TYPE
Brief Research Report
18 September 2023
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
PUBLISHED
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Margaret Terry Orr,
Fordham University, United States
REVIEWED BY
Ronit Bogler,
Open University of Israel, Israel
Anggun Prasetyo,
Diponegoro University, Indonesia
School leadership engagement:
validation of the Portuguese
version of UWES scale
José Castro Silva 1*, Marco Ferreira 2, Patricia Pacheco 3 and
Ana Almeida 4
1
Escola de Educação e Psicologia da Educação, CIE-ISPA/ISPA - Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal,
Escola de Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano, Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências (ISEC
Lisboa) e Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação (UIDEF - IE /
Universidade de Lisboa), Lisbon, Portugal, 3 Escola de Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano, Instituto
Superior de Educação e Ciências (ISEC Lisboa) e Centro de Estudos e Investigação Aplicada (CEIA, ISEC
Lisboa), Lisbon, Portugal, 4 Universidade Aberta e Le@d – Laboratório de Educação a Distância e
E-Learning, Lisbon, Portugal
2
*CORRESPONDENCE
José Castro Silva
jcsilva@ispa.pt
RECEIVED 05
May 2023
August 2023
PUBLISHED 18 September 2023
ACCEPTED 31
CITATION
Castro Silva J, Ferreira M, Pacheco P and
Almeida A (2023) School leadership
engagement: validation of the Portuguese
version of UWES scale.
Front. Educ. 8:1217806.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Castro Silva, Ferreira, Pacheco and
Almeida. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is a widely used self-report scale
with the original twenty-three items and its abbreviated version of nine items
to assess workers’ engagement. This paper reports a validation study of the
UWES-17 and UWES-9 using confirmatory factor analysis, its convergent validity
and invariance across gender in a sample of 921 Portuguese school leaders. The
main findings support a bidimensional conceptualization of work engagement
measurement. The Portuguese version of UWES-9 is proposed as a reliable and
robust (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.073) tool to assess work engagement
amongst Portuguese school leadership. The 9-item UWES is a reliable instrument
to assess work engagement among Portuguese school leaders and could be used
as an effective screening tool in educational contexts.
KEYWORDS
work engagement, school leadership, assessment, UWES scale, confirmatory factor analysis
Introduction
Teacher work engagement refers to the extent to which teachers feel positively involved in their
work and invest in their roles as educators. Work engagement is identified by feelings of energy,
dedication, and enthusiasm towards teaching, as well as a sense of purpose and fulfilment in their
work. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004a,b) defined work engagement as a positive, fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption. They argued that engaged
employees are more likely to experience positive outcomes, such as increased job satisfaction,
organisational commitment, and performance. A high number of studies have examined specifically
teacher work engagement. For example, Bakker et al. (2005) found that teachers who were highly
engaged in their work reported greater job satisfaction, commitment, and performance. Other
researchers have examined the factors that contribute to teacher work engagement. Skaalvik and
Skaalvik (2014) concluded that teacher autonomy and social support were positively related to work
engagement, whilst job demands were negatively related. Zhang et al. (2021) provide empirical
evidence of how autonomy support influences teachers’ work engagement, stating that teachers with
more autonomy have stronger teaching motivation and increased levels of work engagement.
Similarly, Hakanen et al. (2006) study pointed out that job resources, such as social support and
feedback, were positively related to teacher work engagement. Hermanto and Srimulyani (2022)
also refer that the most relevant aspect of work engagement is dedication, favouring meaning and
significance to the work performed, with a positive impact on the organisation oriented towards
Frontiers in Education
01
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
transformation. Leaders who explore new ways of doing and innovating
are transformational leaders who increase their self-motivation and selfworth through their involvement and dedication (Ahmed, 2021; Wang
et al., 2023).
In summary, teacher work engagement is a positive state of mind
characterised by energy, dedication, and absorption in the work of
teaching. Research has consistently shown that engaged teachers are
more likely to experience positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction,
commitment, and performance. Factors that contribute to teacher
work engagement include autonomy, social support, and job resources.
