Running head: EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
1
Employee Engagement Instruments: A Review of the Literature
Sowath Rana*
University of Minnesota
ranax031@umn.edu
Alexandre Ardichvili
University of Minnesota
ardic001@umn.edu
*Corresponding author
Submission Type: Working Paper
Stream: Employee Engagement
Submitted to the UFHRD Conference 2015, University College Cork, Ireland
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
2
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive literature review of the major
instruments used to measure employee engagement.
Methodology: We conducted a structured review of published instruments measuring employee
engagement in the current literature.
Findings: This study provides numerous significant findings with regard to what scales are
available, what their properties are, and how they have been used.
Implications: Our findings suggest that the instruments require more rigorous testing and that
more evidence of validity and reliability for the scales is needed. In addition, scholars and
practitioners should pay specific attention to the appropriateness of the scales before employing
any of them.
Originality/Value: We believe that this paper can make a significant contribution to the
literature on engagement. It aims to provide a comprehensive review of the major engagement
instruments as regards a specific set of assessment criteria.
Keywords: Employee engagement, work engagement, instrument, measurement,
operationalization
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
3
Employee Engagement Instruments: A Review of the Literature
Employee engagement has generated great interest among Human Resource
Development scholars over the past few years (Kim, Kolb, and Kim, 2012; Rana, Ardichvili, and
Tkachenko, 2014; Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012; Shuck, Reio, and Rocco, 2011; Shuck and
Wollard, 2010; Soane, Truss, Alfes, Shantz, Rees, and Gatenby, 2012; Wollard and Shuck,
2011). Engagement is defined as the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work
roles” (Kahn, 1990, 694). When engaged, organizational members express themselves
cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally during role performance (Kahn, 1990; Shuck and
Wollard, 2010). In contrast, personal disengagement refers to the “uncoupling of selves from
work roles,” during which process people withdraw and defend themselves physically,
cognitively, or emotionally while performing those tasks (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). Over the past two
decades, significant efforts have been made by scholars to study engagement and by practitioners
to develop organization development (OD) related interventions to raise the levels of
engagement among organizational members. Such strong interest is not surprising, given that
engagement has been shown to be related to a number of important organizational outcomes such
as job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Saks, 2006), organizational citizenship behavior
(Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012; Saks, 2006); intention to turnover (Shuck et al., 2011); and
performance (Kim et al., 2012).
Despite the attention, a debate still exists among engagement scholars over the
operationalization and measurement of the construct. Kahn (1990, 1992), whose work has been
largely credited with laying a foundation that undergirds much of the engagement research, did
not offer an operationalization of the construct. The Maslach-Burnout Inventory (MBI),
developed by Maslach and Leiter (1997), has been heavily criticized for measuring engagement
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
4
along the same continuum as the three dimensions of the burnout construct: exhaustion,
cynicism, and efficacy (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker, 2002). Later, the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002), has become one
of the most widely used instruments in engagement research. However, despite its popularity,
questions still arise over the issue of “construct redundancy” between engagement and burnout
(Cole, Walter, Bedeian, and Boyle, 2012, p.1576). Cole et al. (2012) found that the UWES is
“empirically redundant with a long-established, widely employed measure of job burnout (viz,
MBI)” (p.1576). Finally, Soane et al.’s (2012) study – seemingly the only publication in the
HRD literature that has attempted to develop an engagement instrument – took a slightly
different route and proposed the Intellectual, Social, Affective Engagement Scale (ISA
Engagement Scale), which comprised of three components of engagement: intellectual, social,
and affective engagement.
The aforementioned examples demonstrate that despite the intuitive appeal of the
engagement concept, there is little agreement as to how the construct should be measured.
Therefore, it is especially important for HRD scholars, practitioners, and students to understand
the strengths and shortcomings of the various popular engagement instruments in order to
advance research on the topic.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to conduct a comprehensive literature review of
the major instruments used to measure employee engagement. The overarching research
questions for this study are: (1) What instruments are available for measuring employee
engagement? (2) What are the characteristics of those instruments? and (3) What are the
strengths and weaknesses of these instruments?
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
5
The seven instruments reviewed in this study are: the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA;
Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002), the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002), the Psychological
Engagement Measure (May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004), the Job and Organization Engagement
Scales (Saks 2006), the Job Engagement Measure (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010), the
Employee Engagement Survey (James, McKechnie, and Swanberg, 2011), and the ISA
Engagement Scale (Soane et al., 2002). The unit of analysis for the study is the instrument; thus,
reasonable attempts were made to obtain a full copy of the instruments reviewed along with any
relevant full-text publications.
