See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316925586

The mediating effect of work–life balance on the relationship between work–

family conflict and life satisfaction

Article in Australian Journal of Career Development · April 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1038416216682954

CITATIONS READS

76 8,441

2 authors:

Arzu Taşdelen Karçkay Orkide Bakalım

Akdeniz University İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi
19 PUBLICATIONS 189 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 198 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Arzu Taşdelen Karçkay on 16 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Australian Journal of Career Development

2017, Vol. 26(1) 3–13
The mediating effect of work–life balance ! Australian Council for Educational
Research 2016
on the relationship between work–family Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

conflict and life satisfaction DOI: 10.1177/1038416216682954

journals.sagepub.com/home/acd

Arzu Taşdelen-Karçkay
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Orkide Bakalım
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Uşak University, Uşak, Turkey

Abstract
The first purpose of this study was to develop a scale of work–life balance for Turkish working women and men. The
second purpose was to investigate the mediating effect of work–life balance between work–family conflict, family–work
conflict, and life satisfaction. In Study 1 (N ¼ 274), a work–life balance scale was developed and initial validity evidence
was presented. In Study 2 (N ¼ 356), confirmatory factor analyses supported the scale’s unidimensionality. Cronbach’s
alpha and the composite reliability for internal consistency were .92. All studies indicated that the Work–Life Balance
Scale was valid and reliable for a Turkish employee sample. Structural equation modeling supported indirect effects of
work–family conflict and family–work conflict on life satisfaction via work–life balance. Multi-group analysis showed that
the structural paths of the full model did not differ by gender.

Keywords
Work–life balance, scale development, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, life satisfaction, gender

Introduction might be job stress, career transitions, extreme,

In recent years, economic, social, and cultural changes
have had an impact on the working lives of individ-
uals. In particular, the rise in living standards and the
importance of work and family life have intensified
the demands on individuals, on work, and on family
(Chandra, 2012; Darcy, McCarthy, Hill, & Grady,
2012; Kuzulu, Kurtuldu, & Özkan, 2013; Pattusamy
& Jacob, 2015). The relationship between work and
family life is bidirectional. Accordingly, a person’s
work–life can affect his/her family life, and his/her
family life might also affect his/her work–life (Hill,
Hawkins, Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001; Kuzulu et al.,
2013; Munn, 2013; Peeters, Montgomery, Bakker, &
Schaufeli, 2005). Because work and family roles con-
tinuously interact with one another, this concept has
been handled in two different, but related ways, as
work–family conflict and family–work conflict
(Cinamon & Rich, 2002; Frone, Russell, & Cooper,
1997).
Work–family conflict occurs when the experiences
at work interfere with family life. Such experiences
irregular, or inflexible working hours, frequent
travel, interpersonal conflict, role overload, coworker
support, and unsupportive organization or
supervisors. Family–work conflict, on the other
hand, occurs when the experiences in the family inter-
fere with work life. Some pressures in the family envir-
onment might be the presence of young children, elder
care responsibilities, interpersonal conflicts within the
family, and the presence of unsupportive family
members (Chernyak-Hai & Tziner, 2016; Greenhaus,
2002). The topic of work–family conflict has been of
particular interest because recent studies have demon-
strated that 40% of employed parents experience
work–family conflict for at least a period of time in
their lives (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000).
Studies show that work–family conflict and family–
work conflict have a negative and significant correl-
ation with psychological well-being (Frone, Russell, &
Cooper, 1992; Hughes & Galinsky, 1994; Kinnunen &
Mauno, 1998; Nitzsche, Jung, Kowalski, & Pfaff,
2014) and the job and life satisfaction of the

