Running head: EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 1

Employee Engagement Instruments: A Review of the Literature

Sowath Rana*

University of Minnesota

ranax031@umn.edu

Alexandre Ardichvili

University of Minnesota

ardic001@umn.edu

*Corresponding author

Submission Type: Working Paper

Stream: Employee Engagement

Submitted to the UFHRD Conference 2015, University College Cork, Ireland

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive literature review of the major

instruments used to measure employee engagement.

Methodology: We conducted a structured review of published instruments measuring employee

engagement in the current literature.

Findings: This study provides numerous significant findings with regard to what scales are

available, what their properties are, and how they have been used.

Implications: Our findings suggest that the instruments require more rigorous testing and that

more evidence of validity and reliability for the scales is needed. In addition, scholars and

practitioners should pay specific attention to the appropriateness of the scales before employing

any of them.

Originality/Value: We believe that this paper can make a significant contribution to the

literature on engagement. It aims to provide a comprehensive review of the major engagement

instruments as regards a specific set of assessment criteria.

Keywords: Employee engagement, work engagement, instrument, measurement,

operationalization
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 3

Employee Engagement Instruments: A Review of the Literature

Employee engagement has generated great interest among Human Resource

Development scholars over the past few years (Kim, Kolb, and Kim, 2012; Rana, Ardichvili, and

Tkachenko, 2014; Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012; Shuck, Reio, and Rocco, 2011; Shuck and

Wollard, 2010; Soane, Truss, Alfes, Shantz, Rees, and Gatenby, 2012; Wollard and Shuck,

2011). Engagement is defined as the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work

roles” (Kahn, 1990, 694). When engaged, organizational members express themselves

cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally during role performance (Kahn, 1990; Shuck and

Wollard, 2010). In contrast, personal disengagement refers to the “uncoupling of selves from

work roles,” during which process people withdraw and defend themselves physically,

cognitively, or emotionally while performing those tasks (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). Over the past two

decades, significant efforts have been made by scholars to study engagement and by practitioners

to develop organization development (OD) related interventions to raise the levels of

engagement among organizational members. Such strong interest is not surprising, given that

engagement has been shown to be related to a number of important organizational outcomes such

as job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Saks, 2006), organizational citizenship behavior

(Rurkkhum and Bartlett, 2012; Saks, 2006); intention to turnover (Shuck et al., 2011); and

performance (Kim et al., 2012).

Despite the attention, a debate still exists among engagement scholars over the

operationalization and measurement of the construct. Kahn (1990, 1992), whose work has been

largely credited with laying a foundation that undergirds much of the engagement research, did

not offer an operationalization of the construct. The Maslach-Burnout Inventory (MBI),

developed by Maslach and Leiter (1997), has been heavily criticized for measuring engagement
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 4

along the same continuum as the three dimensions of the burnout construct: exhaustion,

cynicism, and efficacy (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker, 2002). Later, the

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002), has become one

of the most widely used instruments in engagement research. However, despite its popularity,

questions still arise over the issue of “construct redundancy” between engagement and burnout

(Cole, Walter, Bedeian, and Boyle, 2012, p.1576). Cole et al. (2012) found that the UWES is

“empirically redundant with a long-established, widely employed measure of job burnout (viz,

MBI)” (p.1576). Finally, Soane et al.’s (2012) study – seemingly the only publication in the

HRD literature that has attempted to develop an engagement instrument – took a slightly

different route and proposed the Intellectual, Social, Affective Engagement Scale (ISA

Engagement Scale), which comprised of three components of engagement: intellectual, social,

and affective engagement.

The aforementioned examples demonstrate that despite the intuitive appeal of the

engagement concept, there is little agreement as to how the construct should be measured.

Therefore, it is especially important for HRD scholars, practitioners, and students to understand

the strengths and shortcomings of the various popular engagement instruments in order to

advance research on the topic.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to conduct a comprehensive literature review of

the major instruments used to measure employee engagement. The overarching research

questions for this study are: (1) What instruments are available for measuring employee

engagement? (2) What are the characteristics of those instruments? and (3) What are the

strengths and weaknesses of these instruments?

