Psychometric Properties of Heavy Work Investment Measures: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Design
3.2. Literature Search
3.3. Selection Process
3.4. Coding Process
3.5. Literature Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of the Studies
4.2. Measurement Theory
4.3. Validity
4.3.1. Validity Evidence Based on Test Content
4.3.2. Validity Evidence Based on Internal Structure
4.3.3. Validity Evidence Based on Relations to Other Variables
4.4. Reliability
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Snir, R.; Harpaz, I. Beyond workaholism: Towards a general model of heavy work investment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2012, 22, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Stefano, G.; Gaudiino, M. Workaholism and work engagement: How are they similar? How are they different? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabak, F.; Tziner, A.; Shkoler, O.; Rabenu, E. The complexity of Heavy Work Investment (HWI): A conceptual integration and review of antecedents, dimensions, and outcomes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tziner, A.; Buzea, C.; Rabenu, E.; Shkoler, O.; Truţa, C. Understanding the relationship between antecedents of Heavy Work Investment (HWI) and burnout. Amfiteatru Econ. 2019, 21, 153–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, M.D.; Demetrovics, Z.; Atroszko, P.A. Ten myths about work addiction. J. Behav. Addict. 2018, 7, 845–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Shimazu, A.; Demerouti, E.; Shimada, K.; Kawakami, N. Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model. J. Manag. Psychol. 2014, 29, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tóth-Király, I.; Morin, A.J.S.; Salmela-Aro, K. A longitudinal perspective on the associations between work engagement and workaholism. Work Stress 2021, 35, 27–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acosta-Prado, J.C.; Sandoval-Reyes, J.G.; Sanchís-Pedregosa, C. Job demands and recovery experience: The mediation role of heavy work investment. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 1206–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzetti, G.; Guglielmi, D.; Schaufeli, W.B. Same involvement, different reasons: How personality factors and organizations contribute to heavy work investment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Beek, I.; Taris, T.W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Brenninkmeijer, V. Heavy work investment: Its motivational make-up and outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2014, 29, 46–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gaudiino, M.; Di Stefano, G. To detach or not to detach? The role of psychological detachment on the relationship between heavy work investment and well-being: A latent profile analysis. Curr. Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balducci, C.; Alessandri, G.; Zaniboni, S.; Avanzi, L.; Borgogni, L.; Fraccaroli, F. The impact of workaholism on day-level workload and emotional exhaustion, and on longer-term job performance. Work Stress 2021, 35, 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreassen, C.S.; Hetland, J.; Pallesen, S. Psychometric assessment of workaholism measures. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013, 29, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izquierdo, I.; Olea, J.; Abad, F.J. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema 2014, 26, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- American Educational Research Association; American Psychological Association; National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0935-302-356. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.; Bernstein, I. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 9780070478497. [Google Scholar]
- Raykov, T. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1997, 21, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flora, D.B. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 3, 484–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. A classification system for research designs in psychology. An. Psicol. 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spence, J.T.; Robbins, A.S. Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. J. Pers. Assess. 1992, 58, 160–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B.E. The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Percept. Mot. Skills 1999, 88, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Shimazu, A.; Taris, T.W. Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cult. Res. 2009, 43, 320–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kanai, A.; Wakabayashi, M.; Fling, S. Workaholism among employees in Japanese corporations: An examination based on the Japanese version of the Workaholism Scales. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 1996, 38, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, R.J. Workaholism in organizations: Measurement validation and replication. Int. J. Stress Manag. 