Dimensionality of the 9‐item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Issue 4 (31st October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fong, Ted C. T.; Ho, Rainbow T. H.
• Is Part Of: Journal of occupational health. Volume 57:Issue 4(2015)
• Page Start: 353
• Page End: 358
• Publication Date: 2015-10-31
• Subjects: Bayesian -- Factor structure -- Informative priors -- Maximum likelihood -- Work engagement; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Industrial hygiene -- Periodicals; Medicine, Industrial; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Occupational Health; Occupational Medicine; Periodicals; Periodical; Electronic journals; 613.62
• DOI: 10.1539/joh.15-0057-OA
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1341-9145

Abstract

Abstract : Dimensionality of the 9‐item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach: Ted C. T. Fong, et al . Centre on Behavioral Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Objective: The aim of this study was to reexamine the dimensionality of the widely used 9‐item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale using the maximum likelihood (ML) approach and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) approach. Methods: Three measurement models (1‐factor, 3‐factor, and bi‐factor models) were evaluated in two split samples of 1, 112 health‐care workers using confirmatory factor analysis and BSEM, which specified small‐variance informative priors for cross‐loadings and residual covariances. Model fit and comparisons were evaluated by posterior predictive p‐value (PPP), deviance information criterion, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Results: None of the three ML‐based models showed an adequate fit to the data. The use of informative priors for cross‐loadings did not improve the PPP for the models. The 1‐factor BSEM model with approximately zero residual covariances displayed a good fit (PPP>0.10) to both samples and a substantially lower BIC than its 3‐factor and bi‐factor counterparts. Conclusions: The BSEM results demonstrate empirical support for the 1‐factor model as a parsimonious and reasonable representation of work engagement.