“…In addition, the studies were conducted in various sectors, including a homeless shelter (Williams, 2014), churches (Bickerton, Miner, & Dowson, 2014;Miner, Bickerton, Dowson, & Sterland, 2015), social cooperatives (Román-Calderón, Battistelli, & Odoardi, 2013), a nonprofit university (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), and long-term care organizations (Sarti, 2014), along with two studies conducted in general NPO settings (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015;Selander, 2015). The studies were also conducted in diverse countries such as Australia (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015), Brazil (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015), Turkey (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), Italy (Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014), Finland (Selander, 2015), and the United States (Williams, 2014). With respect to the definition/conceptualization of work engagement used in the 10 studies, Schaufeli and his colleagues' (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;Schaufeli et al, 2002) conceptualizations were the most frequently used; five studies used their concepts (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015;Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014;Selander, 2015), one study (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015) used other conceptualizations of work engagement (i.e., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and one study (Williams, 2014) created an aggregated concept to identify work engagement by integrating Schaufeli et al's (2002) concepts of work engagement with other conceptualizations from different studies (i.e., Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005;Little & Little, 2006).…”