We believe that this paper can make a significant contribution to the literature on
engagement. It aims to provide a comprehensive review of the major engagement instruments as
regards the assessment criteria discussed above. In addition, findings from this study will offer
important insights and implications to HRD scholars and practitioners who are interested in
conducting engagement research.
Methodology
We conducted a structured review of published instruments measuring employee
engagement. We searched various databases including Google Scholar, Eric, Emerald, PsycInfo,
and ABI/Inform. We also reviewed academic journals such as Academy of Management Journal,
Human Resource Development International, Human Resource Development Review, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, books, and other relevant publications.
These journals were selected because of their recognized status as leading HRD, management,
and applied psychology journals that regularly publish engagement-related literature. Finally,
we traced the list of references of the publications in order to identify potential relevant
instruments.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
6
Search terms included: employee engagement, work engagement, engagement, tool,
assessment, instrument, or evaluation. The tools had to be available in English and accessible to
scholars and researchers, designed for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, information had to be
available on psychometric and other evaluations, including validity and/or reliability. We limited
our searches to after 1990 because the term ‘engagement’ was first coined by William Kahn in
his publication in the Academy of Management Journal in 1990. Upon identifying the available
instruments, we sought to obtain a copy of each publication of the instruments. The measures
and their corresponding publications were carefully reviewed by the authors of this paper.
The assessment framework for the review of engagement instruments centers around a set
of criteria: (a) instrument description, (b) psychometric properties, and (c) criticisms of the
instrument. The description criterion focuses on the instrument’s constitutive definition of
engagement, development (how it was developed; e.g., through building on other instruments),
development date, intended purpose, dimensions, and population tested. The psychometric
properties focus specifically on evidence of validity and reliability provided by the publication
authors. Finally, the study also discusses any documented comments or criticism of the
instruments.
Results
Our review of the literature yielded seven relevant instruments aimed at measuring the
engagement construct. As Table 1 suggests, we identified the types of the instruments and
sample items of the measures. We also provided a summary of the purpose of the publication of
each instrument, the definition(s) of engagement used, and the theoretical framework that
undergirds the development of each measure. We also summarized the population and samples
of each study and reported the reliability and validity of each instrument.
7
Tool and
Reference
The Gallup
Workplace
Audit
(GWA)
Harter,
Schmidt,
and Hayes
(2002)
The
Utrecht
Work
Engagem
ent Scale
(UWES)
Schaufeli,
Salanova,
GonzalezRoma, and
Bakker
(2002)
May et
al.’s
Psychologi
cal
Engageme
nt Measure
12-item questionnaire;
five-point scale ranging
from ‘Strongly Disagree’
to ‘Strongly Agree’
Sample items:
I know what is expected of
me at work.
The mission or purpose of
my company makes me
feel my job is important.
Publication’s
intended purpose
Using meta-analysis to
explore the
relationship between
“employee
satisfactionengagement” and
various outcomes –
customer satisfaction,
productivity, profit,
employee turnover,
and accidents (p.
268).
Definition of
engagement
“Individual’s
involvement and
satisfaction with as
well as enthusiasm
for work” (p. 269)
17-item questionnaire;
seven-point scale ranging
from ‘never’ to
‘always/everyday’
To examine the
factorial structure of
a new instrument to
measure engagement
Sample items:
When I get up in the
morning, I feel like going
to work. (Vigor)
I am enthusiastic about my
job. (Dedication)
When I am working, I
forget everything else
around me. (Absorption)
13-item questionnaire
measuring engagement
(cognitive, emotional,
and physical); five-point
scale ranging from
‘Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree’
To assess the
relationship between
engagement and
burnout and examine
the factorial structure
of the MaslachBurnout InventoryGeneral Survey
(MBI-GS)
To explore the
determinants and
mediating effects of
the three
psychological
conditions –
meaningfulness,
safety and
“A positive,
fulfilling, workrelated state of mind
that is characterized
by vigor, dedication,
and absorption” (p.
74)
Instrument Description
Development
Developed based on
studies of work
satisfaction, motivation,
supervisory practices,
and work-group
effectiveness
Built on the burnout
literature (particularly the
MBI scale); argues that
burnout and engagement
should be measured
independently with
different instruments.