1999, 6, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, R.J. Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components: Test-retest stability. Psychol. Rep. 2001, 88, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burke, R.J.; Koksal, H. Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and professionals: An exploratory study. Psychol. Rep. 2002, 91, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, R.J.; Richardsen, A.M.; Martinussen, M. Psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components. Psychol. Rep. 2002, 91, 1098–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McMillan, L.H.W.; Brady, E.C.; O’Driscoll, M.P.; Marsh, N.V. A multifaceted validation study of Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2002, 75, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ersoy-Kart, M. Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (Work-BAT): Turkish Form. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2005, 33, 609–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andreassen, C.S.; Ursin, H.; Eriksen, H.R. The relationship between strong motivation to work, “workaholism”, and health. Psychol. Health 2007, 22, 615–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.C.; Hu, C.; Wu, T.C. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the workaholism battery. J. Psychol. 2010, 144, 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boada-Grau, J.; Prizmic-Kuzmica, A.-J.; Serrano-Fernández, M.-J.; Vigil-Colet, A. Estructura factorial, fiabilidad y validez de la escala de adicción al trabajo (WorkBAT): Versión española. An. Psicol. 2013, 29, 923–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santos, J.; Sousa, C.; Sousa, A.; Figueiredo, L.; Gonçalves, G. Psychometric evidences of the Workaholism Battery in a Portuguese sample. J. Spat. Organ. Dyn. 2018, 6, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
- Urbán, R.; Kun, B.; Mózes, T.; Soltész, P.; Paksi, B.; Farkas, J.; Kökönyei, G.; Orosz, G.; Maráz, A.; Felvinczi, K.; et al. A four-factor model of work addiction: The development of the Work Addiction Risk Test Revised. Eur. Addict. Res. 2019, 25, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, B.E.; Post, P.; Khakee, J.F. Test-retest reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Percept. Mot. Skills 1992, 74, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B.E.; Post, P. Validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Percept. Mot. Skills 1994, 78, 337–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, B.E.; Phillips, B. Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Psychol. Rep. 1995, 77, 657–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, B.E.; Post, P. Split-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a measure of workaholism. Psychol. Rep. 1995, 76, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, B.E. Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test as a measure of workaholism. Psychol. Rep. 1996, 79, 1313–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Flowers, C.P.; Robinson, B. A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2002, 62, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taris, T.W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Verhoeven, L.C. Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 54, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romeo, M.; Yepes-Baldó, M.; Berger, R.; da Costa, F.F.N. Workaholism in Brazil: Measurement and individual differences. Adicciones 2014, 26, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ravoux, H.; Pereira, B.; Brousse, G.; Dewavrin, S.; Cornet, T.; Mermillod, M.; Mondillon, L.; Vallet, G.; Moustafa, F.; Dutheil, F. Work Addiction Test questionnaire to assess workaholism: Validation of French version. JMIR Ment. Health 2018, 5, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- del Líbano, M.; Llorens, S.; Salanova, M.; Schaufeli, W. Validity of a brief workaholism scale. Psicothema 2010, 22, 143–150. [Google Scholar]
- Falco, A.; Kravina, L.; Girardi, D.; Dal Corso, L.; Di Sipio, A.; De Carlo, N.A. The convergence between self and observer ratings of workaholism: A comparison between couples. Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 19, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molino, M.; Ghislieri, C.; Colombo, L. Working excessively: Theoretical and methodological considerations. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2012, 34, A5–A10. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sharma, P.; Sharma, J. A confirmatory factor analysis of Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Glob. Bus. Rev. 2013, 14, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Littman-Ovadia, H.; Balducci, C.; Ben-Moshe, T. Psychometric properties of the Hebrew version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS-10). J. Psychol. 2014, 148, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rantanen, J.; Feldt, T.; Hakanen, J.J.; Kokko, K.; Huhtala, M.; Pulkkinen, L.; Schaufeli, W. Cross-national and longitudinal investigation of a short measure of workaholism. Ind. Health 2015, 53, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mir, I.; Kamal, A.; Masood, S. Translation and validation of Dutch Workaholism Scale. Pakistan J. Psychol. Res. 2016, 31, 331–346. [Google Scholar]