The results of school leadership studies are diverse but generally
show that effective leadership engagement can have a positive impact
on teacher job satisfaction, teacher collaboration, student outcomes,
and overall positive school climate (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2008;
Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Boberg and
Bourgeois, 2016; Leithwood and Sun, 2018; Mora-Ruano et al., 2021;
Tan et al., 2021). An effective leader can influence the attitudes and
behaviour of teachers, thereby influencing their involvement in the
work, which is critical to improving the success of organisations and
ensuring educational quality (Hermanto and Srimulyani, 2022). In
this way, the school leadership can create a positive school culture,
improve teaching and learning practises, and promote positive student
outcomes. School leadership practises, such as supportive leadership
and shared leadership, are associated with increased teacher job
satisfaction and organisational commitment (e.g., Hulpia et al., 2009;
Liu and Werblow, 2019; Berkovich and Bogler, 2021; Mansor et al.,
2021). Simbula et al. (2013) argue that teachers who are more engaged
find it easier to take advantage of opportunities that arise in work
situations that favour the development of their skills and the
perception of the meaning of their actions. Zahed-Babelan et al.
(2019) proved the belief that the principal could have an indirect effect
on teachers’ work engagement through indirect variables such as
school culture, teacher empowerment, and job characteristics.
Another relevant piece of evidence is the linkage between school
leadership and student academic achievement improvement. A metaanalysis research by Tan et al. (2021) found that effective school
leadership practises, such as setting clear goals and expectations,
providing feedback, and creating a positive school climate have a
significant positive effect on student achievement.
The most popular instruments in assessing teacher work engagement
are: (1) The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES, Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004a,b), which measures engagement along three dimensions:
vigour, dedication, and absorption, (2) The Engaged Teachers Scale
(ETS) by Klassen et al. (2013) which measures teacher engagement
through a 16-item and 4-factor scale. Federici and Skaalvik (2011) used
UWES as one of the tools for studying Norwegian principals’ self-efficacy
and work engagement. Their explanation to choose UWES fits in the
Portuguese principals’ work which is often described in terms of being
demanding, hectic and unpredictable, in part because the curriculum
and educational policy are often subject to change. This study use the
UWES scale since it is a scale used in multiple contexts, including in
educational settings for assessing work engagement.
The UWES scale measures three indicators that give back
information about work engagement: vigour, dedication, and
absorption. Vigour describes the perseverance shown when obstacles
arise in the workplace or the willingness to find solutions in
circumstances where challenges place the need for an important level
of mental resilience and energy. Dedication implies a strong
involvement in one’s work and is associated with feelings of challenge,
pride, a strong level of enthusiasm and inspiration. Finally,
absorption refers to immersion and focuses on work, through which
the worker loses track of time and experiences difficulties separating
oneself from one’s work without regard to time spent and the
inability to switch off, and it is closely linked to the intrinsic
motivation to perform the tasks (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004a,b;
Nerstad et al., 2009; Ahmed, 2021; Wang et al., 2023). The UWES has
been validated in several European countries across diverse
populations (e.g., students, health, and rescue workers), including
Finland (Seppälä et al., 2008), Italy (Balducci et al., 2010; Simbula
et al., 2013), Greece and the Netherlands (Xanthopoulou et al., 2012),
Norway (Nerstad et al., 2009), Portugal (Teles et al., 2017; Sinval
et al., 2018), Spain (Serrano et al., 2019), Perú (Merino-Soto
et al., 2022).
Despite the popularity and large-scale use of the UWES (Schaufeli
et al., 2006), there is no consensus on the most appropriate factorial
structure of the scale. Previous studies empirically support the original
three-factor solution: vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli
et al., 2002; Storm and Rothmann, 2003; Nerstad et al., 2009; Simbula
et al., 2013). Nerstad et al. (2009) point out the possibility that work
engagement can be conceptualized with two central concepts – vigour
and dedication – with the concept of absorption being considered a
separate but related factor. However, other studies failed to support
this factorial structure (Sonnentag, 2003; Wefald and Downey, 2009),
arguing that the UWES can be more represented through a
unidimensional organisation (Christian and Slaughter, 2007; Shimazu
et al., 2008; Serrano et al., 2019; Merino-Soto et al., 2022). In several
other studies, the UWES has been shortened to fifteen items (Storm
and Rothmann, 2003; Salanova et al., 2005) and even to nine items
(Fong and Ng, 2012). Even with these shortened versions, there is
insufficient evidence on whether the scale is more robust as a
unidimensional or multidimensional measure of work engagement
(Fong and Ng, 2012; Mills et al., 2012; Vecina et al., 2012; Serrano
et al., 2019).
