See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263967460

Innovation Work Engagement in India: Validation of the Utrecht Work

Engagement Innovation Additional services and information for

Article in Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation · September 2013

DOI: 10.1177/2319510X13519322

CITATIONS READS

8 766

3 authors:

Aakanksha Kataria Pooja Garg

Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
27 PUBLICATIONS 497 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 1,453 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Renu Rastogi
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
61 PUBLICATIONS 1,754 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pooja Garg on 17 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research
and Innovation
http://abr.sagepub.com/

Work Engagement in India: Validation of the Utrecht Work Engagement

Aakanksha Kataria, Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 2013 9: 249
DOI: 10.1177/2319510X13519322

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://abr.sagepub.com/content/9/3/249

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Asia-Pacific Institute of Management

Additional services and information for Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://abr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://abr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://abr.sagepub.com/content/9/3/249.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 26, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014

Article

Work Engagement in India: Validation Asia-Pacific Journal of Management

Research and Innovation

of the Utrecht Work Engagement

9(3) 249–260
© 2013 Asia-Pacific
Institute of Management
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Aakanksha Kataria Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/2319510X13519322
Pooja Garg http://apjmri.sagepub.com
Renu Rastogi

Abstract
This study aims at delineating the recent worldwide developments in the factorial structure of popular work engagement measure,
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) and exploring its psychometric properties in terms of factorial validity, scale reliability,
descriptive statistics and discriminant validity in an Indian sample of working population. The study is based on cross-sectional question-
naire survey responses from 304 Indian employees working in ITES. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to compare the fit of
a three-factor model to that of an alternative one-factor model of UWES-9 followed by an analysis of discriminant validity of UWES-9
in relation to organisational citizenship behaviour questionnaire (OCBQ) and organisational commitment questionnaire (OCQ) using
chi-square difference tests. A comprehensive review of validation studies of UWES across other nations of the world in different time,
culture and context represents instability of its factorial structure. Empirical evidences demonstrate a better fit of multidimensional
structure of UWES-9 in comparison to that of unidimensional solution for the construct in the Indian context and support the dis-
criminant validity of UWES-9 against OCQ and OCBQ. The study provides first direct evidence for the psychometric properties and
unique identification of the UWES-9 in the Indian context.

Keywords
Work engagement, UWES, OCBQ, OCQ, discriminant validity, confirmatory factor analysis

Introduction the most illustrious positive organisational construct origi-

Since the dawn of this century, the positive psychology
movement has been conducive to bring about a positivity-
based focus shift in the domain of occupational health psy-
chology (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris, 2008; Storm &
Rothmann, 2003) while eradicating the traditional psycho-
pathological view within every aspect of human life related
to deficits and malfunctioning. For instance, instead of
focusing on the conditions that create stress or burnout at
workplace, occupational health psychology seeks to shed a
new light on the well-being of employees. In fact, the pro-
creative integration of positive psychology towards the
positive paradigm of organisational settings (Luthans,
2002) has led to a paradigm shift from the traditional
notions of job satisfaction, involvement and organisational
commitment to the more comprehensive and dynamic
approach of ‘engagement at work’. Noted in this direction,
nated recently and recognised widely in present times is
work engagement (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Shuck, Reio
& Rocco, 2011), the continuance of which goes beyond the
other established variables of well-being. This is because
‘engagement’ involves the active use of emotional, cogni-
tive and behavioural energy while focusing on interactions
of (and between) employers and employees while they are
working in consonance with the organisation’s objectives
and strategy (Andrew & Sofian, 2011). Work engagement
is a vital element that affects organisational effectiveness,
innovation and competitiveness (Welch, 2011).
The notion of work engagement has led to the gene-
sis of a whole new world of research, discussions and
logics that not only enhance the well-being of employees
at workplace, but also tout a great practical utility since
its inception in organisational sciences. In this regard,
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli,

