The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach

By Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Marisa Salanova, Vicente González-Romá, Arnold B. Bakker. 2002

9,613 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/008743852970e98a8803bd9bd02b49485168c29a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance (2014, background): “Work engagement refers to a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).”
Happiness at work. (2010, neutral): “Engagement is seen as the opposite of burnout and is often measured by the Utrecht Work Enthusiasm Scale (UWES, Schaufeli et al. 2002).”
Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness (2008, methodology): “Work engagement was assessed with the Finnish version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002).”
Workaholism and work engagement: how are they similar? How are they different? A systematic review and meta-analysis (2019, methodology): “quences of their AB more negatively than might engaged workers, whose VI and DE are likely to cause them to associate the experience with a positive emotional state (Schaufeli et al., 2002).”
Job Burnout and Employee Engagement (2012, background): “2 Paradoxically, then, the view that burnout and engagement are independent states, as conceptualized by Schaufeli et al. (2002), not only holds that burnout and engagement are directly opposing phenomena (in spite of their assumed independence) but also asserts that two of the three dimensions…”
Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications (2013, background): “These four dimensions overlap with the two concepts of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption; Schaufeli et al., 2002) and meaning in work (significance, direction, belonging, and coherence; Schnell, 2009a and below) proposed to be affective-motivational and cognitive-evaluative…”
A perfect match: decoding employee engagement – Part I: Engaging cultures and leaders (2008, background): “Moreover, because engaged employees are fully ‘‘psychologically present’’ (Kahn, 1990), they give their ‘‘all’’ to their jobs and are willing to go ‘‘the extra mile’’ to achieve success (Schaufeli et al., 2002).”