Corresponding author:
Arzu Taşdelen-Karçkay, Akdeniz University, Dumlupınar Bulvarı Kampus, Antalya 07058, Turkey.
Email: tasdelenarzu@yahoo.com
4 Australian Journal of Career Development 26(1)
individual (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Mesmer-Magnus
& Viswesvaran, 2005).
However, work and family life are not always in
conflict with each other. From this point of view,
Greenhaus and Powell (2006) proposed the concept
of work–family enrichment. This concept is defined
as the enhancement of performance and positive
affect in one role from the experiences in another
role (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). According to
Grzywacz (2000), work–family enrichment is the posi-
tive synergy between work and family. This concept is
also bidirectional. The work experiences might enrich
the quality of family life, or family experiences might
contribute to the working life quality (Jain & Nair,
2013; Ruikar & Abhyankar, 2015).
Although work–family balance was first defined as
having low levels of conflict between work and family
(Hill et al., 2001), it has been investigated as an inde-
pendent factor of conflict. Grzywacz and Carlson
(2007) stated that balance must be considered as a
social structure, and work–family balance should be
considered as an important construct when expect-
ations of the individual and others around him/her
are shared and agreed upon. Greenhaus, Collins,
and Shaw (2002) proposed three components of
work–family balance: (a) time balance, which is
defined as devoting an equal amount of time to
work and family roles; (b) involvement balance,
which refers to having an equal amount of psycho-
logical involvement in both work and family roles;
and (c) satisfaction balance, when there is an equal
amount of satisfaction in both work and family
roles. This delicate balance is influenced by many fac-
tors, including but not limited to individual choice,
the meaning and purpose people find in their work,
family, individual, and community roles, organiza-
tional culture, and the existence and usability of
work–life initiatives (Munn, 2013). Work–family bal-
ance has been found to be positively related to job
involvement and life satisfaction (Omran & Kamel,
2016), and Pattusamy and Jacob (2015) found that
the relationship between work–family conflict and
job and family satisfaction was mediated by work–
family balance.
As the concept was further explored, work–life bal-
ance was proposed to replace the term work–family
balance, because life in this sense means everything
outside of work (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska,
2009; Haar, 2013). Work–life balance is positively
related to job and life satisfaction (Haar, Russo,
Suñe, & Ollier-Malaterre, 2014), job and marital sat-
isfaction (Brough et al., 2014; Kossek & Ozeki, 1999),
and well-being (Frone, 2000), and negatively related
to anxiety and depression (Haar et al., 2014), psycho-
logical strain (Brough et al., 2014), and job stress
(Behson, 2002).
Historically, most of the literature has focused pri-
marily on work–life balance and the ways in which it
has affected working women (Munn, 2013).
Moreover, it was observed that in work–balance stu-
dies, gender, as a variable, was examined only from
the female perspective (Aziz & Chang 2013; Bee,
Baskar, & Vimala, 2013; Madipelli, Sarma, &
Chinnappaiah, 2013; Pandu, Balu, & Poorani, 2013;
Sujata & Singh, 2011; Wattis, Standing, & Yerkes,
2013). However, in recent years, the traditional role
of men has changed (Emslie & Hunt, 2009; Evans,
Carney, & Wilkinson, 2013). Current societal and
regulatory initiatives are aimed at encouraging men
to actively engage in sharing the caring routines and
the housework. Thus, new labels for men such as
‘‘new men’’, ‘‘involved fathers’’, and ‘‘working
fathers’’ have emerged (Raiden & Raisanen, 2013).
Consequently, it is important today to examine the
work–life balance of both genders (Darcy et al.,
2012; Emslie & Hunt, 2009). Work–life balance prob-
lems can therefore have a negative impact on the rela-
tionships and mental health of both genders (Evans
et al., 2013; Haar, 2013; Özen-Kapız, 2002).
A lack of work–life balance can lead to various
problems, such as depression, anxiety, psychological
stress, mood disorder, and marriage disruption for
both women and men (Ballica, 2010; Frone, 2000;
Pandu et al., 2013). Furthermore, decreased job satis-
faction and decreased parental role quality are nega-
tive consequences of work–life balance (Hill et al.,
2001). According to Haar (2013), work–life balance
has an impact on the indirect (mediation) effect
between conflict and the work–life enrichment of
working parents, and nonparents. Haar’s results
showed that work–life balance played an important
part in explaining job and life satisfaction in both
men and women. The psychological outcomes of
work–life balance delivered additional benefits,
wherein conflict was detrimental and work–life
enrichment was beneficial to life satisfaction.
According to the Third European Working
Conditions Survey (Paoli & Merllié, 2001), which
was conducted in 15 European countries, 10% of
men and women cannot fulfill their family responsi-
bilities due to the amount of time they spend at work.
In Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey these rates are
higher: 22% of men and 25% of women are unable
to fulfill their family responsibilities in these countries.
Although this problem is seen widely in Turkey, the
number of studies on work–life balance conducted in
Turkey is limited. Most research in this area has been
conducted in the fields of labor economics, human
resources, and business (Ballica, 2010; Demirer,
2011; Kuzulu et al., 2013; Özen-Kapız, 2002).
When the work–life balance literature is examined,
some limitations and problems with the measurement