Aakanksha Kataria, Research Scholar, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IITR),
Roorkee, India. E-mail: aks2530@gmail.com
Pooja Garg, Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IITR),
Roorkee, India. E-mail: gargpdhs@gmail.com
Renu Rastogi, Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee,
India. E-mail: renurfhs@iitr.ernet.in
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
250
Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli,
Taris & Bakker, 2006) is a well established and widely
used instrument for measuring the work engagement of
workers and employees across the world. Though the scale
has been made available for all academic and practical pur-
poses, and is being increasingly used among researchers
and practitioners in India, its psychometric properties have
yet to be investigated rigorously to validate the applicabil-
ity in the Indian context. In fact, there is a little empirical
evidence in terms of validation of the UWES in India
where substantial popularity and potential utility of the
concept for the well-being of Indian workers calls for
the identification of a valid and reliable instrument to
measure and evaluate employees’ level of engagement at
the earliest. India is a multicultural society which employs
individuals of diverse cultural backgrounds.
Keeping this in mind, the present article seeks to
address three research questions with regard to the assess-
ment of different aspects of reliability and validity of the
UWES-9 in the Indian context. First, are the psychometric
properties of the UWES-9 similar in India to other coun-
tries? Second, does the three- or one-factor model of
engagement exhibit greater discriminant validity? Third,
what is the relationship between engagement measured
by the UWES, affective organisational commitment mea­
sured by organisational commitment questionnaire (OCQ)
and organisational citizenship measured by OCBQ in the
Indian context?
Work Engagement
Engagement refers to ‘an individual employee’s cogni-
tive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward de-
sired organizational outcomes’ (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
Engaged employees put their heart and mind to work, and
have consistently shown to be more productive, profitable,
safer, healthier and less likely to turnover (Fleming &
Asplund, 2007; Wagner & Harter, 2006; Wollard, 2011). In
addition, engaged employees have a sense of energetic and
affective connection with their work activities, and they
see themselves as able to deal well with the demands of
their jobs (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Therefore, work engage-
ment is assumed to be negatively related to burnout
(Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1996; Maslach & Leiter, 1997;
Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002;
Shimazu et al., 2008). As an antipode of burnout, work
engagement has been conceptualised as a multidimen-
sional construct in terms of vigour, dedication and absorp-
tion where vigour and dedication, which represent energy
and identification, are observed as the direct opposites
of the two core burnout dimensions, viz., emotional
exhaustion and cynicism, respectively (Maslach & Leiter,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
Aakanksha Kataria, Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
1997; Schaufeli et al., 2002). The third dimension of
engagement—‘absorption’ has been recognised as another
relevant and distinct aspect of engagement (Schaufeli,
et al. 2002). Hence, burnout displays the pathological
purview of psychology that centres its attention on the
impairment process of human health whereas work
engagement colligates positive human energies (physical,
emotional and cognitive) to work and at the same time
emphasises the positive side of psychology. Hence, in a
certain way engagement and burnout have been observed
as two extreme opposite expressions of well-being. More
specifically, work engagement is most favourably and fre-
quently conceived as a positive, fulfilling, work related
state of well-being characterised by vigour, dedication and
absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002). Vigour
refers to the high levels of energy and mental resilience
at work and the willingness to invest effort in one’s work
and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication
explicates being strongly involved in one’s work and expe-
riencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm and challenge.
Absorption is characterised by the total focus on one’s
work such as time passes quickly and one finds it difficult
to detach himself from work.
Based on the above-mentioned definition that delineates
three constituents of engagement, (i) vigour, (ii) dedication
and (iii) absorption, a self report questionnaire—the UWES
was developed to measure these underlying dimensions:
vigour, dedication and absorption by Schaufeli, Salanova
et al. (2002) and Schaufeli et al. (2006). Noted in this direc-
tion, work engagement is a superordinate, second order
construct as it is manifested by its three dimensions
(Edwards, 2001). The UWES has been one of the most
frequently used instruments of engagement in academic
literature (Wefald, Mills, Smith & Downey, 2012). At the
outset, UWES consisted of 24 items but after subsequent
psychometric testing, using large multi-sample method,
UWES-17 was developed. More recently, the UWES-17
has been revised and a shortened version of UWES-9 has
also been developed with similar psychometric properties
and observed the same theoretically based three-factor
structure of work engagement as in UWES-17 (Schaufeli
et al., 2006). Further, it is observed that the UWES-9
has good construct validity and practical utility (Schaufeli
et al., 2006; Seppälä et al., 2009) over UWES-17. In
fact, the UWES-9 has been found to be superior (better fit)
to the original UWES-17 (Shimazu et al., 2008). One
possible explanation is the fact that UWES-9 consists of
as few items as possible which reduce the likelihood
of attrition to a scale measuring the construct (Schaufeli
et al., 2006).
Though the structure of work engagement has been
observed to be best represented by a multidimensional
Work Engagement in India251
model, but due to the high interrelation observed among its
three factors (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli, Martinez et al., 2002; Schaufeli et
al., 2006), there are evidences that work engagement
is a unidimensional construct (Shimazu et al., 2008). For
instance, while evaluating the validity of the Japanese
version of UWES-9, Shimazu et al. (2008) found and
reported the supremacy of UWES-9 as a one-factor struc-
ture over the three-dimensional model of work engagement
in their study. Storm and Rothmann (2003) have also
observed a better fit of one-factor work engagement model
in their study. While Seppälä et al. (2009) have observed a
better fit of correlated three-dimensional structure due to
the high correlations found between the dimensions, they
acknowledged work engagement as both a unidimensional
and a three-dimensional construct. Furthermore, Wefald
et al. (2012) provided a distinct finding of neither an
optimal fit of one-factor structure nor an ideal fit of three-
factor structure of work engagement in a recent study, and
thus adding to the unresolved issue concerning stability of
factorial structure of the construct. Based on a collective
review of major influential confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) studies that examined psychometric properties of
the UWES, Table 1 highlights the dynamic aspects of
validity and reliability of UWES across different countries
of the world. In sum, the research findings warrants cross
validation of the construct in different work culture and
organisational settings.
Though the concept of engagement has been widely
used and discussed for about 20 years now, on the other
side of the coin, it has been the subject of the greatest
amount of misconception concerning its unique existence
in organisational sciences. For instance, it is often miscon-
strued with the already existing terminologies such as job
involvement, organisational commitment, OCB, etc., in
ways that view engagement as an overlapping construct or
an umbrella term for some previously established variables
such as job satisfaction, job involvement, organisational
commitment, proactive behaviour or OCBs (Frank,
Finnegan & Taylor, 2004; Macey & Schneider, 2008;
Robinson, Perryman & Hayday, 2004; Viljevac, Cooper-
Thomas & Saks, 2012; Wefald & Downey, 2009; Wefald
et al., 2012). Further, work engagement is most commonly
outlined in terms of extra-role performance, discretionary
efforts or OCBs (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler & Basis, 2009;
Macey & Schnieder, 2008), and is defined using defini-
tions such as, ‘engagement is the extent to which an
employee puts discretionary effort into his work, beyond
the formal requirements of one’s job’. Hallberg and
Schaufeli (2006) state that the conceptualisation of work
engagement involves commitment in terms of being fully
engrossed and attachment to one’s work. Sometimes it is
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
superficially described in terms of employees’ emotional
attachment to their work and organisation or as the level
of commitment and involvement employee has towards
organisation and its values. Recently, Wefald et al. (2012)
have reported the redundancy of Schaufeli’s work engage-
ment measure with affective organisational commitment
in their study. In a more recent study, UWES failed to
demonstrate discriminant validity with regard to job
satisfaction, and less distinctiveness against job involve-
ment and intention to stay (Viljevac et al., 2012). As a
matter of fact, the notion of work engagement has been
sailing on the troubled waters for its unique existence
in organisational research and practice. Hence, for work
engagement to be viewed as a distinct and valid construct,
its ability to discriminate against other adjacent con-
structs must be established (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).
Given the direction, the present study seeks to investigate
whether work engagement can be empirically separated
from the previously established constructs of OCB (Organ,
1988) and organisational commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1997).
The article seeks to explore the psychometric properties
of UWES-9 in an Indian sample of working population.
More specifically, the study aims (i) to evaluate its factorial
validity, (ii) to examine the scale reliability through
Cronbach’s alpha and inter-item correlation and (iii) to
investigate the discriminant validity. In evaluating its fac-
torial validity, the study compares the fit of a one-factor
model to that of a theoretically based three-factor model of
work engagement. For this purpose, two models were
tested while postulating a priori that engagement is a three-
factor structure (M1) composed of vigour, dedication and
absorption; it is presented schematically in Figure 1. It was
expected that engagement responses can be explained by
these three factors and the factors are highly correlated
with each other. Although it is seemingly obvious from the
theoretical development that the structure of work engage-
ment is best represented by a multidimensional model,
there are still researches who contend that work engage-
ment is a unidimensional construct (Shimazu et al., 2008).
Thus, to determine the factorial validity, an alternative one-
factor structure (M2) of the construct was also tested,
which is presented schematically in Figure 1. Discriminant
validity of the UWES-9 was evaluated with regard to the
two other constructs such as organisational commitment
and organisational citizenship behaviours. Discriminant
validity was assessed for the pairs of constructs. For this
purpose, a test of discriminant validity (chi-square differ-
ence test) was used, where the chi-square values for two
models were compared (Chin, 1998) for each category
comprising work engagement and organisational commit-
ment and work engagement and OCB.
 Table 1. Major Research Studies Investigating the Psychometric Properties of UWES in Different Cultural Contexts