Population Tested
Reliability
Validity
This study was based
on a Gallup database
of 7,939 business
units – not individual
employees – in 36
companies.
Cronbach’s α (overall
instrument) at the
business-unit level of
analysis = .91
The items measure
“processes and issues that
are actionable at (i.e., under
the influence of) the work
group’s supervisor or
manager” (p. 269)
Sample 1: 314
undergrad students of
the University of
Castellon, Spain
Sample 2: 619
employees from 12
Spanish private and
public companies.
Cronbach’s α for the
three dimensions:
Vigor: .78 (students)
and .79 (employees)
Dedication: .84
(students) and .89
(employees)
Absorption: .73
(students) and .72
(employees)
Utilized Kahn’s
(1990) definition of
engagement at work
Built mainly on Kahn’s
(1990) study.
Psychological
Engagement scales were
developed to measure the
three components of
Kahn’s psychological
engagement: cognitive,
213 employees at a
large insurance firm
located in
Midwestern US
Cronbach’s α (overall
psychological
engagement scale) =
.77
“Both overall satisfaction
and engagement showed
generalizability across
companies in their
correlation with customer
satisfaction–loyalty,
profitability, productivity,
employee turnover, and
safety outcomes” (p. 273)
Three scales were developed
to measure the three
engagement dimensions
(vigor, dedication, and
absorption), in accordance
with the authors’
constitutive definition of
the construct
Results showed that the
burnout and engagement
scales were significantly
and moderately negatively
related
Three scales were developed
to measure the three
dimensions (cognitive,
emotional, and physical)
dimensions of Kahn’s
theorized psychological
engagement
8
May,
Gilson, and
Harter
(2004)
Saks’ Job
Engageme
nt and
Organizati
on
Engageme
nt Scales
Sample items:
Performing my job is so
absorbing that I forget
about everything else.
(Cognitive)
I get excited when I
perform well on my job.
(Emotional)
I exert a lot of energy
performing my job.
(Physical)
Two six-item
questionnaires for job
engagement and
organization
engagement; five-point
scale ranging from
‘Strongly disagree’ to
‘Strongly agree’
Saks (2006)
Sample items:
I really “throw” myself
into my job. (Job
engagement)
This job is all consuming;
I am totally into it. (Job
engagement)
Being a member of this
organization is very
captivating. (Org.
engagement)
I am highly engaged in
this organization.(Org.
engagement)
availability –
developed by Kahn
(1990) on employee
engagement in their
work
To test a model of the
antecedents and
consequences of job
and organization
engagements based
on social exchange
theory
emotional, and physical
engagement.
The author built on
the definitions
provided by various
other well-known
scholars
Based on social exchange
theory (SET) and review
of existing literature
Significantly related to the
three psychological
conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and
availability
102 employees
working in a variety
of jobs and
organizations, mainly
in Canada
Cronbach’s α (Job
engagement scale) =
.82
Cronbach’s α
(Organization
engagement scale) =
.90
A principal components
factor analysis with a
promax rotation resulted in
two factors that
corresponded to job and
organization engagements.
The two scales were
developed to measure the
two types of engagement,
as proposed by the author.
Results suggested that there
is a meaningful difference
between job and
organization engagements.
Significantly related to other
constructs including
perceived organizational
support, procedural justice,
job satisfaction,
organizational commitment,
intentions to quit, and
organizational citizenship
behavior.
9
Rich et
al.’s Job
Engageme
nt Measure
18-item questionnaire;
five-point scale ranging
from ‘Strongly Disagree
to ‘Strongly Agree’
Rich,
LePine, and
Crawford
(2010)
Sample items:
At work, my mind is
focused on my job.
(Cognitive)
I am enthusiastic in my
job. (Emotional)
I work with intensity on
my job. (Physical)
James et
al.’s
Employee
Engageme
nt Survey
8-item questionnaire; fivepoint scale ranging
asking respondents the
extent to which they
agreed or disagreed
James,
McKechnie
, and
Swanberg
(2011)
Sample items
It would take a lot to get
me to leave Citisales.
(Cognitive)
I really care about the
future of Citisales.
(Emotional)
I would highly recommend
Citisales to a friends
seeking employment.