process can be seen. Some scales used to measure
work–life balance reflect conceptual confusion (Bee
et al., 2013; Pandu et al., 2013). Fisher, Bulger, and
Smith (2009), for example, developed a 17-items
work–life balance scale that had four sub-dimensions
(i.e., work/non-work interference and enhancement),
Taşdelen-Karçkay and Bakalım
but Zhang et al. (2012) only found two sub-dimen-
sions, one being related to work–family conflict, and
the other being related to work–family enrichment.
Additionally, in some studies, work–life balance was
measured with only a single item (Fagan & Press,
2008; Forsyth & Polzer-Debruyne, 2007). Keeton,
Fenner, Johnson, and Hayward (2007) developed a
work–life balance scale consisting of five items; how-
ever, they have not provided information on the psy-
chometric characteristics of the scale.
The factorial structure of the work–life balance
construct is also yet to be confirmed. Fisher (2001)
developed a 19-item, three-dimension (i.e., work inter-
ference with personal life, personal life interference
with work, and work/personal life enhancement)
work–life balance scale (cited by Fisher-McAuley,
Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003), which has been
used by other researchers (e.g., Hayman, 2005); how-
ever, the three-factor structure has not been confirmed
by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Fisher-
McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin (2003)). Haar’s
(2013) study used three items and a one-dimensional
structure, but no factor analyses were conducted.
Nitzsche, Jung, Kowalski, and Pfaff (2014) obtained
a single-factor structure with five items, which was
confirmed with a CFA, and Brough et al. (2014) con-
firmed four items and a one dimensional structure on
four different samples from two different countries
(Australia and New Zealand).
In the current study, a measurement instrument
was developed while considering work–life balance
as a construct independent of work–family or
family–work conflict or enrichment. The second aim
of the study was to determine whether a single-factor,
work–life balance structure would generalize to a dif-
ferent sample in Turkey, and, third, to test the med-
iating effect of work–life balance regarding the
relationships between work–family conflict/family–
work conflict and life satisfaction.
Study 1
The aim of Study 1 was to develop the Work–Life
Balance Scale items, to determine the construct valid-
ity of the Work–Life Balance Scale via (EFA), and to
conduct a preliminary investigation of its internal
consistency reliability.
Method
In this section of the study, we outline the item selec-
tion of the scale, the study group information, and the
processes regarding the validity assessments.
The process of developing the items in the scale
The process of developing the items in the scale had
two steps.
Step I. The scale development process began with
an extensive review of the literature, defining the
5
work–life balance construct, and seeking the opinion
of employees. An open-ended question (‘‘Please tell
me your ideas about your work–life balance’’) was
used in a survey that was administered via social
media (N ¼ 22) and face-to-face interviews (N ¼ 9).
The data were coded and analyzed thematically. The
codes were extracted under the main theme of work–
life balance. These were: ‘‘time management’’, ‘‘bal-
ancing of multiple life roles’’, and ‘‘satisfying family
and professional life’’.
Step II. The two authors of the study separately
assessed each coding and wrote the original 22 items.
All items were examined for applicability, and a draft
scale of eight items was generated by combining repeti-
tive and related items. The general instructions were to
respond on a seven-point Likert-like scale (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree), which was added to the
scale. Five faculty members who worked in the field of
psychological counseling and guidance examined the
scale to ensure that it reflected the meanings of the
items and the related literature. Based on the faculty
members’ feedback, several items were modified so as
to be more explicit regarding the behaviors that they
queried. Additionally, the pilot form was evaluated by
two faculty members, who specialized in Turkish lan-
guage education. Following these stages, the pilot form
of the scale was finalized. The scale items are presented
in Appendix 1.
Participants and procedure
Convenience sampling was used to recruit partici-
pants. The study sample consisted of full-time
employees from Uşak, Turkey. Participants (n ¼ 274)
consisted of 49.3% (n ¼ 135) women and 50.7%
(n ¼ 139) men, with an age range of 18–61
(M ¼ 37.60 years, SD ¼ 8.31).
The sample displayed a high level of education:
73% (n ¼ 200) were university graduates, 9.1%
(n ¼ 25) were high school graduates, and 17.9%
(n ¼ 49) had a lower educational level. As for the
marital status, 79.9% (n ¼ 219) were married, 16.8%
(n ¼ 46) were single, and 3.3% (n ¼ 9) were divorced.
Regarding the number of children, those with two
children constituted the largest category (42.3%;
n ¼ 116), those with only one child constituted
24.8% (n ¼ 68), those with three children constituted
6.9% (n ¼ 19), those with more than three children
constituted 1.2% (n ¼ 3), and those with no children
constituted 24.8% (n ¼ 68). The study was conducted
with two different samples based on participants’
employment sector: people employed in the public
sector 71.2% (n ¼ 195) and the private sector 28.8%
(n ¼ 79). Occupations of the participants included tea-
chers (n ¼ 140), civil servants (n ¼ 49), sales clerks
(n ¼ 21), workers (n ¼ 14), lecturers (n ¼ 14), janitors
(n ¼ 10), engineers (n ¼ 7), and doctors (n ¼ 5).
Participation was entirely voluntary. The partici-
pants completed the scale at home or work place
6 Australian Journal of Career Development 26(1)