Associated
Researchers Sample Data Analysis Technique Specific Objectives Major Findings
1. Storm and 2,396 South African – Descriptive statistics, – Investigating the psychometric properties – All the three subscales are internally consistent
Rothmann police members Correlation analysis, of UWES-17 (construct validity and – UWES is not a biased instrument and can be used to compare
(2003) – Cross-sectional Construct equivalence internal consistencies) work engagement of different race groups
survey design and exploratory factor – Exploring the factorial validity for – Unidimensional structure of UWES fits the data better in
analysis using SAS different race groups comparison to the three-factor structure
programme
– SEM using AMOS
2. Hallberg and 521 Swedish IT Correlation analysis, CFA – Discriminant validity of the UWES that – Work engagement, job involvement and organisational
Schaufeli professionals, using LISREL 8 is, empirical distinctiveness between commitment reflect different aspects of work attachment
(2006) management work engagement, job involvement and containing reciprocal theoretical references to each other
consultants and organisational commitment and their  They are related but do not overlap to the extent of redundancy
admininstrative associations with health complaints, job to be actualised
personnel and personal characteristics and turnover – Both the models unidimensional and three-structural showed
intentions equivalent fit, due the high inter correlations between the three
– Evaluating psychometric properties factors, one-factor structure of UWES-9 is recommended
(factorial validity & internal consistency)
of Swedish UWES-9
3. Shimazu 2,324 Japanese SEM methods using – Validating Japanese version of UWES – UWES-9 fits the data better than UWES-17
et al. (2008) employees (engineers AMOS (comparison between UWES-17 and – One-factor model of UWES-9 had better predictive validity of
and nurses) UWES-9, evaluation of factorial and engagement than the multidimensional model
– Multi-sample construct validity) – Work engagement is a distinct construct yet related to burnout,
method – Examining work engagement in relation strain and job satisfaction. Though no causal order could be
with other well-being constructs determined
(Burnout, Strain and Job satisfaction)
4. Seppälä et al. 9,404 Finnish CFA (SEM) using LISREL – Examining the factor structure, – Multidimensional structure of UWES-17 & 9
(2009) participants factorial group and time invariance – Three-factor structure of UWES-9 is relatively time variant
from divergent of UWES-17 & 9 and UWES-9 has a good construct validity in comparison to
occupational groups

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014

– Exploring the rank-order stability of work the UWES-17
– Multi-sample engagement – UWES-9 has been recommended for future use and work
method engagement has been established as a highly stable indicator of
occupational well-being
5. Muilenburg- 227 employees Descriptive Statistics, – Examining the psychometric – Neither a one-factor model nor three-factor model showed
Trevino from two non-profit Multiple regression properties of work engagement adequate fit, however, a revised three-factor structure fitted
(2009) organisations analysis, Exploratory (UWES-17) in an American sample the data sufficiently
factor analysis, CFAs – Determining the associations – EFA supported a unidimensional structure of UWES-17 while
and Maximum likelihood between work engagement and reducing its dimensions to 15. With an internal consistency of
estimation methods Big Five personality characteristics 0.94
– Personality characteristics accounted for significant
amount of variance in vigour (37 per cent), dedication
(28 per cent), absorption (15 per cent) and the total score of
work engagement (30 per cent)
 Associated
Researchers Sample Data Analysis Technique Specific Objectives Major Findings