This article reports the results of a study that aimed to address two
objectives. Firstly, it sought to examine the factorial validity of the
UWES amongst Portuguese teachers performing leadership roles.
Secondly, this study thoroughly examined the 9-item version as a
choice to the 17-item UWES in assessing school leaders’
work engagement.
Method
Participants
Participants were Portuguese teachers with leadership roles in
elementary to secondary schools in several districts from Portugal’s
mainland, the Azores and Madeira islands. Participants were selected
by a non-probabilistic sampling method (Cohen et al., 2018). The total
number of participants in the entire dataset was 919. Of these, 555
The current study
The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al.,
2002) is often used to assess worker engagement (Vecina et al., 2012).
Frontiers in Education
02
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
(60%) are female and 364 (40%) are male, and ages ranged from 24 to
68 years, with an average age of 53 years old. Years of experience in
leadership roles ranged from 1 to 39 years (M = 11.80, SD = 8.73) and
43.4% of participants have leadership training.
Measures
School leaders’ work engagement was assessed with the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004a,b). The
UWES (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004a,b) consists of statements
measuring how teachers feel at work. Teachers are asked to indicate
how often they feel (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”) by
crossing the number (from 1 to 6) that best describes how frequently
they feel that way. Several forms of the questionnaire exist, of which,
a 17-item and 9-item version is particularly widely used. These two
versions have been shown to have good psychometric properties,
especially the 9-item version (Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2006).
Confirmatory factor analyses showed that a three-factor structure,
constituted by vigour, dedication, and absorption, is more adequate to
evaluate work engagement than a one-factor solution. Concerning the
17-item version, the reliabilities of the original version were 0.83 for
vigour, 0.92 for dedication, 0.82 for absorption, and 0.93 for the total
score. For the 9-item version, these coefficients were. 84 for vigour,
0.89 for dedication, 0.79 for absorption, and 0.93 for the total score
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004a,b). One of the aims of this paper is to
establish the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the
UWES-17 and the UWES-9 in a sample of school leaders.
All the items of the survey were translated to Portuguese, and then
backtranslated to English to ensure the equivalence of the versions. To
validate the content of the instrument, an expert panel reviewed it in
terms of its clarity, conciseness, and readability The five members of
this panel (Oluwatayo, 2012) were chosen according to a wide range
of criteria, such as their expertise about school leadership and
work engagement.
The factor structures of the 17 and 9-item of the UWES were
assessed using traditional CFA techniques. We have assessed three
alternative models representing the latent structure of both versions
of the UWES. Model 1 represented the UWES as a unidimensional
structure in which all items are loaded onto a single engagement
factor. Model 2 reflected the original three-factor model of vigour,
absorption, and dedication. Vigour and Dedication were found to
be highly correlated (r = 0.86, 95% C.I. = 0.84 to 0.87) and we decided
to merge both in a single factor. Model 3 was the proposed
bidimensional model, which combines the factors of Vigour and
Dedication (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Results of the 2-factor model with 8 items*. The coefficients
presented are standardized linear regression coefficients, and all are
significant (p < 0.01); VIG – vigour; DED – dedication; ABS –
absorption; *item #1 was excluded from the combined factor due to
low factor loadings.
