The purpose of this study was to validate the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-J). Employees from three independent samples completed the questionnaire (total N = 2,334). Confirmatory factor analyses using the multiple-group method revealed that, instead of the original threefactor model, a one-factor model that assumes that all engagement items load on one single factor fitted the data. Moreover, the one-factor structure was invariant across all three samples. Internal consistency of the scale was sufficiently high ( α = .92) and the test-retest reliability with an interval of two months was .66. A series of second-order confirmatory factor analyses to examine construct validity confirmed the hypothesised model, indicating that work engagement was positively related to job satisfaction whereas it was negatively related to strain and burnout. However, as in previous studies, professional efficacy, a component of burnout, loaded on the engagement factor. These results, in general, suggest the reliability (internal consistency and stability), factorial invariance, and construct validity of the UWES-J in three independent samples.Cette étude avait pour objectif de valider la version japonaise de l'Echelle d'Implication au Travail d'Utrecht (UWES-J). 2,334 salariés provenant de trois échantillons indépendants ont rempli le questionnaire. Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire faisant appel à la méthode des groupes multiples a montré que le modèle originel en trois facteurs devait laisser la place à un modèle unifactoriel puisque tous les items d'implication étaient saturés sur un unique facteur qui rendait compte à lui seul des données. En outre, la structure monofactorielle restait identique à elle-même sur les trois échantillons. La consistance interne de l'échelle était suffisamment élevée ( α = .92) et la fidélité test-retest après une période de deux mois était de .66. Une série d'analyses factorielles confirmatoires de second ordre destinées à étudier la validité de construction ont confirmé le modèle hypothétique, indiquant que l'implication dans le travail était en corrélation positive avec la satisfaction professionnelle tandis qu'elle était en relation négative avec la tension nerveuse et le burnout. Comme dans des travaux antérieurs, l'efficacité professionnelle, une composante du burnout, était saturée dans le facteur d'implication. Ces résultats, vont dans le sens de la fidélité (consistance interne et stabilité), de la solidité factorielle et de la validité de construction de l'UWES-J dans ces trois échantillons indépendants.

Abstract. The current study introduces an ultra-short, 3-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Using five national samples from Finland ( N = 22,117), Japan ( N = 1,968), the Netherlands ( N = 38,278), Belgium/Flanders ( N = 5,062), and Spain ( N = 10,040) its internal consistency and factorial validity vis-à-vis validated measures of burnout, workaholism, and job boredom are demonstrated. Moreover, the UWES-3 shares 86–92% of its variance with the longer nine-item version and the pattern of correlations of both versions with 9 indicators of well-being, 8 job demands, 10 job resources, and 6 outcomes is highly similar with an average, absolute difference between correlations of only .02. Hence, it is concluded that the UWES-3 is a reliable and valid indicator of work engagement that can be used as an alternative to the longer version, for instance in national and international epidemiological surveys on employee’s working conditions.

Although workaholism and work engagement are weakly positively related, they constitute two different concepts. More specifically, workaholism has negative consequences across an extended period of 2 years, whereas work engagement has positive consequences in terms of well-being and performance. Hence, workaholism should be prevented and work engagement should be stimulated.

The aim of the present study is to demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement by examining their relationships with well-being in a sample of 776 Japanese employees. We expected that workaholism is associated with unwell-being (i.e., high psychological distress and physical complaints, low job and family satisfaction, and low job performance), whereas work engagement is associated with well-being. Well-validated questionnaires were used to measure workaholism (DUWAS), work engagement (UWES), and well-being (BJSQ, HPQ). Structural Equation Modeling showed that, as expected, workaholism was positively associated with ill-health (i.e., psychological distress and physical complaints) and negatively associated with life satisfaction (i.e., job and family satisfaction) and job performance. In contrast, work engagement was negatively associated with ill-health and positively associated with life satisfaction and job performance. These findings suggest that workaholism and work engagement are two different kinds of concepts, which are negatively and positively related to various indicators of well-being, respectively.