6. Balducci, – 668 Italian Descriptive analysis, – Examining the psychometric properties – The study reported the evidence for reliability and validity of
Fraccaroli white collar One-way MANOVA and (internal consistency & factorial validity) UWES-9
and Schaufeli non-managerial Correlation analysis using of Italian UWES-9 while adopting a cross- – UWES-9 was observed as providing an excellent internal
(2010) employees & 2213 SPSS cultural analysis approach using Italian consistency and strong factorial invariance (metric variance),
Dutch white collar – CFA and multiple-group and Dutch sample factor variance and covariance invariance
employees from CFAs using AMOS – Assessing the validity of UWES-9 by
both public and – Three-factor structure of UWES-9 showed better fit (improved) in
examining its correlation with four both the samples
private sector different measures of job-related affective
– Multi-group well-being (JAWS)  Italian UWES-9 confirmed the predictive and construct validity
method while reporting the correlations with JAWS subscales in expected
– Exploring the profile of work engagement direction
with regard to main sociodemographic
characteristics – The study recommended three-factor structure of UWES while
testing SEM methods and unidimensional structure in multiple
regression analysis
7. Wefald et al. 382 employees of a Hierarchical regression – Investigating factorial validity of UWES – Neither one-factor structure nor the three-factor structure of
(2012) financial institution analysis, Confirmatory – Comparison between UWES, Shirom- UWES engagement measure fits the data ideally
factor analysis(CFA) Melamed Vigour Measure (SMVM) and – A multi-dimensional structure of SMVM fits better in comparison
Britt’s engagement Measure to the unidimensional one
– Unidimensional measure of Britt’s measure of engagement fits well.
8. Extremera – A heterogeneous – CFAs – Examining the psychometric properties – The study confirmed the adequate fit of Spanish UWES-15
et al. (2012) sample of – Exploratory factor of Spanish UWES-15 (measuring the – Three-factor structure model provided an appropriate fit to the
human service analysis: principle reliability, factor structure and factorial data and moderate correlations were observed among respective
professionals component analysis invariance) dimensions
– Multi-sample with oblique rotation – Examining a proposed two-factor – No statistical differences were found between the engagement
method – Hierarchical regression model comprising emotional dimensions on gender basis
analysis exhaustion and depersonalisation and
engagement dimensions plus personal – Dedication was found to be best predictor (added additional

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014

accomplishments
– Determining the extent to which
engagement dimensions accounts for life
satisfaction and perceived stress beyond
the burnout dimensions
– Evidencing the convergent, discriminate
and incremental validity of engagement
with regard to burnout, life satisfaction
or perceived stress
significant variance beyond the controlled variance by burnout
dimensions) of life satisfaction and perceived stress among all
three factors of UWES and thereby suggesting the incremental
validity of the construct
– Engagement, burnout, life satisfaction or perceived stress are
closely related but conceptually distinct constructs
– Work engagement is a viable, theoretically sound and empirically
measurable construct
(Table 1 continued)
 (Table 1 continued)

Associated
Researchers Sample Data Analysis Technique Specific Objectives Major Findings
9. Viljevac et al. 139 call-centres – Investigating the validity of work – Questioned the dimensionality of work engagement.
(2012) employees engagement – The study calls for scale refinement (UWES)
– Examining the uniqueness of both the – Critical observations regarding dedication dimension of UWES
scales UWES-17 and May et al. (2004)
scale of engagement – Observed overlapping of the construct with job satisfaction, clear
discriminability from affective organisational commitment and
– Testing convergent and discriminant some distinctness of UWES with regard to all others
validity by examining the inter
correlations between the three scale – UWES perform well with regard to convergent, predictive and
components and their associations discriminant validity in comparison to the May et al. (2004) scale
with job involvement, job satisfaction, – Older workers were found to be more engagement while
organisational commitment and intention reporting to UWES
to stay – Absorption and cognitive dimension of respective scales
– Exploring predictive validity of work contribute to the overlapping issue of the two measures
engagement with regard to PJ & PO fits – Dedication dimension of UWES showed most conceptual
and age & gender and empirical overlap with other constructs (organisational
identification and job involvement)
10. Fong and Ng 992 elderly service Correlation analysis, – Exploring the psychometric properties – The study observed a better fit of three-factor structure of
(2012) workers of a t-tests, Structural Equation (factorial validity, scale reliability, UWES-9 (with strong correlations between the factors) in
nongovernmental Modeling Methods (CFAs) construct validity) of Chinese version comparison to the UWES-17, UWES-15 & one-factor structure
organisation in using Mplus 5.2 of UWES of UWES-9
Hongkong – Examining the construct validity with – A positive association between age and engagement
regard to perceived stress, burnout, age – In case of gender, female workers showed high levels of vigour
and holistic care climate only and different occupational groups also differed on their levels
– Exploring the profile of work engagement of engagement
across demographic groups – The study also supports the construct validity while observing an
expected pattern of relationship between the study variables, but
the study warrants cross validation of results