- Azevedo, W.F.; Mathias, L.A. da S.T. Addiction to work and factors relating to this: A cross-sectional study on doctors in the state of Paraíba. Sao Paulo Med. J. 2017, 135, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balducci, C.; Avanzi, L.; Consiglio, C.; Fraccaroli, F.; Schaufeli, W. A cross-national study on the psychometric quality of the Italian version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2017, 33, 422–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonnis, M.; Cuccu, S.; Cortese, C.G.; Massidda, D. The Italian version of the Dutch Workaholism Scale (DUWAS): A study on a group of nurses. BPA Appl. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 65, 47–57. [Google Scholar]
- Traub, R.E. Classical Test Theory in historical perspective. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 1997, 16, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeMars, C. Item Response Theory; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sharkness, J. Item Response Theory: Overview, applications, and promise for institutional research. New Dir. Institut. Res. 2014, 2014, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bond, T.G.; Yan, Z.; Heene, M. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 4th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sireci, S.; Faulkner-Bond, M. Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema 2014, 26, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowen, D.J.; Hyams, T.; Goodman, M.; West, K.M.; Harris-Wai, J.; Yu, J.-H. Systematic review of quantitative measures of stakeholder engagement. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2017, 10, 314–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boon, C.; Den, D.N.; Lepak, D.P. A systematic review of human resource management systems and their measurement. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 2498–2537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shkoler, O.; Rabenu, E.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Ferrari, F.; Hatipoglu, B.; Roazzi, A.; Kimura, T.; Tabak, F.; Moasa, H.; Vasiliu, C.; et al. Heavy-Work Investment: Its dimensionality, invariance across 9 countries and levels before and during the COVID-19’s pandemic. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2021, 37, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Database | Search Strategy |
---|---|
Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY (psychometric* OR validation OR validity OR reliability OR adaptation OR dimensionality) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“heavy work investment” OR workaholism OR “work addiction” OR “passion to work” OR “job demands” OR “work craving” OR “work engagement” OR “addiction to work” OR “passion towards work” OR “passion for work” OR “heavy-work investment”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (questionnaire OR measure* OR assessment OR tool OR instrument OR scale OR inventory OR battery) AND PUBYEAR < 2021 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”) OR LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “Spanish”)) |
Web of Science | TS = (psychometric* OR validation OR validity OR reliability OR adaptation OR dimensionality) AND TS = (“heavy work investment” OR workaholism OR “work addiction” OR “passion to work” OR “job demands” OR “work craving” OR “work engagement” OR “addiction to work” OR “passion towards work” OR “passion for work” OR “heavy-work investment”) AND TS = (questionnaire OR measure* OR assessment OR tool OR instrument OR scale OR inventory OR battery) Refined By: NOT Publication Years: 2021; Document Types: Articles; Languages: English or Spanish |
PsycNET | (Any Field: psychometric* OR Any Field: validation OR Any Field: validity OR Any Field: reliability OR Any Field: adaptation OR Any Field: dimensionality) AND (Any Field: “heavy work investment” OR Any Field: workaholism OR Any Field: “work addiction” OR Any Field: “passion to work” OR Any Field: “job demands” OR Any Field: “work craving” OR Any Field: “work engagement” OR Any Field: “addiction to work” OR Any Field: “passion towards work” OR Any Field: “passion for work” OR Any Field: “heavy-work investment”) AND (Any Field: questionnaire OR Any Field: measure* OR Any Field: assessment OR Any Field: tool OR Any Field: instrument OR Any Field: scale OR Any Field: inventory OR Any Field: battery) AND Document Type: Journal Article AND Year: 0 To 2020 |
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection via EBSCO | (psychometric* OR validation OR validity OR reliability OR adaptation OR dimensionality) AND (“heavy work investment” OR workaholism OR “work addiction” OR “passion to work” OR “job demands” OR “work craving” OR “work engagement” OR “addiction to work” OR “passion towards work” OR “passion for work” OR “heavy-work investment”) AND (questionnaire OR measure* OR assessment OR tool OR instrument OR scale OR inventory OR battery) limit year 2020 |