2000; Finney and DiStefano, 2006). Following the method used by
Balducci et al. (2010), three models were calculated for each version
of the questionnaire: a one-factor solution, for which all the items
were associated with a general work engagement factor; a three-factor
model, and an alternative bidimensional model combining Vigour
and Dedication in a single factor and a second factor including
Absorption. The fit of the model was considered acceptable when the
comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
reached values equal to or lower than 0.90, and when the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) reached values equal or lower than
0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha,
McDonald’s omega, and composite reliability (CR) indexes were used
to estimate the internal consistency of the scale. Data analyses were
conducted with SPSS 28 (IBM Corp, 2021) and Mplus 8 (Muthén and
Muthén, 1998–2017).
Data analysis
To examine the factorial structure of both the UWES-17 and the
UWES-9, a series of CFA were run using Mplus 8 (Muthén and
Muthén, 1998–2017). Measuring models were estimated with robust
maximum likelihood estimation (MLR), given the strong
non-normality and with weighted least square mean and variance
corrected (WLSMV) considering the ordinal nature of the data. Both
types of estimation work well with non-normal data, but WLSMV
works better with non-normal and ordinal data (Yuan and Bentler,
Frontiers in Education
Results
CFA of the UWES-17
The CFA results suggested that both the unidimensional and the
three-factor models provided a satisfactory representation of the data
with the CFI and TLI indices above 0.90 indicating a reasonable
03
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
TABLE 1 Model fit indices for the alternative models of the UWES-17.
Models
x2
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA 90%
CI
SRMR
AIC
BIC
Model 1 (1-factor)
969.815
116
0.929
0.916
0.089 [0.084,0.095]
0.042
37,798
38,058
Model 2 (2-factor)
538.906
86
0.938
0.924
0.076 [0.070,0.082]
0.035
31,986
32,222
Model 3 (3-factor)
894.672
114
0.906
0.888
0.086 [0.081,0.092]
0.056
38,063
38,333
N = 921; x2 = chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation with 90% Confidence Intervals; AIC, Akaike Information
Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Square Root Mean Residual.
TABLE 2 Model fit indices for the alternative models of the UWES-9.
Models
Model 1 (1-factor)
Model 2 (2-factor)
Model 3 (3-factor)
x2
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA 90% CI
SRMR
AIC
BIC
216.014
26
0.945
0.924
0.089 [0.078,0.100]
0.038
21,715
21,850
100.586
17
0.970
0.952
0.026
18,698
18,829
205.334
23
0.947
0.918
0.037
21,707
21,856
0.073
[0.060,0.087]
0.093 [0.081,0.105]
N = 921; x2 = chi-square goodness of fit statistic; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA, Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation with 90% Confidence Intervals; AIC, Akaike Information
Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; TLI, Tucker Lewis Index; SRMR, Standardized Square Root Mean Residual.
goodness of fit (see Table 1). Overall, the 2-factor model (Model 2)
produced the most superior model fit indices of the three tested
models. Based on these findings, the bi-dimensional structure of
UWES-17 does appear to be a valid measure of work engagement for
Portuguese school leadership.
were compared across gender and no differences were found. In an
opposite direction, significant differences in mean scores were
identified when comparing participants according to school
leadership training. Participants who had training scored higher than
those who had no training in school leadership [t (Absortion) = 4.558,
p = 0.00; t (Dedication and Vigour) = 4.128, p = 0.00].
CFA of the UWES-9
Discussion
Later the latent structure of the 9-item UWES was assessed by
comparing Models 1–3. As displayed in Table 2, the three models
provided an acceptable representation of the data and models 1 and 3
exhibited similar fit statistics. For each model, the CFI and TLI indices
suggested an acceptable fit, and the SRMR results indicated an
excellent fit. Only the RMSEA indices failed to satisfy minimally
acceptable levels for acceptable fit for Models 1 and 3. The AIC and
BIC suggested the statistical superiority of the 2-factor solution since
has the best goodness of fit indices amongst the models. Overall, the
AIC and BIC indices were lower for the 2-factor model, suggesting
that merging the factors ‘Vigour’ and ‘Dedication’ in a single factor,
together with the factor ‘Absorption’ increase the model complexity
and contributes to a greater representation of the UWES-9 (Figure 1).