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 5

The seven instruments reviewed in this study are: the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA;

Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes, 2002), the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2002), the Psychological

Engagement Measure (May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004), the Job and Organization Engagement

Scales (Saks 2006), the Job Engagement Measure (Rich, LePine, and Crawford, 2010), the

Employee Engagement Survey (James, McKechnie, and Swanberg, 2011), and the ISA

Engagement Scale (Soane et al., 2002). The unit of analysis for the study is the instrument; thus,

reasonable attempts were made to obtain a full copy of the instruments reviewed along with any

relevant full-text publications.

We believe that this paper can make a significant contribution to the literature on

engagement. It aims to provide a comprehensive review of the major engagement instruments as

regards the assessment criteria discussed above. In addition, findings from this study will offer

important insights and implications to HRD scholars and practitioners who are interested in

conducting engagement research.

Methodology

We conducted a structured review of published instruments measuring employee

engagement. We searched various databases including Google Scholar, Eric, Emerald, PsycInfo,

and ABI/Inform. We also reviewed academic journals such as Academy of Management Journal,

Human Resource Development International, Human Resource Development Review, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, books, and other relevant publications.

These journals were selected because of their recognized status as leading HRD, management,

and applied psychology journals that regularly publish engagement-related literature. Finally,

we traced the list of references of the publications in order to identify potential relevant

instruments.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS 6

Search terms included: employee engagement, work engagement, engagement, tool,

assessment, instrument, or evaluation. The tools had to be available in English and accessible to

scholars and researchers, designed for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, information had to be

available on psychometric and other evaluations, including validity and/or reliability. We limited

our searches to after 1990 because the term ‘engagement’ was first coined by William Kahn in

his publication in the Academy of Management Journal in 1990. Upon identifying the available

instruments, we sought to obtain a copy of each publication of the instruments. The measures

and their corresponding publications were carefully reviewed by the authors of this paper.

The assessment framework for the review of engagement instruments centers around a set

of criteria: (a) instrument description, (b) psychometric properties, and (c) criticisms of the

instrument. The description criterion focuses on the instrument’s constitutive definition of

engagement, development (how it was developed; e.g., through building on other instruments),

development date, intended purpose, dimensions, and population tested. The psychometric

properties focus specifically on evidence of validity and reliability provided by the publication

authors. Finally, the study also discusses any documented comments or criticism of the

instruments.

Results

Our review of the literature yielded seven relevant instruments aimed at measuring the

engagement construct. As Table 1 suggests, we identified the types of the instruments and

sample items of the measures. We also provided a summary of the purpose of the publication of

each instrument, the definition(s) of engagement used, and the theoretical framework that

undergirds the development of each measure. We also summarized the population and samples

of each study and reported the reliability and validity of each instrument.
 7

Tool and Publication’s Definition of

Instrument Description Development Population Tested Reliability Validity
Reference intended purpose engagement
The Gallup 12-item questionnaire; Using meta-analysis to “Individual’s Developed based on This study was based Cronbach’s α (overall The items measure
Workplace five-point scale ranging explore the involvement and studies of work on a Gallup database instrument) at the “processes and issu
Audit from ‘Strongly Disagree’ relationship between satisfaction with as satisfaction, motivation, of 7,939 business business-unit level of are actionable at (i
(GWA) to ‘Strongly Agree’ “employee well as enthusiasm supervisory practices, units – not individual analysis = .91 the influence of) th
Sample items: satisfaction- for work” (p. 269) and work-group employees – in 36 group’s supervisor
Harter, I know what is expected of engagement” and effectiveness companies. manager” (p. 269)
Schmidt, me at work. various outcomes –
and Hayes The mission or purpose of customer satisfaction, “Both overall satisfa
(2002) my company makes me productivity, profit, and engagement sh
feel my job is important. employee turnover, generalizability ac
and accidents (p. companies in their
268). correlation with cu
satisfaction–loyalt
profitability, produ
employee turnover
safety outcomes” (
The 17-item questionnaire; To examine the “A positive, Built on the burnout Sample 1: 314 Cronbach’s α for the Three scales were d
Utrecht seven-point scale ranging factorial structure of fulfilling, work- literature (particularly the undergrad students of three dimensions: to measure the thre
Work from ‘never’ to a new instrument to related state of mind MBI scale); argues that the University of engagement dimen
Engagem ‘always/everyday’ measure engagement that is characterized burnout and engagement Castellon, Spain Vigor: .78 (students) (vigor, dedication,
ent Scale by vigor, dedication, should be measured and .79 (employees) absorption), in acc
(UWES) Sample items: To assess the and absorption” (p. independently with Sample 2: 619 with the authors’
When I get up in the relationship between 74) different instruments. employees from 12 Dedication: .84 constitutive definit
Schaufeli, morning, I feel like going engagement and Spanish private and (students) and .89 the construct
Salanova, to work. (Vigor) burnout and examine public companies. (employees)
Gonzalez- I am enthusiastic about the factorial structure Results showed that
Roma, and my job. (Dedication) of the Maslach- Absorption: .73 burnout and engag
Bakker When I am working, I Burnout Inventory- (students) and .72 scales were signifi
(2002) forget everything else General Survey (employees) and moderately ne
around me. (Absorption) (MBI-GS) related
May et 13-item questionnaire To explore the Utilized Kahn’s Built mainly on Kahn’s 213 employees at a Cronbach’s α (overall Three scales were d
al.’s measuring engagement determinants and (1990) definition of (1990) study. large insurance firm psychological to measure the thre
Psychologi (cognitive, emotional, mediating effects of engagement at work Psychological located in engagement scale) = . dimensions (cogni
cal and physical); five-point the three Engagement scales were Midwestern US 77 emotional, and phy
Engageme scale ranging from psychological developed to measure the dimensions of Kah
nt Measure ‘Strongly Disagree to conditions – three components of theorized psycholo
Strongly Agree’ meaningfulness, Kahn’s psychological engagement
safety and engagement: cognitive,
 8