MEDLINE via Ovid | (psychometric* OR validation OR validity OR reliability OR adaptation OR dimensionality) AND (“heavy work investment” OR workaholism OR “work addiction” OR “passion to work” OR “job demands” OR “work craving” OR “work engagement” OR “addiction to work” OR “passion towards work” OR “passion for work” OR “heavy-work investment”) AND (questionnaire OR measure* OR assessment OR tool OR instrument OR scale OR inventory OR battery) limit 1 to year = “1860–2020” |
No | Instrument Name and Authors | Study Design | Dimension Measured | Psychometric Properties | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Theory | Validity | Reliability | ||||
1 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Spence and Robbins, 1992) [21] | Development | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Relations to other variables All three factors correlated with Time commitment and Work involvement. In addition, Work involvement and Drive were correlated with Job stress, Perfectionism, and Non-delegation. Finally, Drive and Work enjoyment correlated with health complaints. | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.69 and 0.67), Drive (α = 0.81 and 0.67), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.86). |
2 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Kanai, Wakabayashi, and Fling, 1996) [24] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work enjoyment and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Orthogonal two-factor model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.30 and variance explained 32%. Relations to other variables Both factors correlated with Time commitment, Job involvement and Perfectionism. Drive was also correlated with Job stress, Non-delegation and Health complaints. | Internal consistence Factors: Drive (α = 0.70) and Work enjoyment (α = 0.85). |
3 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Burke, 1999) [25] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Relations to other variables The three factors correlated with Job involvement, Time on the job and Hours worked. Drive correlated with Perfectionism (r = 0.42), Overtime worked (r = 0.26) and Non-delegation (r = 0.20). Work enjoyment correlated with Overtime worked (r = −0.26). | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.67), Drive (α = 0.80), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.88). |
4 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Burke, 2001) [26] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Not reported. | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.66 and 0.67), Drive (α = 0.73 and 0.71), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.88). Test-retest Three months. Work involvement (r = 0.52), Drive (r = 0.59), and Work enjoyment (r = 0.76). |
5 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Burke and Koksal, 2002) [27] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Relations to other variables The three factors were correlated with work behaviors, job satisfaction, emotional well-being, beliefs and fears, and balance values. | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.56), Drive (α = 0.46), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.79). |
6 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Burke, Richardsen, and Martinussen, 2002) [28] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Three-factor orthogonal model (PCA) and variance explained 39%. | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.45 and 0.64), Drive (α = 0.81 and 0.87), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.85 and 0.84). Test-retest Six months. Work involvement (r = 0.49), Drive (r = 0.45), and Work enjoyment (r = 0.56). |
7 | Workaholism Battery Revised (WorkBAT-R), revised version of the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (McMillan et al., 2002) [29] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work enjoyment and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Orthogonal two-factor model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.40, variance explained 41.43%, correlation between factors 0.22. Relations to other variables Enjoyment and Drive were correlated with job satisfaction (except for Drive), work involvement, an alternative measure of work addiction (SNAP-Work), and intrinsic work motivation. Likewise, the number of hours worked correlated 0.16 with Enjoyment and 0.22 with Drive. | Internal consistence Factors: Enjoyment (α = 0.85) and Drive (α = 0.75). |
8 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Ersoy-Kart, 2005) [30] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work involvement and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Two-factor oblique model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.40, variance explained 29.60%, correlation between factors was 0.47. Relations to other variables Work involvement (r = 0.22) and drive (r = 0.24) were correlated with type A behavior. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.83, split-half reliability coefficient = 0.69). Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.81) and Drive (α = 0.81). |