Analyses of the AVE showed that all dimensions presented values
above the threshold of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Cheung and
Chang, 2017), indicating a high proportion of variance. Also, the
composite reliability values and correlation between dimensions
scored high.
Findings obtained in the multigroup CFA for the demographic
variables suggested that the UWES-9 measures the same construct across
gender. The configural (structural equivalence), metric (invariant factor
loadings), and scalar (invariant intercepts) invariance models indicated
good fit indices, as detailed in Table 3. The difference in CFI and RMSEA
indices between metric versus configural and between metric versus
scalar was below the thresholds of 0.010 and 0.015, respectively (Chen,
2007). These results support the metric and scalar invariance of gender,
meaning that the scale means are comparable across gender.
We tested for group differences in work engagement scores
across gender and training in school leadership. UWES mean scores
Frontiers in Education
The present study performed a systematic examination of the
dimensionality and validation of the UWES-9 and UWES-17 to
Portuguese school leaders. The main findings indicated that the 2-factor
solution fits better than the one and three-factor solution for both the
17-item and the 9-item versions of the UWES. Better fit indices were
generally observed for the UWES-9. Combining the factors of ‘Vigour’
and ‘Dedication’ into a single factor, along with the factor ‘Absorption,’
not only increases the complexity of the model but also contributes to
a greater representation of the UWES-9. The 2-factor structure makes
the UWES-9 a more robust assessment tool than the original version.
Nerstad et al. (2009) investigated across occupational groups in
Norway the factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES) amongst 1,266 participants. Confirmatory factor analyses, as
well as multi-group and individual analyses, indicated that a threedimensional model of both the UWES-17 and the short version,
UWES-9, provided a better fit to the data than a one– and
two-dimensional model. The results of multi-group analyses and analyses
of each of the groups separately indicated that with a few exceptions, the
three-factor model of work engagement provided the best fit.
As in the Japanese sample for the short UWES-9 and the UWES-17
versions (Shimazu et al., 2008), results from the factorial validity of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) in a 475 Korean student
sample have shown that the UWES 17 and 9-items short version has a
better fit on one single dimension than on three-dimensional scales
(Römer, 2016). Römer (2016) emphasised that the covariance matrix
of the three latent variables Vigour, Absorption, and Dedication was
far from definitive. One reason for the model’s misspecification could
be the high intercorrelation between the three factors.
04
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
Conclusion
TABLE 3 Measurement invariance results for gender.
χ2
df
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
RMSEA
95% CI
The findings of this study support the use of the UWES-9 to assess
the work engagement of school leaders and the constructs that
comprise it. In this sense, the data provided could be useful for school
leaders as they allow identifying areas of improvement which are
specific to teachers. The 9-item UWES is a valid and reliable instrument
to assess work engagement among school leaders and the easy
administration and sound psychometric properties, could be used as
an effective screening tool in educational contexts. Considering the
superior fit indices of UWES-9, we recommend its usage over the
UWES-17 version.
Improvements in work engagement and, therefore in school
climate, will allow for a better quality of teaching. Until different
results can be found for the work engagement subscales, our study
reveals that the UWES 9 is the best option as a scale to measure work
engagement in Portugal. Additionally, socio-demographic variables
should be included and valued in future studies of work engagement.
Gender
Configural
90.879
48
0.922
0.883
0.093
[0.82,1.05]
Metric
90.859
54
0.922
0.896
0.086
[0.75,0.98]
Scalar
103.660
60
0.921
0.905
0.082
[0.71,0.94]
Further analysis on the use of the UWES still needs to consider
the differences between Europe and Asian/African countries,
especially due to cultural reasons. The findings of the study conducted
by Sonnentag (2003) raise concerns about the three-factor structure
of UWES. It is thus not surprising that the current research literature
on this topic does not reveal any incremental use of the three-factor
model. Nevertheless, future studies need to explore these results in
detail, as recommended by Schaufeli et al. (2006).
The present study also revealed that there were statistically
significant strong positive correlations for each of the three subscales
of UWES. These findings are consistent with the previous study
findings (Römer, 2016; Tsubakita et al., 2017; Sinval et al., 2018).
Sinval et al. (2018) used a sample of 3,887 rescue workers to assess the
validity of evidence related to the internal structure of the Portuguese
versions of the UWES-17 and UWES-9, namely, dimensionality,
measurement invariance between occupational groups, and reliability
of the scores. Psychometric properties were evaluated in the threefactor original structure revealing an acceptable fit to the data in the
UWES-17, although the UWES-9 had better psychometric properties.
Findings obtained in the multigroup CFA for the demographic
variables suggested that the UWES-9 measures the same construct
across gender. These results support the metric and scalar invariance
of gender, meaning that the scale means are comparable across gender.
Domínguez-Salas et al. (2022) found the same result, i.e., the factorial
invariance across gender in different factor solutions with and without
the modification indexes. The factorial structure of the UWES showed
strict invariance by gender. The invariance according to gender was
also pointed out by Lovakov et al. (2017) in Russian workers. Greater
consensus exists regarding the invariance of the scale according to
other sample characteristics, such as its transcultural invariance
(Balducci et al., 2010; Sinval et al., 2018).
Our study revealed significant differences in mean scores when
comparing participants according to school leadership training.
Participants who had training scored higher than those who had no
training in school leadership. Weigl et al. (2014) confirmed that the
relation between job autonomy and work engagement is mediated by the
selection optimization compensation (SOC) strategies developed by
training. Literature also indicates that better self-perceived professional
status was related to greater work engagement (Van Dorssen-Boog et al.,
2020) and a greater sense of coherence (Derbis and Jasiński, 2018).
This study accompanies the existing literature analysing the
psychometric properties of the UWES, providing results in favour of
the use of this scale in the field of education. The limitation could lie in
the sampling procedure which does cannot guarantee that the sample
is representative of the school leaders in Portugal, although the high
sample number obtained might mitigate this effect. The generalisation
of the findings to other populations should also be done with caution,
considering the diversity in educational and cultural contexts.
Frontiers in Education
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the study involving human
participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional
requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study
was not required from the participants in accordance with the national
legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
JC, MF, PP, and AA: theoretical conceptualization, data collection,
data analyses, and contributing to the writing process. All authors
contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim
that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed
by the publisher.
05
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
References
Ahmed, E. (2021). The relationship between principals' transformational leadership
and teachers' work engagement in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change 15, 378–398.
Liu, Y., and Werblow, J. (2019). The operation of distributed leadership and the
relationship with organizational commitment and job satisfaction of principals and
teachers: a multi-level model and meta-analysis using the 2013 TALIS data. Int. J. Educ.
Res. 96, 41–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.05.005
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). The crossover of burnout
and work engagement among working couples. Hum. Relat. 58, 661–689. doi:
10.1177/0018726705055967
Lovakov, A., Agadullina, E., and Schaufeli, W. (2017). Psychometric properties of the
Russian version of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9). Psychol Russia: State
Art 10, 145–162. doi: 10.11621/pir.2017.0111
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Psychometric properties of the
Italian version of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9). Eur. J. Psychol. Assess.
26, 143–149. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000020
Mansor, A. N., Abdullah, R., and Jamaludin, K. A. (2021). The influence of
transformational leadership and teachers’ trust in principals on teachers’ working
commitment. Hum. Soc Sci Commun 8:302. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00985-6
Berkovich, I., and Bogler, R. (2021). Conceptualising the mediating paths linking
effective school leadership to teachers’ organisational commitment. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 49, 410–429. doi: 10.1177/1741143220907321
Merino-Soto, C., Lozano-Huamán, M., Lima-Mendoza, S., Calderón de la Cruz, G.,
Juárez-García, A., and Toledano-Toledano, F. (2022). Ultrashort version of the Utrecht
work engagement scale (UWES-3): a psychometric assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 19:890. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19020890
Boberg, J. E., and Bourgeois, S. J. (2016). The effects of integrated transformational
leadership on achievement. J. Educ. Adm. 54, 357–374. doi: 10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0086
Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., and Fullagar, C. J. (2012). Conceptualizing and
measuring engagement: an analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale. J. Happiness
Stud. 13, 519–545. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9277-3
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., and Chang, W. (2017). Current approaches for assessing convergent
and discriminant validity with SEM: issues and solutions. Acad Manag Ann Meet Proc
2017:12706. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12706abstract
Mora-Ruano, J., Schurig, M., and Wittmann, E. (2021). Instructional leadership as a
vehicle for teacher collaboration and student achievement. What the German PISA 2015
sample tells us. Front. Educ. 6:582773. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.582773
Christian, M. S., and Slaughter, J. E. (2007). Work engagement: a meta-analytic review
and directions for research in an emerging area. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2007, 1–6. doi:
10.5465/ambpp.2007.26536346
Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide. 8th Edn. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. 8th
Edn. London: Routledge.
Nerstad, C., Richardsen, A., and Martinussen, M. (2009). Factorial validity of the
Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scand.
J. Psychol. 51, 326–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00770.x
Derbis, R., and Jasiński, A. (2018). Work satisfaction, psychological resiliency and
sense of coherence as correlates of work engagement. Cogent Psychology 5, 1–16. doi:
10.1080/23311908.2018.1451610
Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research. Journal
of Educational and Social Research 2, 391–400. doi: 10.5901/jesr.2012.v2n2
Römer, J. (2016). The Korean Utrecht work engagement scale-student (UWES-S): a
factor validation study. TPM - Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 23, 65–81. doi:
10.4473/TPM23.1.5
Domínguez-Salas, S., Rodríguez-Domínguez, C., Arcos-Romero, A.,
Allande-Cussó, R., García-Iglesias, J., and Gómez-Salgado, J. (2022). Psychometric
properties of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES-9) in a sample of active health
care professionals in Spain. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 15, 3461–3472. doi: 10.2147/
PRBM.S387242
Salanova, M., Agut, S., and Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and
work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of
service climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 90, 1217–1227. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
Federici, R. A., and Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work
engagement: assessing a Norwegian principal self-efficacy scale. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 14,
575–600. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B.. (2004a). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary
manual. Utrecht: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University.
Finney, S. J., and DiStefano, C. (2006). “Nonnormal and categorical data in structural
equation models,” in A Second Course in Structural Equation Modeling. eds G. R.
Hancock and R. O. Mueller (Greenwich, CT: Information Age), 269–314.
Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004b). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25,
293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248
Fong, T. C., and Ng, S. (2012). Measuring engagement at work: validation of the
Chinese version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Int. J. Behav. Med. 19, 391–397.
doi: 10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-National Study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66,
701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18, 382–388. doi:
10.2307/3150980
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., and Bakker, A. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work
engagement among teachers. J. Sch. Psychol. 43, 495–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001
Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., et al. (2008).
The construct validity of the Utrecht work engagement scale: multisample and
longitudinal evidence. J. Happiness Stud. 10, 459–481. doi: 10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y
Hallinger, P., and Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership &
Management 30, 95–110. doi: 10.1080/13632431003663214
Serrano, C., Andreu, Y., Murgui, S., and Martínez, P. (2019). Psychometric properties
of Spanish version student Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES–S–9) in high-school
students. Span. J. Psychol. 22:E21. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2019.25
Hermanto, Y., and Srimulyani, V. (2022). The role of servant leadership and work
engagement in improving extra-role behaviour and teacher performance. International
Journal Productivity and Quality Management 35, 57–77. doi: 10.1504/
IJPQM.2022.120711
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., et al.
(2008). Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of Utrecht work
engagement
scale.
Appl.
Psychol.
Int.
Rev.
57,
510–523.
doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.x
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., and Keer, H. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on
teachers’ organizational commitment: a multilevel approach. J. Educ. Res. 103, 40–52.
doi: 10.1080/00220670903231201
Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D., Schaufeli, W., and Depolo, M. (2013). An Italian validation
of the Utrecht work engagement scale: characterization of engaged groups in a sample
of schoolteachers. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata 268, 43–54.
Hu, L.-T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
IBM Corp (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 28.0. Chicago: IBM Corp.