(Behavioral)
To draw on Kahn’s
(1990) work to
“develop a theory
that positions
engagement as a key
mechanism
explaining the
relationships among a
variety of individual
characteristics and
organizational factors
and job
performance.” (p.
617)
Utilized Kahn’s
(1990) definition of
engagement at work
To examine six
dimensions of job
quality (supervisor
support, job
autonomy, schedule
input, schedule
flexibility, career
development
opportunities, and
perceptions of
fairness) for their
impact on employee
engagement among
older and younger
workers in a large
retail setting.
Utilized Kahn’s
(1990) definition of
engagement at work
Drew on Kahn’s (1990)
theory to describe how
engagement “represents
the simultaneous
investment” of cognitive,
affective, and physical
energies” (p. 617)
245 full-time US
firefighters and their
supervisors
Cronbach’s α (overall
job engagement
scale) = .95
Searched the literature for
scales and items that fit
Kahn’s definitions of the
three engagement
dimensions; developed a
scale that measures those
dimensions
Utilized social exchange
theory and the norm of
reciprocity as framework
Reviewed relevant
literature on engagement,
including Kahn (1990)
and Schaufeli et al.
(2002)
The engagement measure
was developed for
Citisales by an external
vendor
6047 Citisales
employees in 352
stores in three
regions of the U.S.
Cronbach’s α (overall
scale) = .91
Three scales were developed
to measure the three
dimensions (cognitive,
emotional, and physical)
dimensions of Kahn’s
theorized psychological
engagement
Significantly related to job
satisfaction, value
congruence, perceived
organizational support, core
self-evaluations, task
performance, and
organizational citizenship
behavior
The scale sought to measure
the cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral aspects of
engagement
Engagement was
significantly related to
other constructs,
specifically supervisor
support and recognition,
schedule satisfaction, career
development and
promotion, and job clarity
10
The
Intellectual
, Social,
Affective
Engageme
nt Scale
(ISA
engagemen
t Scale)
Soane,
Truss,
Alfes,
Shantz,
Rees, and
Gatenby
(2012)
Nine-item questionnaire;
seven-point scale ranging
from ‘strongly disagree’ to
‘strongly agree’
Sample items:
I focus hard on my work.
(Intellectual)
I share the same work
values as my colleagues.
(Social)
I feel energetic in my
work. (Affective)
To develop an
engagement model
that has three
requirements: a
work-role focus,
activation, and
positive affect
To operationalize this
model using a new
measure that
comprises of three
dimensions:
intellectual, social,
and affective
engagement.
Proposed that
engagement has
three underlying
facets:
Intellectual
engagement: “the
extent to which one
experiences a state
of positive affect
relating to one’s
work role” (p. 532)
Affective
engagement: “the
extent to which one
experiences a state
of positive affect
relating to one’s
work role” (p. 532)
Social engagement:
“the extent to which
one is socially
connected with the
working
environment and
shares common
values with
colleagues” (p. 532)
Review of the literature
and related instruments
Study 1: 540
employees of a UKbased manufacturing
company
Study 2: 1486 UKbased employees
working for a retail
organization
Cronbach’s α (overall
construct) = 0.91
Three scales were developed
to measure the three
engagement facets
(intellectual, affective, and
social), in accordance with
the authors’ constitutive
definition of the construct
Results confirmed
associations between
engagement and three
organizational outcome
variables: task
performance, OCB, and
turnover intentions.
ISA Engagement Scale
explained additional
variance in the three
outcome variables after
controlling for the UWES
measure.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
11
Discussion
In this section, we discuss the findings in relation to the criteria used to evaluate the
instruments. Specifically, we provide a holistic overview of the main frameworks used,
definitions, populations and samples, and purposes of the instrument publications. We also
discuss the issues of reliability and validity and, where applicable, provide comments on the
instruments based on our review of other literature sources.
Instrument Descriptions, Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks, and Development
All seven instruments included in our review are questionnaire surveys with the number
of items ranging from 8 (James et al.’s Employee Engagement Survey) to 18 (Rich et al.’s Job
Engagement Measure). As expected, the majority of the instruments were developed based on
Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement – the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to
their work roles” (p.694). Interestingly, Harter et al. (2002) – employing the GWA –
conceptualized engagement as “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as
enthusiasm for work” (p.269) whereas Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined engagement as a “state of
mind” that is characterized by “vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p.74).
