Social Indicators Research

, Volume 142, Issue 2, pp 845–854 | Cite as

Study Engagement in Italian University Students: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale—Student Version

  • Yura LoscalzoEmail author
  • Marco Giannini


This study aims to analyze the psychometric properties of the Italian translation of the short form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale—Student version (UWES-S-9) on a sample of 491 Italian University students aged between 18 and 47 years (M = 24.24 ± 4.64; 24% boys and 76% girls). We analyzed the factor structure of the UWES-S-9 by means of four Confirmatory Factor Analyses. Moreover, we examined if there were some demographic and study-related (year and area of study) differences in study engagement, using a path analysis model. Finally, we analyzed the correlations between study engagement and both academic performance (Grade Point Average) and time spent studying (hours of study per day generally and before exams). We found that the Italian UWES-S-9 has good psychometric properties. Moreover, students of Scientific and Biomedical majors are more dedicated to studying as compared to Humanities and Professional Health Sciences students.


Academic performance Academic success College Positive psychology Studyholism Study addiction Study engagement Wellbeing 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Cadime, I., Lima, S., Pinto, A. M., & Ribeiro, I. (2016). Measurement invariance of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students: A study across secondary school pupils and university students. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(2), 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Durán, A., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2004). Engagement and burnout: Analyzing their association patterns. Psychological Reports, 94, 1048–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Loscalzo, Y., & Giannini, M. (2017). Studyholism or Study Addiction? A comprehensive model for a possible new clinical condition. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychological research (pp. 19–37). New York: Nova Publisher.Google Scholar
  8. Mayedu-Olivares, A., Coffman, D. L., & Hartmann, W. M. (2007). Asymptotically distribution-free (ADF) interval estimation of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meng, L., & Jin, Y. (2017). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for students in a Chinese sample. Nurse Education Today, 49, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mills, M. J., Culberston, S. S., & Fullagar, C. J. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(3), 519–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reeve, B. B., Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. K., Cook, K. F., Crane, P. K., Teresi, J. A., et al. (2007). Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health related quality of life item banks: Plans for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45(5), S22–S31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Römer, J. (2016). The Korean Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student (UWES-S): A factor validation study. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 23(1), 65–82.Google Scholar
  14. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being, and task performance among electronic work group: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., & Breso, E. (2010). How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 23, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and engagement in University students. A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, Department of Health SciencesUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations