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 3–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). Psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and
the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
doi: 10.1348/096317904322915892
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The meas-
urement of organizational commitment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 14, 224–247. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(79)
90072-1
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus Users
Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., Sparkman, T. E., & Carpenter,
N. C. (2011). Invited reaction: The work cognition inven-
tory: Initial evidence of construct validity. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 22, 37–47. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20065
Nimon, K., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2011). Measurement invariance:
A foundational principle for quantitative theory building.
Human Resource Development Review, 10, 198–214. doi:
10.1177/1534484311399731
Nimon, K., Shuck, B., & Zigarmi, D. (2016). Construct overlap
between employee engagement and job satisfaction: A
function of semantic equivalence? Journal of Happiness
Studies, 17(3), 1149-1171. doi: 10.1007/s10902-015-9636-6.
Nimon, K., & Zigarmi, D. (2014). The work cognition inven-
tory: Initial evidence of construct validity for the revised
form. Journal of Career Assessment. (Advance online
publication.) doi: 1069072714523241
Nimon, K., Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J.
(2011). The work cognition inventory: Initial evidence of
construct validity. Human Resource Development Quar-
terly, 22, 7–35. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20064
Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2011). Understanding active
psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider
nomological net and closer attention to performance.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 20, 60–67. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2010.532869
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making
sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for
instrument development in health care research. London,
England: Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom
Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understand-
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

ing statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Educa-
tion, and the Social Sciences, 2(1), 13–43. doi: 10.1207/
s15328031us0201_02
Purcell, J. (2014). Disengaging from engagement. Human
Resource Management Journal, 24, 241–254. doi:
10.1111/1748-8583.12046
Reio, T. G., Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance
bias in theory building. Human Resource Development
Review, 9, 405–411. doi: 10.1177/1534484310380331
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job
engagement: Antecedents and effects on job perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988
Rurkkhun, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The relation-
ship between employee engagement and organi-
zational citizenship behavior in Thailand. Human
Resource Development International, 15, 157–174. doi:
10.1080/13678868.2012.664693
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychol-
ogy, 21, 600–619. doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we really know
about employee engagement? Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly, 25, 155–182. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21187
Sarti, D. (2014). Job resources as antecedents of engage-
ment at work: Evidence from a long-term care setting.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 213–237.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21189
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The
measurement of work engagement with a short question-
naire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,
701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bak-
ker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and
burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi:
10.1023/A:1015630930326
Scrima, F., Lorito, L., Parry, E., & Falgares, G. (2013). The
mediating role of work engagement on the relationship
between job involvement and affective commitment.
International Journal of Human Resource Management,
25, 2159–2173. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.862289
Shuck, B. (2011). Four emerging perspectives of employee
engagement: An integrative literature review. Human
Resource Development Review, 10, 304–328. doi:
10.1177/1534484311410840
Shuck, B., Adelson, J., & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2015). The employee
engagement scale: Initial evidence of construct validity
and implications for HRD. In J. Moats (Ed.), Academy of
Human Resource Development Conference, St. Louis,
MO.
Shuck, B., Ghosh, R., Zigarmi, D., & Nimon, K. (2013). The jin-
gle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration
of the emerging construct & implications for workplace
learning and performance. Human Resource Develop-
ment Review, 12, 11–35. doi: 10.1177/1534484312463921
Shuck, B., Nimon, K., & Zigarmi, D. (2016). Untangling the
predictive nomological validity of employee engage-
ment: Decomposing variance in employee engagement
using job attitude measures. Group and Organiza-
tional Management. (Advance online publication.) doi:
10.1177/1059601116642364
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SCALE 977
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. (2011). The employee engage-
ment landscape and HRD. Advances in Devel-
oping Human Resources, 13, 419–428. doi:
10.1177/1523422311431153
Shuck, B., & Reio, T. (2013). Employee engagement and well-
being: A moderation model and implications for practice.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21,
43–58. doi: 10.1177/1548051813494240
Shuck, B., & Reio, T., & Rocco, T. (2011). Employee engage-
ment: An examination of antecedent and outcome vari-
ables. Human Resource Development International, 14,
427–445. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.601587
Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio, T. G., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human
resource development practices and employee engage-
ment: Examining the connection with employee turnover
intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25,
239–270. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21190
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engage-
ment and HRD: A seminal review of the founda-
tions. Human Resource Development 9, 89–110. doi:
10.1177/1534484309353560
Shuck, B., Zigarmi, D., & Owen, J. (2015). Psychological
needs, employee engagement, and work intentions: A
Bayesian multi-measurement mediation approach and
implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and
Development, 39, 2–21. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-08-2014-0061
Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby,
M. (2012). Development and application of a new meas-
ure of employee engagement: The ISA engagement scale.
Human Resource Development International, 15, 529–547.
doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.726542
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory fac-
tor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Vroom, V. H. (1962). Ego-involvement, job satisfaction, and
job performance. Personnel Psychology, 15, 159–177. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01858.x
Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measure-
ment in nursing and health research (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Springer.
Wildermuth, C., Vaughan, A. G., & Christo-Baker, E. A. (2013).
A path to passion: Connecting personality, psychological
conditions, and emotional engagement. Journal of Psy-
chological Issues in Organizational Culture, 3, 18–45. doi:
10.1002/jpoc.21082
Wollard, K. K., & Shuck, B. (2011). Antecedents to employee
engagement. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
13, 429–446. doi: 10.1177/1523422311431220
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A
diary study on the role of job and personal resources.
Journal of Occupation and Organizational Psychology,
82, 183–200.doi: 10.1348/096317908X285633
Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton,
B. A. (2013). Work engagement as a mediator between
employee attitudes and outcomes. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 24, 2799–2823. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2013.763844
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices
for latent variable models with binary and continuous
outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). University of California
Los Angeles.