International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

search-icon

Construct Validation of 17-item Utrecht University Work Engagement Scale Amongst the White Collar employees of Malaysian Universities

Open access
Primarily, the study investigated the psychometric properties of UWES work engagement scale were assessed in the context of education sector of Malaysia. Staff members from the two public sector universities in the Kedah state were sampled whereby, 205 questionnaires were distributed that resulted in 180 appropriate responses for final data analysis. The results have indicated towards satisfactory level of internal consistency reliability, convergent; as well as discriminant validity. The structural equation modeling has highlighted higher order stabilities for work engagement ranging between 0.803 and 0.838. The findings henceforth, conclude that UWES-17 is construct is robust in assessing work engagement amongst the while collar employees working in the education sector of Malaysia.
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research: Psychology Press.
Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). Human resource development climate in India: An empirical analysis. Paper presented at the National conference on emerging challenges for sustainable business.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2013). Exploring the impact of trust on research scientists' work engagement: Evidence from Irish science research centres. Personnel Review, 42(4), 396-421.
Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications.
Fong, T. C.-t., & Ng, S.-m. (2012). Measuring engagement at work: validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. International journal of behavioral medicine, 19(3), 391-397.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388.
Geladi, P., & Kowalski, B. R. (1986). Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial. Analytica chimica acta, 185, 1-17.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: The relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Omaha, NE: Gallup.
Harter, J., & Creglow, A. (1998). A meta-analysis and utility analysis of the relationship between core GWA employee perceptions and business outcomes: Lincoln, NE: The Gallup Organization.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in international marketing, 20(1), 277-319.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2006). Why Dilbert is right. Gallup Management Journal, 9.
Krueger, J., & Killham, E. (2006). Why Dilbert is right. Gallup Management Journal, 9.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K., & Young, S.A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. London, England: Blackwell.
Nerstad, C. G., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2010). Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 326-333.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta): Hamburg.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness studies, 10(4), 459-481.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., . . . Hirohata, K. (2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 510-523.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 82(1), 183-200.
Yin-fang, X., & Chun-hua, L. (2010). Analysis and Related Countermeasures of Nursing Occupational Environment [J]. Nursing Journal of Chinese People's Liberation Army, 10.
Ahmed, U., Majid, A. H. A., & Zin, M. L. M. (2016). Construct Validation of 17-item Utrecht University Work Engagement Scale Amongst the White Collar employees of Malaysian Universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(5), 262-267.