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014

Source: Authors.
Work Engagement in India255
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were Indian employees from
IT organisations. The sample comprised 304 employ-
ees working as software developers, programmers, team
leaders, project managers and administrative personnel
who hold the professional qualifications of engineering,
computer science and management from reputed institu-
tions. Questionnaires and the accompanying cover letter
stating the voluntary purpose of the study and an assurance
of the confidentiality of responses were distributed to a
total of 427 employees with the assistance of Human
Resource Department in randomly selected IT organisa-
tions, out of which 357 response sheets duly filled were
received via mail/in-person and after a scrutinisation it was
found that 53 respondents left the survey incomplete which
yielded a total sample size of 304 to be utilised for evalua-
tion purpose.
The sample was composed of 81 per cent male and
the average age of the participants was 36.16 (SD = 6.02).
The work experience profile of the participants varied
from the minimum 5 years of experience to a maximum of
28 years and the average work experience was 10.29 (SD
= 5.72). A large portion (63 per cent) of the participants
had 5–10 years of work experience, 23 per cent had 11–15
years of work experience, 6 per cent had work experi-
ence from 16 to 20 years and the rest 8 per cent had the
highest (above 20) years of work experience. Twenty-four
per cent of all the participants were unmarried and the rest
were married. The sample comprised management gradu-
ates (35 per cent) and engineering graduates (65 per cent).
Measures
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9)
Work engagement was measured with the UWES-9
reported by Schaufeli et al. (2006). The scale consists of
9-items and measures three sub-dimensions of work
engagement as vigour, dedication and absorption which
have three items each as discussed earlier. All items relat-
ing to these three sub-dimensions were measured on a
seven-point scale ranging from 0 = ‘Never’ to 6 = ‘Always’.
Sample items are as follows, including one sample item
from each of the three sub-scales. ‘At my work, I feel burst-
ing with energy’ (vigor), ‘My job inspires me’ (dedication)
and ‘I get carried away when I am working’ (absorption).
Cronbach alpha (á) reported for this scale is 0.92.
Organisational Commitment Questionnaire
Organisational commitment was measured using OCQ by
Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) and Meyer and Allen (1997).
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
The scale is composed of 18 items (6 items for each dimen-
sion) representing three component model: (i) affective
commitment (‘I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this
organization’ reversely quoted), (ii) continuance commit-
ment (‘It would be very hard for me to leave my organiza-
tion right now, even if I wanted to’) and (iii) normative
commitment (‘Would not leave my organization right now
because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it’).
All items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Reliability
alphas reported are 0.82 (affective), 0.73 (continuance) and
0.76 (normative).
Though the construct of organisational commitment has
been well established as a three-component model, recently
the dimensionality of OC was questioned while reporting
the affective commitment as the only influential compo-
nent that explicates the whole construct of organisational
commitment well (Cohen, 2007; Field & Buitendach,
2011; Solinger, Van Olffen & Roe, 2008; Wefald et al.,
2012). The study observed substantial issues with the other
two dimensions noting a lack of convergent validity and
suggested negative correlations between continuance
commitment and affective commitment, also between
continuance commitment and other work related outcomes
variables. While a redundancy was ascertained with the
observation that normative commitment was found to be
correlated highly with affective commitment (Solinger
et al., 2008). Keeping the above observations in mind
and considering some other studies thereafter that have
focused upon the affective commitment dimension only
in their studies (Wefald et al., 2012), the present study
has also adopted the similar approach by focusing upon
affective commitment in all analyses.
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Questionnaire (OCBQ)
The 15-item scale developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie
(1989) was used to measure OCB, items in this scale
are designed to measure five dimensions of OCB identi-
fied by Organ (1988) as: altruism, courtesy, civic virtue,
conscientiousness and sportsmanship. Of the 15 items
(three items for each dimension), three items as 13, 14 and
15 are reverse scored. Reliability coefficient of the scale
reported as 0.83. Responses to the items were obtained on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree)
to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Analyses
Structural equation modelling (SEM) methods using
AMOS (Arbuckle, 1997) were implemented to evaluate
the factorial and discriminant validity of the UWES-9.
However, the core of analysis consisted of CFA and
chi-square tests. CFA for testing factorial validity was
evaluated by using the χ² statistics and several other
256
recommended practical fit indices (Byrne, 2001) such as
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), Normed Fit Index (NFI) and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI). RMSEA values of upto 0.08
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) and GFI, NFI and CFI values
≥0.90 indicate an acceptable model fit; it is generally
accepted that a value less than 0.90 indicates the signs of
improvement in model fit (Hoyle, 1995) and values close
to 0.95 indicate good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline,
2005; Wijhe, Peeters, Schaufeli & Hout, 2011), whereas
values upto 0.06 at the RMSEA were judged as having a
good fit. Next, we tested discriminant validity by imple-
menting chi-square difference test among scales following
Segars (1997) recommendations. First, creating a model in
which two constructs work engagement & OCB do not
correlate (setting correlation to zero, constrained model)
and perform CFA and then creating another model in which
the two constructs correlate (free correlation, freely esti-
mated model) and perform CFA to calculate chi-square dif-
ference test to see if it is significant or not. The significant
differences greater than 3.84 threshold indicate a consider-
able level of discriminant validity.
Results
Factor Structure
Confirmatory factor analyses were performed in order to
determine the structure of UWES-9, the fit of two models
that is, theoretically based three-factor structure (M1)
and one-factor structure (M2) of work engagement were
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the UWES-9
Source: Authors.
Notes: a) The correlated three-factor structure (M1).
b) An alternative one-factor structure (M2).
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
Aakanksha Kataria, Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
Table 2. Goodness of Fit Statistics for Tests of Factorial Validity
of the UWES-9
χ² df p GFI AGFI RMSEA NFI CFI
M1 (three- 74.65 24 <0.01 0.95 0.90 0.08 0.90 0.92
factor)
M2 (one- 131.73 27 <0.01 0.91 0.85 0.11 0.81 0.84
factor)
Source: Authors.
assessed. Table 2 reports the χ² and other fit indices of
CFA. First, the three-factor solution showed better fit than
a one-factor model with the χ² = 74.65, df = 24, p ≤ 0.001,
RMSEA = 0.08, GFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.90 and CFI = 0.92.
All items loaded significantly on latent factors of UWES-9
( p < 0.001) with the magnitude ranging from 0.43 to
0.88 and the three factors were found to be moderately
highly correlated (r = 0.62–0.78, p < 0.01). As indicated
in Table 2, three-factor structure (M1) demonstrates an
acceptable fit to the data. As the one-factor solution to the
UWES-9 was found to have a poor fit to the data as depicted
in Table 2, a superior fit of the multi-dimensional model of
UWES-9 over the unidimensional one is suggested.
Additional Psychometric and Descriptive
Analysis
Additional analyses were run on the Indian overall data set
(n = 304). Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α)
of the UWES-9 was good (0.87), as was the internal
Work Engagement in India257

consistency of the three sub-scales such as vigour, dedica- Discussion

tion and absorption (0.81, 0.78, 0.82, respectively). All the
nine items were found to be significantly correlated within With respect to contemporary origins, sensational popular-
the range of 0.19–0.63 and the item-correlations ranged ity in a short span of time and promising existence in the
from 0.41 to 0.74 (significant at 0.01 level). gamut of organisational sciences, numerous instruments
have been developed to measure work engagement.
Amongst them, the UWES has been widely established as
Relationship between Engagement, the most preferred instrument of engagement over time due
Affective Organisational Commitment and to its vast validity in the majority of countries around the
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour world (Bakker et al., 2008; Wefald, Reichard & Serrano,
Correlations among study variables (i.e. work engagement, 2011). However, this scale has been vastly used in Western
affective commitment and OCB) are reported in Table 3. countries (Shimazu et al., 2008) and less in developing
Next, the chi-square differences were observed between countries, particularly India. The current research article
work engagement and OCB (114.106) and between work attempted to validate UWES-9 by evaluating its psycho-
engagement and affective commitment (120.852). The dis- metric properties in an Indian sample of IT organisations.
criminant validity is achieved when the unconstrained Overall, the UWES-9 displayed satisfactory levels of
model has a significantly lower chi-square value, indicat- psychometric properties. The results of CFA revealed a
ing that the factors (constructs) do not perfectly correlate better fit for the theoretically based three-factorial structure
(Jöreskog, 1971; Anderson & Narus, 1984). The chi-square of UWES-9 in comparison to the one-factor solution
difference tests presented in Table 4 indicate that discrimi- for the construct, thus encouraging the notion of three-
nant validity was achieved between work engagement and dimensional nature of work engagement. Such a finding is
affective commitment and also between work engagement in line with some previous and most recently reported CFA
and OCB. The differences are much larger than the 3.84 studies which observed work engagement as a multi-
threshold, indicating that work engagement is indeed a dimensional construct (Extremera, Sánchez-García, Durán
distinct construct while demonstrating no overlapping with & Rey, 2012; Fong & Ng, 2012; Schaufeli, Salanova et al.,
any of these constructs. 2002; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Seppälä et al., 2009), and
hence the three-factor structure was observed as having
an acceptable fit with the data and moderate to high
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study correlations (r = 0.62–0.78) between the three dimensions.
Variables Also, acceptable internal consistencies were found for
the three factors such as vigour, dedication and absorp-
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 tion (α ≥ 0.60) and supported the reliability of multi-
1. Vigour 4.20 1.20 1 dimensional UWES-9 in the Indian context. In addition,
2. Dedication 3.80 1.24 0.78 1 with respect to all the three subscales such as vigour, dedi-
cation and absorption (α = 0.78, 0.81 and 0.82), the total
3. Absorption 3.87 1.15 0.62 0.72 1
score of the UWES-9 showed good internal consistency
4. UWES-9 3.96 1.06 0.88 0.90 0.82 1 (α = 0.87). This suggests for both multi-dimensional and
5. Affective 4.07 1.11 0.57 0.65 0.41 0.74 1 unidimensional considerations for the instrument. Apart
commitment from the three factorial structure of work engagement, the
6. OCB 5.61 1.28 0.55 0.49 0.32 0.65 0.57 1 total score of the scale has also been recommended for
Source: Authors. use as an overall indicator of work engagement by earlier
Notes: All the correlations are statistically significant at 0.01 level. studies (Fong & Ng, 2012; Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Furthermore, the UWES-9 demonstrated discriminant
validity in the Indian context. Significant chi-square differ-
Table 4. Measurement Model Fit: Discriminant Validity ence tests result ( p = 0, p < 0.05) supported the discrimi-
Fixed Freely Estimated nant validity of UWES-9 with regard to affective
Correlation Correlation organisational commitment scale and OCBQ. These results
Chi- Chi- Chi-square are more or less similar to a more recent study, which
df square Correlation df square Difference observed work engagement (UWES-17) and affective
organisational commitment as distinct constructs (Viljevac
WE—AC 90 286.868 0.74 89 166.016 120.852
et al., 2012). Albeit our results empirically confirmed the
WE—OCB 252 780.399 0.65 251 666.293 114.106 distinct conceptual foundations of both the constructs
Source: Authors. attributed in terms that work engagement reflects an