May, Sample items: availability – emotional, and physical Significantly related

Gilson, and Performing my job is so developed by Kahn engagement. three psychologica
Harter absorbing that I forget (1990) on employee conditions of
(2004) about everything else. engagement in their meaningfulness, sa
(Cognitive) work availability
I get excited when I
perform well on my job.
(Emotional)
I exert a lot of energy
performing my job.
(Physical)
Saks’ Job Two six-item To test a model of the The author built on Based on social exchange 102 employees Cronbach’s α (Job A principal compon
Engageme questionnaires for job antecedents and the definitions theory (SET) and review working in a variety engagement scale) = . factor analysis wit
nt and engagement and consequences of job provided by various of existing literature of jobs and 82 promax rotation re
Organizati organization and organization other well-known organizations, mainly two factors that
on engagement; five-point engagements based scholars in Canada Cronbach’s α corresponded to jo
Engageme scale ranging from on social exchange (Organization organization engag
nt Scales ‘Strongly disagree’ to theory engagement scale) = . The two scales we
‘Strongly agree’ 90 developed to meas
Saks (2006) two types of engag
Sample items: as proposed by the
I really “throw” myself
into my job. (Job Results suggested th
engagement) is a meaningful dif
This job is all consuming; between job and
I am totally into it. (Job organization engag
engagement)
Being a member of this Significantly related
organization is very constructs includin
captivating. (Org. perceived organiza
engagement) support, procedura
I am highly engaged in job satisfaction,
this organization.(Org. organizational com
engagement) intentions to quit, a
organizational citiz
behavior.
Rich et 18-item questionnaire; To draw on Kahn’s Utilized Kahn’s Drew on Kahn’s (1990) 245 full-time US Cronbach’s α (overall Three scales were d
al.’s Job five-point scale ranging (1990) work to (1990) definition of theory to describe how firefighters and their job engagement to measure the thre
Engageme from ‘Strongly Disagree “develop a theory engagement at work engagement “represents supervisors scale) = .95 dimensions (cogni
nt Measure to ‘Strongly Agree’ that positions the simultaneous emotional, and phy
engagement as a key investment” of cognitive, dimensions of Kah
 9