9 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Andreassen, Ursin, and Eriksen, 2007) [31] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure The two-factor (no work involvement) and three-factor (CFA) models had an acceptable fit. Relations to other variables Drive and Work enjoyment were correlated with work stress, burnout and subjective health complaints. Work enjoyment was also correlated with work engagement components. | Internal consistence Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.49), Drive (α = 0.80), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.79). |
10 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Huang, Hu, and Wu, 2010) [32] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work enjoyment, Work involvement-enjoyment, Drive-work involvement, Drive, and Work involvement). | CTT | Internal structure Five-factor model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.30, variance explained 54.65%, correlation between factors ranged from −0.24 to 0.31. Relations to other variables The five WorkBAT factors correlated with the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) and most of its factors, as well as with career commitment, job involvement, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. | Internal consistence Factors: Enjoyment (α = 0.88), Work involvement-enjoyment (α = 0.69), Drive-work involvement (α = 0.58), Drive (α = 0.73), and Work involvement (α = 0.60). |
11 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Andreassen, Hetland, and Pallesen, 2013) [13] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Four-factor oblique model (PCA), factor loadings greater than 0.40. The three-factor model (CFA) had a poor fit. Relations to other variables The Drive factor had the best correlations with the WART and DUWAS. Work involvement and Work enjoyment showed variable results. | Internal consistence Factors: Involvement (α = 0.63), Drive (α = 0.82), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.84). Test-retest 24–30 months. Work involvement (ICC = 0.65), Drive (ICC = 0.64), and Work enjoyment (ICC = 0.61). |
12 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Boada-Grau et al., 2013) [33] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work enjoyment and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Two-factor oblique model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.30, variance explained 42.64%, correlation between factors 0.19. Two-factor related and good fit model (CFA). Relations to other variables The WorkBAT correlated with irritation, burnout and obsessive beliefs. | Internal consistence Factors: Work enjoyment (α = 0.82, CI 0.80–0.84) and Drive (α = 0.80, CI 0.78–0.83). |
13 | Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) (Santos et al., 2018) [34] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Work involvement, Work enjoyment, and Drive). | CTT | Internal structure Two- and three-factor related (CFA) model, poor fit in all goodness-of-fit indices. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.81). Factors: Work involvement (α = 0.56), Drive (α = 0.82), and Work enjoyment (α = 0.76). |
14 | Work Addiction Risk Test Revised (WART-R), revised version of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Urbán et al., 2019) [35] | Adaptation | Work addiction (Overcommitment, Impatience, Hard-working, and Salience). | N/A | Internal structure Four-factor oblique model (EFA), factor loadings greater than 0.40 and correlations between factors from 0.16 to 0.50. Related four-factor model (CFA), good fit, factor loadings between 0.39 and 0.73 and correlations between factors from 0.47 to 0.74. Relations to other variables The amount of Time spent working, Mental health symptoms, and Hostility were significantly associated with four factors. | Not reported. |
15 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson, Post, and Khakee, 1992) [36] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction | CTT | Not reported. | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.85). Test-retest Two weeks. Work addiction (r = 0.83). |
16 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson and Post, 1994) [37] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction | N/A | Test content Subjects were presented with five of the major symptoms of work addiction around which the 25-item measure was constructed: Overdoing, Self- worth, Control-Perfectionism, Intimacy, and Mental Preoccupation-Future Reference. Subjects were asked to select the symptom that matched each of the 25 items. The percentage of correct categorizations ranged from 40% to 96%. | Not reported. |