With respect to the theories or frameworks upon which the development of the measures
was based, Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions of engagement – cognitive, emotional and
physical engagement – serve as the foundational framework for the development of the majority
of the instruments, particularly the Psychological Engagement Measure (May et al., 2004) and
the Job Engagement Measure (Rich et al., 2010). Other literature sources include theories of
motivation and job satisfaction (GWA), the burnout literature (UWES) and social exchange
theory (Saks’ Job and Organization Engagement Scales; James et al.’s Employee Engagement
Survey).
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
12
Interestingly, the population samples on which the instruments were originally tested are
mainly Western samples, although studies attempting to validate some of the instruments in nonWestern contexts have been conducted (e.g. UWES in Japan; Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kosugi,
Suzuki, Nashiwa, Kato, Sakamoto, Irimajiri, Amano, Hirohata, and Goto, 2008). In line with
this, researchers should proceed with caution when employing a Western engagement instrument
in a non-Western context (Rothmann, 2014). In addition to the usual requirements of validity and
reliability, one should take into account the construct equivalence and bias of engagement
measures when conducting cross-cultural studies (Rothmann, 2014). Shimazu et al. (2008), for
instance, found that in the Japanese context, the expected three dimensions of the UWES (vigor,
dedication, and absorption) “collapsed and condensed into one engagement dimension” – which
implies that in Japan, engagement should be considered a unitary construct (p.519). Moreover,
the measurement accuracy of the Japanese version and the original Dutch version of the UWES
was not similar, which was possibly due to the tendency of the Japanese people to suppress their
positive affect and the likelihood of self-enhancement among the Dutch people (Shimazu,
Schaufeli, Miyanaka, and Iwata, 2010). Hence, we should be careful when interpreting the low
engagement scores among Japanese employees and high engagement scores among Western
workers (Shimazu et al., 2010).
Reliability
Reliability refers to the extent to which a measure can produce stable and consistent
results (Field, 2009; Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). For a measure to be reliable, the evaluator
needs to ascertain that its results are reproducible and stable under different conditions and
across different time periods. There are three most commonly used types of reliability: (a) testretest, (b) internal consistency, and (c) inter-rater.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
13
Test-retest reliability means that if a respondent is to retake the test under similar
conditions, his or her score would remain similar to the previous score (Fletcher and Robinson,
2014). Internal consistency reliability refers to the extent to which the test items measure the
same construct of interest. Cronbach’s alpha is widely believed to be an indicator of internal
consistency (Field, 2009). As a rule of thumb, a measure could be considered reliable if the
Cronbach’s alpha value is around .80 (Field, 2009). Finally, inter-rater reliability refers to the
degree to which the instrument yields similar results among different assessors; in other words, it
explains the level of agreement among different raters of the instrument.
The instruments reviewed in this study reported relatively high Cronbach’s alpha values
in their corresponding publications, which implies that these measures have good levels of
internal consistency reliability. However, it appears that only Cronbach’s alpha values were
reported as indicators of good reliability in those publications, which can be insufficient. Indeed,
the authors could have done more in terms of reporting the test-retest reliability as well as the
inter-rater reliability of the instruments.
On a related note, some scales developed outside of academia may not have undergone
such rigorous testing of reliability (and validity); thus, the publishers of such instruments need to
provide evidence that the scale is both reliable and valid, and that such measures are
psychometrically acceptable (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). Given that employee engagement
has attracted a lot of attention from HR practitioners, it is imperative that these psychometric
concerns be addressed if we are to develop projects or initiatives aimed at raising engagement
levels of employees in the most effective and efficient way.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
14
Validity
The engagement research has been inundated with inconsistent operationalizations and
measurements, resulting in confusion as to whether the construct is both conceptually and
empirically different from other constructs (Albrecht, 2010; Christian, Garza, and Slaughter,
2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Truss, Delbridge, Alfes, Shantz, and Soane, 2014). In
contemplating which engagement instrument to use, interested researchers and practitioners need
to take into account three major types of validity (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). First, ‘content
validity’ is concerned with the extent to which the measure captures the construct it is intended
to measure. Kahn (1990) argued that personal engagement represents a state, in which employees
expresses themselves “physically, cognitive, and emotionally” in their work roles (p.692).
Engagement, therefore, “should refer to a psychological connection with the performance of
work tasks rather than an attitude toward features of the organization or the job” (Christian et al.,
2011). Second, ‘convergent validity’ refers to the extent to which the construct is statistically
correlated with other similar constructs. Finally, ‘convergent validity’ is concerned with the
extent to which the engagement construct is “statistically distinct from other similar, yet different
constructs” (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014, p.280).
A measure such as the GWA has been heavily criticized for not conforming to Kahn’s
conceptualization of engagement (content validity) (Christian et al., 2011). Instead of measuring
state, as Kahn (1990) would argue, the GWA focuses on various work conditions, particularly
job characteristics such as rewards, feedback, task significance, and development opportunities
(Christian et al., 2011; Fletcher and Robinson, 2014; Macey and Schneider, 2008). As Macey
and Schneider (2008) put it, the results from the GWA survey data “are used to infer that reports
of these conditions signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed” (p.7).
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
15
The validity of the UWES – one of the most widely used engagement instruments around
the world – has also been under a lot of scrutiny (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Rich et al. (2010,
623), for instance, argued that the UWES includes items that “confound with the antecedent
conditions” proposed by Kahn (1990) – particularly items that ask for respondent perceptions of
meaningfulness and challenge of work – and thus do not precisely measure engagement as
originally conceptualized by him. Similarly, Saks and Gruman (2014) argued that one item of the
UWES’ dedication scale – “To me, my job is challenging.” – seems to overlap with some
engagement predictors such as autonomy or skill variety. In addition, some of the items of the
vigor scale are very similar to items measuring other constructs such as job satisfaction and
commitment.
Cole et al. (2012) also maintained that there have been questions over the issue of
“construct redundancy” between engagement and burnout (p.1576). Cole et al. (2012) employed
meta-analytic techniques to attempt to assess the extent to which job burnout and employee
engagement are “independent and useful constructs”, and found that “construct redundancy” is a
major challenge for understanding and advancing research on burnout and engagement (p.1576).
They maintained that the UWES is, based on their findings, empirically redundant with the MBI.
They also suggested that engagement researchers should avoid treating the UWES as an
instrument that measures a distinct and independent construct, and that more effort vis-à-vis the
conceptualization and operationalization of engagement is needed if we are to avoid further
confusion and advance our understanding of the engagement phenomenon.
It is important to note that our discussion focuses largely on the GWA and the UWES
because of their ubiquitous use and because the other instruments have rarely been used
elsewhere, and in most cases used only in one study (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Nevertheless,
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
16
there are also validity concerns with other instruments. For instance, James et al. (2011) only
reported the face validity of the engagement scale in their publication. The authors claimed “the
eight items in the scale, in terms of face validity, measure the cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral aspects of engagement” (James et al., 2011, p.182). However, items such as “I would
like to be working for Citisales one year from now” and “Compared with other companies I
know about, I think Citisales is a great place to work” may measure one’s commitment to the
organization and not necessarily fully capture the cognitive aspect of engagement.
The issue of ‘discriminant validity’ – whether engagement is simply ‘old wine in a new
bottle’ – has also been a major concern for engagement researchers. Some scholars have argued
that there is a lot of similarity between engagement and other well-established constructs such as
job satisfaction, commitment, and job involvement, whereas others disagree and have found that
engagement is a “novel and valuable” concept (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014, p.280). Clearly,
more research is needed for us to advance our understanding of the construct and recognize the
extent to which engagement is of value to HRD theory and practice.
Limitations, Conclusion, and Implications for Future Research and Practice
Our review of the literature is limited in several ways. First, there are various other
engagement instruments that we did not review in this study, mainly because they exist outside
the public domain and are not accessible. Second, there are a number of assessment criteria that
we were not able to examine. For example, instrument feasibility (how difficult/convenient it is
for responders as well as administrators). This omission is mainly due to the fact that such
information is not presented in the instrument publications or that information associated with
these other criteria is discussed in a very arbitrary and inconsistent manner by the authors of the
publications.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
17
Despite the limitations, we believe that this study provides useful insights to engagement
scholars and practitioners with regard to what scales are available, what their properties are, and
how they have been used. Our review illustrates that while various instruments have been
developed to ‘measure’ engagement, not all scales have the same theoretical underpinnings or
methodological rigor. In addition, certain scales (e.g. UWES, Job Engagement Measure) have
been used and cited more frequently than others. It is important, therefore, that engagement
scholars and researchers carefully review each instrument’s properties and methodological
soundness before selecting an instrument to use for their research.