Rich, Sample items: mechanism affective, and physical theorized psycholo

LePine, and At work, my mind is explaining the energies” (p. 617) engagement
Crawford focused on my job. relationships among a
(2010) (Cognitive) variety of individual Searched the literature for Significantly related
I am enthusiastic in my characteristics and scales and items that fit satisfaction, value
job. (Emotional) organizational factors Kahn’s definitions of the congruence, percei
I work with intensity on and job three engagement organizational sup
my job. (Physical) performance.” (p. dimensions; developed a self-evaluations, ta
617) scale that measures those performance, and
dimensions organizational citiz
behavior
James et 8-item questionnaire; five- To examine six Utilized Kahn’s Utilized social exchange 6047 Citisales Cronbach’s α (overall The scale sought to
al.’s point scale ranging dimensions of job (1990) definition of theory and the norm of employees in 352 scale) = .91 the cognitive, emo
Employee asking respondents the quality (supervisor engagement at work reciprocity as framework stores in three and behavioral asp
Engageme extent to which they support, job regions of the U.S. engagement
nt Survey agreed or disagreed autonomy, schedule Reviewed relevant
input, schedule literature on engagement, Engagement was
James, Sample items flexibility, career including Kahn (1990) significantly relate
McKechnie It would take a lot to get development and Schaufeli et al. constructs, specific
, and me to leave Citisales. opportunities, and (2002) supervisor support
Swanberg (Cognitive) perceptions of recognition, sched
(2011) I really care about the fairness) for their The engagement measure satisfaction, career
future of Citisales. impact on employee was developed for development and
(Emotional) engagement among Citisales by an external promotion, and job
I would highly recommend older and younger vendor
Citisales to a friends workers in a large
seeking employment. retail setting.
(Behavioral)
 10

The Nine-item questionnaire; To develop an Proposed that Review of the literature Study 1: 540 Cronbach’s α (overall Three scales were d
Intellectual seven-point scale ranging engagement model engagement has and related instruments employees of a UK- construct) = 0.91 to measure the thre
, Social, from ‘strongly disagree’ to that has three three underlying based manufacturing engagement facets
Affective ‘strongly agree’ requirements: a facets: company (intellectual, affect
Engageme work-role focus, social), in accordan
nt Scale Sample items: activation, and Intellectual Study 2: 1486 UK- the authors’ consti
(ISA I focus hard on my work. positive affect engagement: “the based employees definition of the co
engagemen (Intellectual) extent to which one working for a retail
t Scale) I share the same work To operationalize this experiences a state organization Results confirmed
values as my colleagues. model using a new of positive affect associations betwe
Soane, (Social) measure that relating to one’s engagement and th
Truss, I feel energetic in my comprises of three work role” (p. 532) organizational outc
Alfes, work. (Affective) dimensions: variables: task perf
Shantz, intellectual, social, Affective OCB, and turnover
Rees, and and affective engagement: “the intentions.
Gatenby engagement. extent to which one
(2012) experiences a state ISA Engagement Sc
of positive affect explained addition
relating to one’s variance in the thre
work role” (p. 532) outcome variables
controlling for the
Social engagement: measure.
“the extent to which
one is socially
connected with the
working
environment and
shares common
values with
colleagues” (p. 532)
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
11

Discussion

In this section, we discuss the findings in relation to the criteria used to evaluate the

instruments. Specifically, we provide a holistic overview of the main frameworks used,

definitions, populations and samples, and purposes of the instrument publications. We also

discuss the issues of reliability and validity and, where applicable, provide comments on the

instruments based on our review of other literature sources.

Instrument Descriptions, Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks, and Development

All seven instruments included in our review are questionnaire surveys with the number

of items ranging from 8 (James et al.’s Employee Engagement Survey) to 18 (Rich et al.’s Job

Engagement Measure). As expected, the majority of the instruments were developed based on

Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement – the “harnessing of organization members’ selves to

their work roles” (p.694). Interestingly, Harter et al. (2002) – employing the GWA –

conceptualized engagement as “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as

enthusiasm for work” (p.269) whereas Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined engagement as a “state of

mind” that is characterized by “vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p.74).

With respect to the theories or frameworks upon which the development of the measures

was based, Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions of engagement – cognitive, emotional and

physical engagement – serve as the foundational framework for the development of the majority

of the instruments, particularly the Psychological Engagement Measure (May et al., 2004) and

the Job Engagement Measure (Rich et al., 2010). Other literature sources include theories of

motivation and job satisfaction (GWA), the burnout literature (UWES) and social exchange
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
12
theory (Saks’ Job and Organization Engagement Scales; James et al.’s Employee Engagement

Survey).

Interestingly, the population samples on which the instruments were originally tested are

mainly Western samples, although studies attempting to validate some of the instruments in non-

Western contexts have been conducted (e.g. UWES in Japan; Shimazu, Schaufeli, Kosugi,

Suzuki, Nashiwa, Kato, Sakamoto, Irimajiri, Amano, Hirohata, and Goto, 2008). In line with

this, researchers should proceed with caution when employing a Western engagement instrument

in a non-Western context (Rothmann, 2014). In addition to the usual requirements of validity and

reliability, one should take into account the construct equivalence and bias of engagement

measures when conducting cross-cultural studies (Rothmann, 2014). Shimazu et al. (2008), for

instance, found that in the Japanese context, the expected three dimensions of the UWES (vigor,

dedication, and absorption) “collapsed and condensed into one engagement dimension” – which

implies that in Japan, engagement should be considered a unitary construct (p.519). Moreover,

the measurement accuracy of the Japanese version and the original Dutch version of the UWES

was not similar, which was possibly due to the tendency of the Japanese people to suppress their

positive affect and the likelihood of self-enhancement among the Dutch people (Shimazu,

Schaufeli, Miyanaka, and Iwata, 2010). Hence, we should be careful when interpreting the low

engagement scores among Japanese employees and high engagement scores among Western

workers (Shimazu et al., 2010).

Reliability

Reliability refers to the extent to which a measure can produce stable and consistent

results (Field, 2009; Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). For a measure to be reliable, the evaluator

needs to ascertain that its results are reproducible and stable under different conditions and
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
13
across different time periods. There are three most commonly used types of reliability: (a) test-

retest, (b) internal consistency, and (c) inter-rater.

Test-retest reliability means that if a respondent is to retake the test under similar

conditions, his or her score would remain similar to the previous score (Fletcher and Robinson,

2014). Internal consistency reliability refers to the extent to which the test items measure the

same construct of interest. Cronbach’s alpha is widely believed to be an indicator of internal

consistency (Field, 2009). As a rule of thumb, a measure could be considered reliable if the

Cronbach’s alpha value is around .80 (Field, 2009). Finally, inter-rater reliability refers to the

degree to which the instrument yields similar results among different assessors; in other words, it

explains the level of agreement among different raters of the instrument.

The instruments reviewed in this study reported relatively high Cronbach’s alpha values

in their corresponding publications, which implies that these measures have good levels of

internal consistency reliability. However, it appears that only Cronbach’s alpha values were

reported as indicators of good reliability in those publications, which can be insufficient. Indeed,

the authors could have done more in terms of reporting the test-retest reliability as well as the

inter-rater reliability of the instruments.

On a related note, some scales developed outside of academia may not have undergone

such rigorous testing of reliability (and validity); thus, the publishers of such instruments need to

provide evidence that the scale is both reliable and valid, and that such measures are

psychometrically acceptable (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). Given that employee engagement

has attracted a lot of attention from HR practitioners, it is imperative that these psychometric

concerns be addressed if we are to develop projects or initiatives aimed at raising engagement

levels of employees in the most effective and efficient way.

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
14

Validity

The engagement research has been inundated with inconsistent operationalizations and

measurements, resulting in confusion as to whether the construct is both conceptually and

empirically different from other constructs (Albrecht, 2010; Christian, Garza, and Slaughter,

2011; Macey and Schneider, 2008; Truss, Delbridge, Alfes, Shantz, and Soane, 2014). In

contemplating which engagement instrument to use, interested researchers and practitioners need

to take into account three major types of validity (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014). First, ‘content

validity’ is concerned with the extent to which the measure captures the construct it is intended

to measure. Kahn (1990) argued that personal engagement represents a state, in which employees

expresses themselves “physically, cognitive, and emotionally” in their work roles (p.692).

Engagement, therefore, “should refer to a psychological connection with the performance of

work tasks rather than an attitude toward features of the organization or the job” (Christian et al.,

2011). Second, ‘convergent validity’ refers to the extent to which the construct is statistically

correlated with other similar constructs. Finally, ‘convergent validity’ is concerned with the

extent to which the engagement construct is “statistically distinct from other similar, yet different

constructs” (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014, p.280).

A measure such as the GWA has been heavily criticized for not conforming to Kahn’s

conceptualization of engagement (content validity) (Christian et al., 2011). Instead of measuring

state, as Kahn (1990) would argue, the GWA focuses on various work conditions, particularly

job characteristics such as rewards, feedback, task significance, and development opportunities

(Christian et al., 2011; Fletcher and Robinson, 2014; Macey and Schneider, 2008). As Macey
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
15
and Schneider (2008) put it, the results from the GWA survey data “are used to infer that reports

of these conditions signify engagement, but the state of engagement itself is not assessed” (p.7).

The validity of the UWES – one of the most widely used engagement instruments around

the world – has also been under a lot of scrutiny (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Rich et al. (2010,

623), for instance, argued that the UWES includes items that “confound with the antecedent

conditions” proposed by Kahn (1990) – particularly items that ask for respondent perceptions of

meaningfulness and challenge of work – and thus do not precisely measure engagement as

originally conceptualized by him. Similarly, Saks and Gruman (2014) argued that one item of the

UWES’ dedication scale – “To me, my job is challenging.” – seems to overlap with some

engagement predictors such as autonomy or skill variety. In addition, some of the items of the

vigor scale are very similar to items measuring other constructs such as job satisfaction and

commitment.

Cole et al. (2012) also maintained that there have been questions over the issue of

“construct redundancy” between engagement and burnout (p.1576). Cole et al. (2012) employed

meta-analytic techniques to attempt to assess the extent to which job burnout and employee

engagement are “independent and useful constructs”, and found that “construct redundancy” is a

major challenge for understanding and advancing research on burnout and engagement (p.1576).

They maintained that the UWES is, based on their findings, empirically redundant with the MBI.

They also suggested that engagement researchers should avoid treating the UWES as an

instrument that measures a distinct and independent construct, and that more effort vis-à-vis the

conceptualization and operationalization of engagement is needed if we are to avoid further

confusion and advance our understanding of the engagement phenomenon.

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
16
It is important to note that our discussion focuses largely on the GWA and the UWES

because of their ubiquitous use and because the other instruments have rarely been used

elsewhere, and in most cases used only in one study (Saks and Gruman, 2014). Nevertheless,

there are also validity concerns with other instruments. For instance, James et al. (2011) only

reported the face validity of the engagement scale in their publication. The authors claimed “the

eight items in the scale, in terms of face validity, measure the cognitive, emotional, and

behavioral aspects of engagement” (James et al., 2011, p.182). However, items such as “I would

like to be working for Citisales one year from now” and “Compared with other companies I

know about, I think Citisales is a great place to work” may measure one’s commitment to the

organization and not necessarily fully capture the cognitive aspect of engagement.

The issue of ‘discriminant validity’ – whether engagement is simply ‘old wine in a new

bottle’ – has also been a major concern for engagement researchers. Some scholars have argued

that there is a lot of similarity between engagement and other well-established constructs such as

job satisfaction, commitment, and job involvement, whereas others disagree and have found that

engagement is a “novel and valuable” concept (Fletcher and Robinson, 2014, p.280). Clearly,

more research is needed for us to advance our understanding of the construct and recognize the

extent to which engagement is of value to HRD theory and practice.

Limitations, Conclusion, and Implications for Future Research and Practice

Our review of the literature is limited in several ways. First, there are various other

engagement instruments that we did not review in this study, mainly because they exist outside

the public domain and are not accessible. Second, there are a number of assessment criteria that

we were not able to examine. For example, instrument feasibility (how difficult/convenient it is

for responders as well as administrators). This omission is mainly due to the fact that such
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
17
information is not presented in the instrument publications or that information associated with

these other criteria is discussed in a very arbitrary and inconsistent manner by the authors of the

publications.

Despite the limitations, we believe that this study provides useful insights to engagement

scholars and practitioners with regard to what scales are available, what their properties are, and

how they have been used. Our review illustrates that while various instruments have been

developed to ‘measure’ engagement, not all scales have the same theoretical underpinnings or

methodological rigor. In addition, certain scales (e.g. UWES, Job Engagement Measure) have

been used and cited more frequently than others. It is important, therefore, that engagement

scholars and researchers carefully review each instrument’s properties and methodological

soundness before selecting an instrument to use for their research.

