Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 519–545 | Cite as

Conceptualizing and Measuring Engagement: An Analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

  • Maura J. Mills
  • Satoris S. Culbertson
  • Clive J. Fullagar


This article analyzes the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al. in J Happiness Stud 3:71–92, 2002b) on a variety of levels. Study 1 critiques the method by which the original scale was developed, and analyzes a similar sample using both exploratory and, subsequently, confirmatory factor analyses. Study 2 uses three samples to explore the 17-item UWES-17, and the recent shorter version of the scale, the 9-item UWES-9. Factor structures and reliabilities of scores for both scale versions were examined for each sample. Although some cautions are warranted when using the UWES, this research leans toward supporting a multifactorial conceptualization of the construct. Preliminary construct validation of the use of the measures was also established via correlations with other pertinent constructs. Although research on the measure remains sparse, the UWES-9 holds promise as a parsimonious version of the UWES-17 that appears valid in use, appears to yield reliable scores in the samples herein, and also appears to capture the purported three-factor dimensionality of the engagement construct better than does the original UWES-17 version.


Engagement Utrecht work engagement scale Construct validity Factor analysis Parallel analysis Scale development 



Grant information to be given upon publication of final manuscript: It is omitted here for purposes of blinding the manuscript to author-identifying information, as per Journal of Happiness Studies requirements.


  1. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boroff, K. E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27, 509–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bornstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Christian, M. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2007, August). Work engagement: A meta-analytic review and directions for research in an emerging area. Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  9. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-esteem processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes in development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 167–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: Experiencing flow in work and play. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2001). A multi-rater assessment of organizational commitment: Are self-report measures biased? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hallberg, U. E., Johansson, G., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Type A behavior and work situation: Associations with burnout and work engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for a number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrica, 30, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., & Mäkikangas, A. (2008). Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 114–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  23. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., & Youseff, C. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human capital edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Montgomery, A. J., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & den Ouden, M. (2003). Work-home interference among newspaper managers: Its relationship with burnout and engagement. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 195–211.Google Scholar
  30. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Owen, S. V., & Fromen, R. D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-efficacy scale. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  32. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Llorens, S., Peiró, J. M., & Grau, R. (2001). Desde el ‘burnout’ al ‘engagement’: ¿una nueva perspectiva? [From “burnout” to “engagement”: A new perspective?] Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 16, 117–134.Google Scholar
  34. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 20, 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, M. A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., Le Blanc, P. M., Peeters, M., Bakker, A. B., & De Jonge, J. (2001). Maakt arbeid gezond? Op zoek naar de bevolgen werknemer [Does work make people healthy? In search of the engaged worker]. De Psycholoog, 36, 422–428.Google Scholar
  40. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Research in organizational stress and well-being (Vol. 3, pp. 135–165). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  43. Silverstein, A. B. (1987). Note on the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors or principal components. Psychological Reports, 61, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational commitment: Dimensionality and consequences among United Kingdom human resource management specialists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spector, P. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., Senecal, C. B., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendation for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wothke, W. (1993). Nonpositive definite matrices in structural equation modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 256–293). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maura J. Mills
    • 1
  • Satoris S. Culbertson
    • 2
  • Clive J. Fullagar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA
  2. 2.Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations