The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire

By Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Arnold B. Bakker, Marisa Salanova. 2006

7,577 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/fd2d4aea2cf7d0c31c5a8003620a9fa4f63c94d7

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

The dualistic model of passion for work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement and workaholism (2015, methodology): “…on work engagement have found it to be positively associated with in-role performance (Christian et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2011), whereas studies on workaholism have found it to be unrelated to in-role performance (Graves et al., 2012; Schaufeli et al., 2006b; Shimazu, Schaufeli, & Taris, 2010).”
Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit (2012, methodology): “The UWES consists of 17 items measuring three subscales that reflect the underlying dimensions of engagement.”
A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers (2011, background): “At the same time, however, it should be noted that many teachers are satisfied with and enthusiastic about their work (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007 ; Rudow, 1999 ), and that they are engaged in their jobs (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006 ).”
The Associations between Ethical Organizational Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Multilevel Study (2014, methodology): “The shortened version (using 9 of the original 17 items) of the UWES has proven to be a valid measure, and the three scale scores have good internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Schaufeli et al. 2006; Seppälä et al. 2009).”
Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: Implications for meaning‐making and work engagement (2017, methodology): “For the analyses, we used a composite score of all nine items (Cronbach’s a = .95), since according to previous validation research (Schaufeli et al., 2006), the one-factor solution fits the data well.”
Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study (2016, neutral): “All the stability coef ﬁ cients of the variables were between 0.60 and 0.70, and are thus of comparable magnitude to those found in previous studies on work engagement (Seppälä et al., 2015; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and job crafting (e.g. Vogt et al., 2016).”
Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance (2015, methodology): “Work engagement is a positive, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006).”
Engage Them to Public Service (2013, methodology): “Although the UWES is the most extensively used scientifically derived measure of engagement and has been validated in several countries (Bakker, 2009; Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2006), it is not the only measure of EE (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Rich et al.”