Our review also offers a number of implications for both research and practice. First of

all, it seems clear that all the instruments reviewed here require more rigorous testing. Indeed,

scale development is an iterative process (Hagen and Peterson, 2014); thus, more evidence of

validity and reliability for the scales is needed. In addition, given the popularity of the

engagement construct in many different countries, scholars and practitioners should pay specific

attention to the appropriateness of the scales before applying any of them in a cross-cultural

context. Needless to say, more attempts to validate the scales in non-Western contexts are

needed. Third, the inconsistent definitions and theoretical underpinnings used by the developers

of each scale could be a cause for concern. Therefore, scholars and practitioners need to review

the information about the development of various scales to see which would fit well with their

researcher questions and topics.

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
18
References

ALBRECHT, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research,

and practice, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing.

CHRISTIAN, M. S., GARZA, A. S. and SLAUGHTER, J. E. (2011) Work engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 64, pp. 89-136.

COLE, M. S., WALTER, F., BEDEIAN, A. G. and O’BOYLE, E. H. (2012) Job burnout and
employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of
Management, 38, pp. 1550-1581.

FIELD, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage.

FLETCHER, L. and ROBINSON, D. (2014). Measuring and understanding engagement. In:

TRUSS, C., DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (eds.) Employee
engagement in theory and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 273-290.

HAGEN, M. S. and PETERSON, S. L. (2014) Coaching scales: A review of the literature and
comparative analysis. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16, pp. 222-241.

HARTER, J. K., SCHMIDT, F. L. and HAYES, T. L. (2002) Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 268-279.

JAMES, J. B., MCKECHNIE, S. and SWANBERG, J. (2011) Predicting employee engagement in

an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, pp. 173-196.

KAHN, W. A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724.

KAHN, W. A. (1992) To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45,
pp. 321-349.

KIM, W., KOLB, J. A. and KIM, T. (2012) The relationship between work engagement and
performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human
Resource Development Review, pp.

MACEY, W. H. and SCHNEIDER, B. (2008) The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 1, pp. 3-30.

MASLACH, C. and LEITER, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause
personal stress and what to do about it, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.

MAY, D. R., GILSON, R. L. and HARTER, L. M. (2004) The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
19
RANA, S., ARDICHVILI, A. and TKACHENKO, O. (2014) A theoretical model of the
antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26,
pp. 249-266.

RICH, B. L., LEPINE, J. A. and CRAWFORD, E. R. (2010) Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp. 617-635.

ROTHMANN, S. (2014). Employee engagement in a cultural context. In: TRUSS, C.,

DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (eds.) Employee engagement in theory
and practice. New York: Routledge, pp. 163-179.

RURKKHUM, S. and BARTLETT, K. R. (2012) The relationship between employee

engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource
Development International, 15, pp. 157-174.

SAKS, A. M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21, pp. 600-619.

SAKS, A. M. and GRUMAN, J. A. (2014) What do we really know about employee

engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, pp. 155-182.

SCHAUFELI, W. B., SALANOVA, M., GONZALEZ-ROMA, V. and BAKKER, A. B. (2002) The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.

SHIMAZU, A., SCHAUFELI, W., MIYANAKA, D. and IWATA, N. (2010) Why Japanese workers
show low work engagement: An item response theory analysis of the Utrecht Work
Engagement scale. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 4, pp. 17.

SHIMAZU, A., SCHAUFELI, W. B., KOSUGI, S., SUZUKI, A., NASHIWA, H., KATO, A.,
SAKAMOTO, M., IRIMAJIRI, H., AMANO, S., HIROHATA, K. and GOTO, R. (2008) Work
engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht work engagement
scale. Applied Psychology, 57, pp. 510-523.

SHUCK, B., REIO, T. G. and ROCCO, T. S. (2011) Employee engagement: An examination of

antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14, pp.
427-445.

SHUCK, B. and WOLLARD, K. (2010) Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, pp. 89-110.

SOANE, E., TRUSS, C., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A., REES, C. and GATENBY, M. (2012)
Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA
Engagement Scale. Human Resource Development International, 15, pp. 529-547.

TRUSS, C., DELBRIDGE, R., ALFES, K., SHANTZ, A. and SOANE, A. (2014). Employee
engagement in theory and practice, New York, Routledge.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS
20
WOLLARD, K. K. and SHUCK, B. (2011) Antecedents to employee engagement: A structured
review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, pp. 429-446.