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260

Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
258
employee’s positive experiences regarding his or her work
and affective commitment concerns with an employee’s
affective state of responses and positive feelings towards
his or her organisational entity at large, high correlations
(r = 0.74) have been observed between the two constructs.
This finding implies a close relationship between work
engagement and affective commitment. As observed by
Silverman (2004), ‘the closest relationship with work
engagement is affective commitment’. Similar findings
were supported in another study where work engagement
and affective organisational commitment were found to be
more closely related than work engagement and job
involvement, yet CFA results empirically supported the
conceptual uniqueness of work engagement. In contrast,
medium correlations (r = 0.60, p ≤ 0.01) were observed
between the two constructs in a more recent study (Field &
Buitendach, 2011). This association may be attributed to
the potential predictive value of work engagement for
affective organisational commitment in ways, as if an
organisation is capable of creating an environment condu-
cive to engagement, employees may have an increased
level of emotional attachment, identification and involve-
ment with the organisation. Employees who tend to engage
deeply with their work are more committed to their organi-
sations (Jackson, Rothmann & Van de Vijver, 2006). Work
engagement has been recently observed as having a signifi-
cant predictive value (β = 0.549, p ≤ 0.01) for affective
organisational commitment (Field & Buitendach, 2011).
This relationship could be vice a versa; when employees
experience emotional attachment with the larger organisa-
tion entity, they may feel motivated to exert their positive
energies in support of organisation in ways that consist of
work engagement. Since results of this study revealed that
work engagement and affective commitment are distinct
yet closely related, no inference can be made on the direc-
tions of causal relationships between the work engagement
and affective commitment on the basis of present study.
Next, a significant (p = 0, p < 0.05) chi-square difference
test result and moderate associations between the UWES
and OCBQ suggest that work engagement and OCB are
related but independent constructs and the two constructs
present discriminant validity. Recent research studies pro-
vided significant conceptual support for this finding. For
instance, it was argued that the focus of engagement is on
one’s formal role performance rather than performing
extra-role and voluntary behaviour (Saks, 2006). While
observing the associations between work engagement and
OCB, it was also suggested that engaged workers being
task proficient are better able to free up their resources in
terms of time, efforts and energy which they tend to expend
in cooperating with the co-workers at workplace and sup-
porting the organisation. In fact, engaged employees take
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
Aakanksha Kataria, Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
responsibility of their own personal development, consider
all aspects of their work to be part of their domain and step
outside of their set boundaries or formal job requirements
(Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011). Therefore OCB can
be described as a performance related behavioural outcome
variable of engagement (Shuck et al., 2011).
Findings of this research study suggest adequate psy-
chometric qualities of the UWES-9 in the Indian context
and a better fit of the three-dimensional model of work
engagement in comparison to the most frequently used
unidimensional model. It is inferred that employees in IT
organisations in India have an adequate understanding of
the different aspects of their psychological states of engage-
ment. It is further reckoned that these psychological states
may have different degrees of their impact on both indi-
vidual and organisational outcomes. This may possibly
encourage academic scholars to gain more insights in
understanding the three different (vigour, dedication and
absorption) aspects of engagement of Indian employees
with their work and their associations with different
possible outcomes and consequences, particularly in IT
organisations. Further, the results of the study provide
empirical support in establishing the work engagement
as distinct and unique concept with regard to the previ-
ously established constructs of employee sentiment and
behaviour at the workplace.
In sum, the results of this study provided evidences to
support the applicability of UWES-9 while observing it as
a valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of
work engagement in the Indian context.
Limitations
The current study had some limitations. First, the study has
a bearing on the context specificity of data. The potential
sampling bias impede the generalizability of results as the
study sample was based on a particular occupational field
of IT employees. Future studies should evaluate the psy-
chometric properties of UWES-9 among other occupations
as well. In addition, as the cross-sectional design of the
study limits comprehensive remarks on the scale relaibil-
ity, future longitudinal studies should uncover the validity
of UWES-9 in the Indian context in order to formulate
better conclusions on the instrument’s adequacy. There are
other limitations as well including self-report nature of the
data that was exclusively relied upon in the present study.
Self-report nature of the data may create problem of
common method variance specifically in validation studies
using self-report measures (Schaufeli, Maslach & Marek,
1993; Storm & Rothmann, 2003). Next, the current study
did not investigate the causal order of relationships between
work engagement, affective commitment and OCB. Based
Work Engagement in India259
on the analyses of current study, it can only be concluded
that UWES-9 is a unique measure of work engagement yet
related to both affective organisational commitment and
OCB. Future longitudinal research should uncover whether
affective commitment and OCB might be regarded as con-
sequences or antecedents of work engagement. In spite of
aforementioned limitations, the findings suggested in this
research article provide tentative opinions on the validation
of UWES-9 within the Indian context that may stimulate
further research in this area.
Conclusion
Work engagement is an important business issue especially
in the contemporary times of financial instabilities and
dynamic work environments. The current study provides a
supportive evidence to confirm the authors’ proposed
three-factorial structure of UWES-9 as an adequate
measure of work engagement and also establishes UWES-9
as a reliable, valid and distinct measure of work engage-
ment within the Indian context. The study with an aim of
getting a better understanding on the validation of UWES-9
in this specific context (Indian) would positively evoke
work engagement studies in India and possibly encourage
joint international research practices on occupational
health psychology and other related facets of business and
management.
References
Anderson, James C. & Narus, James A. (1984). A model of the
distributor’s perspective of distributor-manufacturer working
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 48(1), 62–74.
Andrew, O.C. & Sofian, S. (2011). Engaging people who drive
execution and organizational performance. American Journal
of Economics and Business Administration, 3(3), 569–575.
Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos user’s guide version 4.0. Chicago,
IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational
behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. & Taris, T.W.
(2008).Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupa-
tional health psychology. Work & Stress, 2(3), 187–200.
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2010). Psycho-
metric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht
work engagement scale (UWES-9): A cross-cultural anal-
ysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2),
143–149.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation
modelling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work
engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations
with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64(1), 89–136.