Our review also offers a number of implications for both research and practice. First of
all, it seems clear that all the instruments reviewed here require more rigorous testing. Indeed,
scale development is an iterative process (Hagen and Peterson, 2014); thus, more evidence of
validity and reliability for the scales is needed. In addition, given the popularity of the
engagement construct in many different countries, scholars and practitioners should pay specific
attention to the appropriateness of the scales before applying any of them in a cross-cultural
context. Needless to say, more attempts to validate the scales in non-Western contexts are
needed. Third, the inconsistent definitions and theoretical underpinnings used by the developers
of each scale could be a cause for concern. Therefore, scholars and practitioners need to review
the information about the development of various scales to see which would fit well with their
researcher questions and topics.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
18
References
ALBRECHT, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research,
and practice, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing.
CHRISTIAN, M. S., GARZA, A. S. and SLAUGHTER, J. E. (2011) Work engagement: A
quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 64, pp. 89-136.
COLE, M. S., WALTER, F., BEDEIAN, A. G. and O’BOYLE, E. H. (2012) Job burnout and
employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of
Management, 38, pp. 1550-1581.
FIELD, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.
FLETCHER, L. and ROBINSON, D. (2014). Measuring and understanding engagement. In:
TRUSS, C., DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (eds.) Employee
engagement in theory and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 273-290.
HAGEN, M. S. and PETERSON, S. L. (2014) Coaching scales: A review of the literature and
comparative analysis. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, pp. 222-241.
HARTER, J. K., SCHMIDT, F. L. and HAYES, T. L. (2002) Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 268-279.
JAMES, J. B., MCKECHNIE, S. and SWANBERG, J. (2011) Predicting employee engagement in
an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, pp. 173-196.
KAHN, W. A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724.
KAHN, W. A. (1992) To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,
pp. 321-349.
KIM, W., KOLB, J. A. and KIM, T. (2012) The relationship between work engagement and
performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human
Resource Development Review, pp.
MACEY, W. H. and SCHNEIDER, B. (2008) The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1, pp. 3-30.
MASLACH, C. and LEITER, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause
personal stress and what to do about it, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
MAY, D. R., GILSON, R. L. and HARTER, L. M. (2004) The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
19
RANA, S., ARDICHVILI, A. and TKACHENKO, O. (2014) A theoretical model of the
antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26,
pp. 249-266.
RICH, B. L., LEPINE, J. A. and CRAWFORD, E. R. (2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 617-635.
ROTHMANN, S. (2014). Employee engagement in a cultural context. In: TRUSS, C.,
DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (eds.) Employee engagement in theory
and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 163-179.
RURKKHUM, S. and BARTLETT, K. R. (2012) The relationship between employee
engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource
Development International, 15, pp. 157-174.
SAKS, A. M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, pp. 600-619.
SAKS, A. M. and GRUMAN, J. A. (2014) What do we really know about employee
engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, pp. 155-182.
SCHAUFELI, W. B., SALANOVA, M., GONZALEZ-ROMA, V. and BAKKER, A. B. (2002) The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.
SHIMAZU, A., SCHAUFELI, W., MIYANAKA, D. and IWATA, N. (2010) Why Japanese workers
show low work engagement: An item response theory analysis of the Utrecht Work
Engagement scale. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 4, pp. 17.
SHIMAZU, A., SCHAUFELI, W. B., KOSUGI, S., SUZUKI, A., NASHIWA, H., KATO, A.,
SAKAMOTO, M., IRIMAJIRI, H., AMANO, S., HIROHATA, K. and GOTO, R. (2008) Work
engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement
scale. Applied Psychology, 57, pp. 510-523.
SHUCK, B., REIO, T. G. and ROCCO, T. S. (2011) Employee engagement: An examination of
antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14, pp.
427-445.
SHUCK, B. and WOLLARD, K. (2010) Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, pp. 89-110.
SOANE, E., TRUSS, C., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A., REES, C. and GATENBY, M. (2012)
Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA
Engagement Scale. Human Resource Development International, 15, pp. 529-547.
TRUSS, C., DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (2014). Employee
engagement in theory and practice, New York, Routledge.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
INSTRUMENTS
20
WOLLARD, K. K. and SHUCK, B. (2011) Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured
review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, pp. 429-446.