Validation of the Chinese Version of the Multidimensional Workaholism Scale

Abstract

The aim of this study was to translate the Multidimensional Workaholism Scale (MWS) into Chinese and then test its reliability and validity among full-time Chinese employees in two stages. In Study 1 ( N = 220), the MWS was translated and exploratory factor analysis was conducted resulting in a four-factor solution consistent with the original MWS: motivational, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. In Study 2 ( N = 425), confirmatory factor analysis showed that a four-factor, bifactor model was the best fit for the data. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were tested which demonstrated that the Chinese version of the MWS did not differ across gender, age, and job position groups. Finally, workaholism and engagement were related and distinct from one another, and they correlated with emotional exhaustion, work-family conflict and life well-being uniquely. This study indicated that the Chinese version of the MWS is a valid and reliable tool for Chinese employees, and this has important practical implications for the individual health and career development of Chinese working adults.

The Multidimensional Workaholism Scale in a Korean Population: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study

“…The results revealed that the two-factor model has a better fit than the single-factor model (normalΔCFI ≥ .01, normalΔRMSEA > .015), which indicates that the two variables are related but are distinct concepts. As for job satisfaction, the MWS did not show a significant association with job satisfaction (r = .02, p > .05), consistent with previous studies (Clark et al, 2020; Xu & Li, 2021).…”

“…First, the Korean version of the MWS developed in Study 1 was used to measure workaholism. Similar to the results of Study 1 and previous research (αs range from .74 to .93; Clark et al, 2020; Xu & Li, 2021), the scale showed good internal consistency in the present study as well. The Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for the motivational, .91 for cognitive, .84 for emotional, and .90 for behavioral.…”

“…Thus, they were found to sacrifice time with their family and experience difficulties fulfilling their family role because of their excessive devotion to work (Bakker et al, 2009; Robinson, 2000), which could lead to WFC. Lastly, we expected a moderate correlation between workaholism and work engagement (Snir & Harpaz, 2012), and an insignificant or low relation between workaholism and job satisfaction, consistent with previous validation studies and meta-analysis results (Clark et al, 2020; Clark et al, 2016a; Xu & Li, 2021).…”

“…Although the MWS was initially developed and validated based on U.S. workers, using a robust methodology, psychometric verification using other samples is still required but lacking. Recently, a study validated the MWS based on a Chinese sample (Xu & Li, 2021), but this study has some limitations in that the researchers did not assess other existing workaholism measurements and examine the incremental validity of the MWS. Besides complementing limitations of the previous study, reconfirmation of the MWS using a sample of South Koreans is meaningful to workaholism literature considering the country’s work-oriented and competitive culture (Bae et al, 2011; Choi, 2013; Zhang & Seo, 2018).…”

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Procrastination at Work Scale

“…We created dichotomous categorical variables for conducting invariance tests for gender, age, education, and job position (Milfont and Fischer, 2010;Schoot et al, 2012). Similar to previous studies (Duffy et al, 2019;Xu and Li, 2021), our gender comparison was between men and women, and for age we used two groups: low (those whose response was ≤ mean age, 34.68) and high (those whose response was > mean age, 34.68). We split education level into two groups, undergraduate degree and below and master's degree or above; for job position, we compared front-line employees and managers.…”