Sinval, J., Marques-Pinto, A., Queirós, C., and Marôco, J. (2018). Work engagement
among rescue workers: psychometric properties of the Portuguese UWES. Front.
Psychol. 8:2229. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02229
Klassen, R., Yerdelen, S., and Durksen, T. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement:
development of the engaged teachers scale (ETS). Frontline Learn. Res. 1, 33–52. doi:
10.14786/flr.v1i2.44
Skaalvik, E. M., and Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy:
relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychol.
Rep. 114, 68–77. doi: 10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about
successful school leadership. School Leadership & Manag 28, 27–42. doi:
10.1080/13632430701800060
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a newlook
at the interface between non-work and work. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 518–528. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518
Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: the
contributions of leader efficacy. Educ. Adm. Q. 44, 496–528. doi:
10.1177/0013161X08321501
Storm, K., and Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht work
engagement scale in the south African police service. South African J Indus Psychol 29,
62–70. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v29i4.129
Leithwood, K., and Sun, J. (2018). Academic culture: a promising mediator of school
leaders’ influence on student learning. J. Educ. Adm. 56, 350–363. doi: 10.1108/
JEA-01-2017-0009
Tan, C. Y., Dimmock, C., and Walker, A. (2021). How school leadership practices relate
to student outcomes: insights from a three-level meta-analysis. Educa Manag
Administration & Leadership, 174114322110614. doi: 10.1177/17411432211061445
Frontiers in Education
06
frontiersin.org
Castro Silva et al.
10.3389/feduc.2023.1217806
Teles, H., Ramalho, N., Ramalho, V., and Ribeiro, S. (2017). Adaptação e validação da
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) aplicada a assistentes sociais em Portugal.
Revista Portuguesa De Investigação Comportamental E Social 3, 10–20. doi: 10.7342/ismt.
rpics.2017.3.2.52
Wefald, A. J., and Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and
its relation with satisfaction. J. Psychol. 143, 91–112. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112
Weigl, M., Müller, A., Hornung, S., Leidenberger, M., and Heiden, B. (2014). Job
resources and work engagement: the contributing role of selection, optimization, and
compensation strategies at work. J Labour Market Res 47, 299–312. doi: 10.1007/
s12651-014-0163-4
Tsubakita, T., Shimazaki, K., Ito, H., and Kawazoe, N. (2017). Item response theory
analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES-S) using a sample of
Japanese university and college students majoring medical science, nursing, and natural
science. BMC. Res. Notes 10:528. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2839-7
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Kantas, A. (2012). Measuring
burnout and work engagement: factor structure, invariance, and latent mean differences
across Greece and the Netherlands. Intern J Business Sci Appl Managt 7, 40–52.
Van Dorssen-Boog, P., de Jong, J., Veld, M., and Van Vuuren, T. (2020). Self-leadership
among healthcare workers: a mediator for the effects of job autonomy on work
engagement and health. Front. Psychol. 11:1420. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01420
Yuan, K. H., and Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and
covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociol. Methodol. 30,
165–200. doi: 10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Vecina, M. L., Chacón, F., Sueiro, M., and Barrón, A. (2012). Volunteer engagement:
does engagement predict the degree of satisfaction among new volunteers and the
commitment of those who have been active longer? Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 61, 130–148.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00460.x
Zahed-Babelan, A., Koulaei, G., and Moeinikia, M., & and Sharif, A. (2019).
Instructional leadership effects on teachers’ work engagement: roles of school culture,
empowerment, and job characteristics. Center Educ Pol Stud J, 9, 137–156. doi: 10.26529/
cepsj.181
Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., Li, T., and Wang, Y. (2023). A cross-sectional study in collegebased nursing education: The influence of core self-evaluation and career calling on
study engagement in nursing undergraduates. Nursing Open 10, 3561–3569. doi:
10.1002/nop2.1598
Frontiers in Education
Zhang, D., He, J., and Fu, D. (2021). How can we improve Teacher’s work engagement?
Based on Chinese experiences. Front. Psychol. 12:721450. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.721450
07
frontiersin.org