Cohen, J. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evalua-
tion and reconceptualisation of organisational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336–354.
Edwards, J.R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organi-
zational behavior research: An integrative analytical frame-
work. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.
Extremera, N., Sánchez-García, M., Durán, M.A. & Rey, L.
(2012). Examining the psychometric properties of the Utrecht
work engagement scale in two Spanish multi-occupational
samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
20(1), 105–110.
Field, L.K. & Buitendach, J.H. (2011). Happiness, work engage-
ment and organisational commitment of support staff at a
tertiary education institution in South Africa. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 1–10.
Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H. & Basis, L. (2009). Is good
character good enough? The effects of situational variables
on the relationship between integrity and counterproduc-
tive work behaviors. Human Resource Management Review,
20(1), 73–84.
Fleming, J.H. & Asplund, J. (2007). Human sigma: Managing
the employee–customer encounter. New York: Gallup Press.
Fong, T.C. & Ng, S. (2012). Measuring engagement at work:
Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht work engage-
ment scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
19(3), 391–397.
Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. & Taylor, C.R. (2004). The race for
talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century.
Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12–25.
Hallberg, U. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). ‘Same same’ but dif-
ferent? Can work engagement be discriminated from job
involvement and organizational commitment? European
Psychologist, 11(2), 119–127.
Hoyle, R.H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach:
Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.),
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applica-
tions (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Jackson, L.T.B., Rothmann, S. & Van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2006).
A model of work-related well-being for educators in South
Africa. Stress and Health, 22(4), 263–274.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several
populations. Psychomertika, 36(2), 206–409.
Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s refer-
ence guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL User’s guide.
Chicago: National Educational Sevices.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
 260
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organi-
zational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6),
695–706.
Macey, W.H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee
engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1),
3–30.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How
organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. & Leiter, M.P. (1996). MBI: Maslach
burnout inventory-manual (3rd rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psycho-
logical conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability
and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. London: SAGE.
Meyer, J.P, Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to
organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three
component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538–551.
Muilenburg-Trevino, E.M. (2009). Psychometric study of work
engagement in an American sample. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University. Retrieved from
https://www.ou.edu/content/tulsa/carnpo/dissertations_
andtheses.html
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S. (1989). A second generation
measure of organizational citizenship behavior. Working
paper, Indiana University Bloomington.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers
of employee engagement. Falmer, Brighton: Institute for
Employment Studies.
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee
engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7),
600–619.
Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A. (2003). UWES—Utrecht work engage-
ment scale. Preliminary manual (Version 1, November 2003).
Utrecht University: Occupational Health Psychology Unit.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez, I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M. &
Bakker, A.B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university
students: Across national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.
Schaufeli, W.B., Maslach, C. & Marek, T. (1993). Professional
burnout: Recent developments in theory and research.
Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. & Bakker,
A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout:
A two sample confirmatory analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. & Bakker, A.B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hide: On the differences between work engagement
and workaholism. In R. Burke (Ed.), Work hours and work
addiction (pp. 193–252). Northampton, MA: Elgar.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 9, 3 (2013): 249–260
Downloaded from abr.sagepub.com at INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY on April 21, 2014
View publication stats
Aakanksha Kataria, Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
Segars, A. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measure-
ment: A paradigm and illustration within the context of infor-
mation systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U.,
Tolvanen, A., et al. (2009). The construct validity of
the Utrecht work engagement scale: Multisample and lon-
gitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4),
459–481.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa,
H., Kato, A., et al. (2008). Work engagement in Japan:
Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work
engagement scale. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57(3), 510–523.
Shuck, B., Reio, T.G. & Rocco, T.S. (2011). Employee engage-
ment: An examination of antecedents and outcome vari-
ables. Human Resource Development International, 13(4),
419–428.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and
HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource
Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
Silverman, M. (2004). Non-financial recognition: The most
effective of rewards. Brighton, UK: Institute of Employment
Studies.
Solinger, O.N., Van Olffen, W. & Roe, R.A. (2008). Beyond
the three-component model of organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70–83.
Storm, K. & Rothmann, S. (2003). A psychometric analysis of
the Utrecht work engagement scale in the South African
police service. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(4),
62–70.
Viljevac, A., Cooper-Thomas, H.D. & Saks, A.M. (2012). An
investigation into the validity of two measures of work
engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(17), 3692–3709.
Wagner, R. & Harter, J.K. (2006). The great elements of manag-
ing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.
Wefald, A.J. & Downey, R.G. (2009). The construct dimen-
sionality of engagement and its relationship with satisfac-
tion. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
143(1), 91–111.
Wefald, A.J., Mills, M.J., Smith, M.R. & Downey, R.G. (2012).
A comparison of three job engagement measures: Examining
their factorial and criterion-related validity. Applied Psycho-
logy: Health and Well-Being, 4(1), 67–90.
Wefald, A.J., Reichard, R.J. & Serrano, S.A. (2011). Fitting
engagement into a nomological network: The relationship
of engagement to leadership and personality. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(4), 522–537.
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement
concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communi-
cations: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346.
Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., Schaufeli, W. & Hout, M. (2011). Under-
standing workaholism and work engagement: The role of
mood and stop rules. Career Development International,
16(3), 254–170.
Wollard, K.K. (2011). Quiet desperation: Another perspective
on employee engagement. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(4), 526–537.