medigraphic.com

2019, Número 1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Esp Cienc Salud 2019; 22 (1)


Engagement como indicador de salud laboral: Propiedades Psicométricas del UWES en mexicanos

Villa GFI, Moreno-Jiménez B, Rodríguez MA, Sanz VAI

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 32
Paginas: 42-48
Archivo PDF: 422.72 Kb.


RESUMEN

El engagement hace que el individuo se encuentre comprometido, con altos niveles de energía, dedicación y absorción en el trabajo. Es un elemento del proceso motivacional laboral que favorece el bienestar de los trabajadores y la salud en general. El objetivo de este estudio consistió en analizar las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Engagement en el trabajo (UWES) en una muestra de 400 trabajadores mexicanos. Los resultados del análisis factorial confirmatorio (CFI=0,98, GFI=0,97, NNFI=0,97, RMSEA=0,05 y AIC=97,41) apoyan el modelo de tres factores, con una estructura de 9 ítems propuesto por los autores de esta escala. Por tanto la escala mantiene las tres subescalas que componen el Engagement: Vigor, Dedicación y Absorción. El nivel de fiabilidad del cuestionario global y de las diferentes subescalas muestra una alta consistencia interna, con valores situados entre 0,69 y 0,85. Para estudiar la validez de constructo se analizaron las correlaciones entre vigor, dedicación y absorción y los componentes del desgaste profesional, así como autonomía, apoyo del supervisor y satisfacción vital. La evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas confirma al UWES como un instrumento válido y fiable para evaluar el engagement laboral y se sugiere para poder ser utilizado en futuras investigaciones.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika. 1987; 52: 317-332.

  2. Aron A, Aron E. Statistics for psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2003.

  3. Browner MW, Crudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. En KA Bollen, JS Long (Eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage; 1993. p. 136-162.

  4. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001.

  5. Clark L, Watson D. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment. 1995; 7: 309-319.

  6. Demerouti E, Bakker AB. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. In J Halbesleben (Ed.). Stress and burnout in health care. Nova Sciences; 2008.

  7. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86: 499-512.

  8. Gonzalez-Roma V, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Lloret S. Burnout and work engagement: independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2006; 62: 165-174.

  9. Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1983.

  10. Hambleton RK. Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 1994; 10: 229-244.

  11. Hakanen J. Tyo¨uupumuksesta tyo¨n imuun – positiivisen tyo¨hyvinvointika¨sitteen ja-menetelma¨n suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa (“From burnout to job engagement – validation of the Finnish version of an instrument for measuring job engagement (UWES) in an educational organization”). Tyo¨ ja Ihminen. 2002; 16: 42-58.

  12. Hakanen J, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology. 2006; 43: 495-513.

  13. Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66: 393-416.

  14. Koyuncu M, Burke RJ, Fiksenbaum L. Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences. Equal Opportunities International. 2006; 25: 299-310.

  15. Leiter MP, Bakker AB Work engagement: State of the art. In AB Bakker, MP Leiter (Eds.). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology Pres; 2010.

  16. Mackenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Jarvis CB. The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90: 710-730.

  17. Maslach C, Leiter MP. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.

  18. Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Ruokolainen M. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2007: 70: 149-171.

  19. May DR, Gilson RL, Harter LM. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2004; 77: 11-37.

  20. Nunnally JC, Berstein IH. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

  21. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.schaufeli.com

  22. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004; 25: 293-315.

  23. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006; 66: 701-716.

  24. Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE. The MBI-General Survey. En C Maslach, SE Jackson, MP Leiter (Eds.). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996. p. 19-26.

  25. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3: 71-92.

  26. Storm K, Rothmann I. A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology. 2003; 29: 62-70.

  27. Thompson CA, Prottas D. Relationship among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2005; 10(4): 100- 118.

  28. Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973; 35: 417-437.

  29. Van de Vijver FJR, Hambleton RK. Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist. 1996; 1: 89-99.

  30. Voydanoff P. The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66: 398-412.

  31. Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management. 2007; 14: 121-141.

  32. Yi-Wen Z, Yi-Qun C. The Chinese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale: an examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005; 13: 268-270.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com