17 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson and Phillips, 1995) [38] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction | N/A | Test content Ten statements unrelated to work addiction were nested throughout the 25-item test. Subjects were asked to identify the 25 items from a list of 35 statements they believed to be symptoms of work addiction. The mean percentage score of correctly identified symptoms was 89.4%. The percentages ranged from 65% to 100%. | Not reported. |
18 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson and Post, 1995) [39] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction | CTT | Not reported. | Internal consistence Work addiction (Spearman-Brown split-half correlation coefficient = 0.85). |
19 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson, 1996) [40] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction | N/A | Relations to other variables Workaholism correlated with generalized anxiety (r = 0.40), type A behavior patterns (r = 0.37), and with scores on the four scales of the Jenkins Activity Survey with 0.50 on the Type A scale, 0.50 on the Speed and Impatience scale, 0.39 on the Hard-driving and Competitive scale, and 0.20 on the Job Involvement scale. | Not reported. |
20 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Robinson, 1999) [22] | Development | Work addiction | CTT | Relations to other variables Work addiction was correlated with anxiety (r = 0.40), Type A behaviors (r = 0.37), Type A (r = 0.50), Speed and impatience (r = 0.49), Hard-driving and competitive (r = 0.38), and Job involvement (r = 0.20). | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.88). |
21 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Flowers and Robinson, 2002) [41] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction (Compulsive tendencies, Control, Impaired communication/Self-absorption, Inability to delegate, and Self-Worth). | CTT | Internal structure Five-factor oblique model (PCA), factor loadings greater than 0.40 and variance explained 52%. Relations to other variables Four discriminant analyses were conducted to examine the correct classification rate of scores on the WART and explore which of the factors and items accounted for the differences in the average score profiles of the WG and CW. The correct classification rate for the CG remained consistent, ranging from 93.8 to 95.3. The correct classification rate for the WG varied between 57.3 and 70. | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.90). |
22 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Taris, Schaufeli, and Verhoeven, 2005) [42] | Adaptation | Work addiction (Compulsive tendencies, Control, Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption, Inability to delegate, and Self-worth). | CTT | Internal structure Model with five first-order and one second-order factor (CFA), good fit and factor loadings between 0.30 and 0.80 (first order) and 0.85 and 0.96 (second order). Relations to other variables The WART correlated highly with the Compulsive tendencies factor (r = 0.89 and 0.93), which is proposed as a short version of the WART. Both versions correlated with job stress (job demands and overtime), job strain (work–nonwork conflict, exhaustion, and cynism), and mental health. | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.93). Factors: Compulsive tendencies (α = 0.90), Control (α = 0.82), Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption (α = 0.62), and Self-worth (α = 0.56). |
23 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Andreassen, Hetland, and Pallesen, 2013) [13] | Psychometric properties | Work addiction (Compulsive tendencies (CT), Control (CL), Impaired communication (IC), Self-worth (SW), and Inability to delegate (ID)). | CTT | Internal structure Four-factor oblique model (PCA), factor loadings greater than 0.40. The five-factor model (CFA) had a poor fit. Relations to other variables The five WART factors (and the total) correlated with the DUWAS factors and with the WorkBAT Drive factor. | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.86). Factors: CT (α = 0.77), CL (α = 0.75), IC (α = 0.59), and SW (α = 0.36). Test-retest 24–30 months. Work addiction (ICC = 0.70), CT (ICC = 0.63), CL (ICC = 0.69), IC (ICC = 0.56), ID (ICC = 0.32), and SW (ICC = 0.56). |
24 | Work Addiction Risk Test Portuguese of Brazil Version (WART15-PBV), adapted version of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Romeo et al., 2014) [43] | Adaptation | Work addiction (Compulsive tendencies, Control, and Impaired Communication/Self-Absorption). | CTT | Internal structure Three-factor model (CFA), good fit and factor loadings between 0.36 and 0.95. Relations to other variables WART15-PBV correlated with the DUWAS (r = 0.90) and the correlations between the factors of both tests were greater than 0.50. WART15-PBV also correlated with general health perception (r = 0.29). | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.83). Factors: Compulsive tendencies (α = 0.79), Control (α = 0.54), and Impaired communication/Self-absorption (α = 0.68). |
25 | Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) (Ravoux et al., 2018) [44] | Adaptation | Work addiction (Compulsive tendencies, Control, Impaired communication and self-absorption, Self-worth, and Inability to delegate). | CTT | Internal structure Four-component model (PCA). Relations to other variables Work addiction and the factors Compulsive tendencies, Control, and Impaired communication and self-absorption were correlated with the visual analog scale of stress at work (r = 0.43), stress at home (r = 0.41), and the visual analog scale of well-being (r = −0.40). | Internal consistence Work addiction (α = 0.90). Factors: α between 0.57 and 0.85. Test-retest One week. The Lin concordance coefficient indicated a value of 0.90 for the total test and values between 0.66 and 0.86 for the factors. |
26 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Schaufeli, Shimazu, and Taris, 2009) [23] | Development | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Two-component model (PCA), factor loadings between 0.57 and 0.82 (TN) and 0.52 and 0.74 (JP). Explained variance of 52.5% (TN) and 46.5% (JP). Related two-factor model (CFA), good fit and relationship between factors high in TN (r = 0.50) and JP (r = 0.59). Factor invariance: MG-CFA tested the equivalence of the CFA (configural) model in the Dutch and Japanese samples. Relations to other variables All correlations between workaholism (WE and WC) and excess working time (overtime percentage and overwork) are positive. Workaholism was not related to Engagement (r = −0.19, NT; r = −0.05, JP) and was related to Burnout (r = 0.53, NT; r = 0.64, JP). | Internal consistence Factors (TN): WE (α = 0.78) and WC (α = 0.78). Factors (JP): WE (α = 0.73) and WC (α = 0.68). |
27 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (del Líbano et al., 2010) [45] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Relations to other variables (DUWAS-10 and DUWAS-17): Intercorrelations between the original and shortened factors ranged between 0.92 and 0.94 in the TN and SP samples. The intercorrelations of WE and WC with perceived health and happiness were negative in both samples. Internal structure (DUWAS-10): Two-factor related (CFA) model and good fit in the TN and SP samples. Factor invariance (DUWAS-10): MG-CFA tested the equivalence of the CFA model (factor structure, covariance, and factor loadings) between the TN and SP samples. | Internal consistence DUWAS-17 Factors. TN: WE (α = 0.82) and WC (α = 0.84). SP: WE (α = 0.85) and WC (α = 0.79). DUWAS-10 Factors. TN: WE (α = 0.75) and WC (α = 0.81). SP: WE (α = 0.78) and WC (α = 0.79). |
28 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale -Observer Rating (DUWAS-OR) (Falco et al. 2012) [46] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Related two-factor model (CFA), acceptable fit, factor loadings between 0.61 and 0.86, in addition, the correlation between factors was 0.69. Relations to other variables AVE was 0.50 for WE and 0.65 for WC. In addition, the two factors correlated with the UWES (self-report), WE (r = 0.49) and WC (r = 0.43). WE and WC correlated with Workload and WE with Work–family conflict. Discriminant evidence: Evidence was provided through the Fornell and Larcker criterion for the two factors. | Internal consistence Factors: WE (α = 0.86) and WC (α = 0.89). |
29 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Molino, Ghislieri, and Colombo, 2012) [47] | Psychometric properties | Working excessively | CTT | Internal structure One-factor model (EFA), factor loadings between 0.41 and 0.76 and explained a variance of 38.62%. Unifactorial model (CFA), good fit, factor loadings between 0.38 and 0.84. Relations to other variables Relationship between Working excessively and Work–family conflict (r = 0.49). | Internal consistence Working excessively (α = 0.74). |
30 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Andreassen, Hetland, and Pallesen, 2013) [13] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Two-factor oblique model (PCA), factor loadings greater than 0.40. The two-factor model (CFA) had a poor fit. Relations to other variables The two DUWAS factors correlated with the WART factors and the WorkBAT factors. | Internal consistence Factors: WE (α = 0.69) and WC (α = 0.63). Test-retest 24–30 months. WE (ICC = 0.61) and WC (ICC = 0.65). |
31 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Sharma and Sharma, 2013) [48] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE), Working compulsively (WC), and Overwork(O)). | CTT | Relations to other variables Convergent evidence: AVE greater than 0.50 for the three factors. Discriminant evidence: Evidence was provided through the Fornell and Larcker criterion for the three factors. Internal structure Three-factor hierarchical model (CFA). Poor fit. Factor loadings between 0.50 and 0.77 (first order), and between 0.51 and 0.89 (second order). | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.83). Factors: WE (α = 0.88), WC (α = 0.83), and O (α = 0.60). |
32 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Littman-Ovadia, Balducci, and Ben-Moshe, 2014) [49] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Related two-factor model (CFA), acceptable fit, factor loadings between 0.38 and 0.77, in addition, the correlation between factors was 0.76. Relations to other variables Self-reports and peer-reports of workaholism (UWES answered by spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, friend, or colleague) correlated; Workaholism (r = 0.52), WE (r = 0.50), and WC (r = 0.43). Workaholism and its scales showed positive correlations with overcommitment, the actual number of hours worked per week, burnout (emotional exhaustion), work engagement (Absorption), and intrinsic aspects of the job. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.78). Factors: WE (α = 0.61) and WC (α = 0.70). Test-retest Two or three months. Workaholism (r = 0.79). Factors: WE (r = 0.77) and WC (r = 0.71). |
33 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Rantanen et al., 2015) [50] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Related two-factor model (CFA), an acceptable fit in both samples. However, a second-order model showed a better fit (WE: working frantically and working long hours; WC: obsessive work drive and unease if not working) with loadings greater than 0.50. Likewise, a four-factor related model (with the first-order factors of the previous model) also indicated a good fit. Factorial invariance: Second-order factor structure showed reasonable measurement invariance and stability of factor structure across the two samples and time in the Finnish sub-sample of managers with two measurement points two years apart. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.82, TN; α = 0.86, FL). Factors (TN): WE (α = 0.72) and WC (α = 0.80). Factors (FL): WE (α = 0.80) and WC (α = 0.80). Subfactors α between 0.51 and 0.80. Test-retest Two-year. Factors: WE (r = 0.66) and WC (r = 0.76). Subfactors’ r between 0.60 and 0.71. |
34 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Mir, Kamal, and Masood, 2016) [51] | Adaptation | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Two-factor model (CFA), good fit, factor loadings between 0.46 and 0.74, 5 items for WE and 3 items for WC. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.71). Factors: WE (α = 0.66) and WC (α = 0.64). |
35 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Azevedo and Mathias, 2017) [52] | Psychometric properties | Addiction to work | CTT | Internal structure One-component model (PCA), factor loadings between 0.60 and 0.70, and explained variance of 44.5%. Relations to other variables Addiction to work was positively correlated with the number of shifts worked (r = 0.20), and it showed a negative correlation with age (r = −0.20). | Internal consistence Addiction to work (α = 0.86). |
36 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Balducci et al., 2017) [53] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | CTT | Internal structure Related two-factor model (CFA), good fit and factor loadings between 0.44 and 0.72. Factor invariance: MG-CFA tested the equivalence of the CFA model (configural, metric, factor variance and factor covariance) between the Italian sample and another Dutch sample (n = 7523). Relations to other variables DUWAS and its factors are positively related to the number of hours worked in a week, job demands (workload and work-to-family conflict), high and low arousal job-related negative affect, and psychological strain symptoms. | Internal consistence Workaholism (α = 0.82). Factors: WE (α = 0.74, CI = 0.72–0.77; ω = 0.75) and WC (α = 0.74, CI = 0.72–0.77; ω = 0.75). Test-retest One-year. Workaholism (r = 0.57). Factors: WE (r = 0.62) and WC (r = 0.54). |
37 | Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Nonnis et al., 2017) [54] | Psychometric properties | Workaholism (Working excessively (WE) and Working compulsively (WC)). | RMT | Internal structure The parallel analysis of the residuals shows that the work engagement has two significant components. However, the eigenvalues are below the cut-off point (2) for both factors. | Internal consistence Person separation reliability R, which scored 0.49 in the WE and 0.56 in the WC. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Acosta-Prado, J.C.; Tafur-Mendoza, A.A.; Zárate-Torres, R.A.; Ramírez-Ospina, D.E. Psychometric Properties of Heavy Work Investment Measures: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12539. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212539
Acosta-Prado JC, Tafur-Mendoza AA, Zárate-Torres RA, Ramírez-Ospina DE. Psychometric Properties of Heavy Work Investment Measures: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2021; 13(22):12539. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212539
Chicago/Turabian StyleAcosta-Prado, Julio César, Arnold Alejandro Tafur-Mendoza, Rodrigo Arturo Zárate-Torres, and Duván Emilio Ramírez-Ospina. 2021. "Psychometric Properties of Heavy Work Investment Measures: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 13, no. 22: 12539. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su132212539