(hospital, university, factory, mall, school). Couples
with children received the scale at their children’s
school and they returned the scale in a sealed envelope
to schools and workplaces.
Data analysis
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
to validate the Work–Life Balance Scale with the first
study sample group (n ¼ 274), calculated Cronbach’s
alpha, and examined the corrected item-total correl-
ations to determine the internal reliability.
Results
Exploratory factor analysis
Prior to performing the factor analysis, the Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity tests
were employed to test the sample’s suitability for
factor analysis. The KMO value of the scale was
determined as .93; in general, a KMO value above
.90 is considered ‘‘excellent’’, and the Bartlett’s test
result was significant (2 ¼ 1662.554; p < .001;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
The factor analysis performed with the eight items
of the Work–Life Balance Scale revealed that there
was one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.00
(eigenvalue ¼ 5.13). The total variance explained by
this single factor was 64.17%. At the same time, the
scree plot showed that break takes place at the first
factor. The factor loadings of the items of the Work–
Life Balance Scale ranged between .70 and .89. These
factor loadings are presented in Table 1. The Work–
Life Balance Scale mean score was 41.06 (SD ¼ 9.71),
Cronbach’s alpha was .92, and the corrected item-
total correlations ranged from .64 to .84.
Study 2
The first aim of Study 2 was to determine whether the
Work–Life Balance Scale’s single-factor structure, as
Table 1. Factor loadings obtained from EFA (Study 1:
n ¼ 274) and CFA (Study 2: n ¼ 356).
Study 1 Study 2
Item No M SD Loading M SD Loading
demonstrated in Study 1, would generalize to a differ-
ent sample. In addition, the properties of the Work–
Life Balance Scale evaluated in the current study
included factor structure and internal consistency.
Previous studies indicated that work–life balance
was influenced by several other work–family–life vari-
ables, such as conflict, enrichment, and job/life satis-
faction (Brough et al., 2014; Haar et al., 2014; Keeton,
Fenner, Johnson, & Hayward, 2007; Kossek & Ozeki,
1999; Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005; Omran
& Kamel, 2016; Pattusamy & Jacob, 2015). To our
knowledge, no study has investigated the mediation
effect of work–life balance between conflict and satis-
faction in Turkish employees. Our study was designed
to fill this important gap. Moreover, we used multi-
group analysis to analyze whether the path coefficients
were significant between women and men.
Method
Participants and procedure
A convenience sampling was used to recruit partici-
pants. The study sample consisted of full-time
employees from Uşak, Turkey. The participants
(n ¼ 356) consisted of 186 (52.2%) women and 170
(47.8%) men, with an age range of 21–62
(M ¼ 38.59 years, SD ¼ 7.65). The sample displayed
a high level of education: 71.1% (n ¼ 253) were gradu-
ates of university, 14% (n ¼ 50) graduates of high
school, and 14.9% (n ¼ 53) had a lower education
level. As for marital status, 83.7% (n ¼ 298) were mar-
ried, 14% (n ¼ 50) single, and 2.2% (n ¼ 8) divorced.
Regarding the number of children, those with two chil-
dren made up the majority (44.7%; n ¼ 159), those
with only one child constituted 27% (n ¼ 96), those
with three children made up 7.9% (n ¼ 28), and
those with no children made up 20.5% (n ¼ 73).
Study 2 was conducted with two different samples:
people employed in the public sector (n ¼ 267; 75%)
and private sector (n ¼ 89; 25%). Participants were
teachers (n ¼ 137), civil servants (n ¼ 76), midwives
(n ¼ 22), nurses (n ¼ 20), sales clerks (n ¼ 18), lecturers
(n ¼ 15), janitors (n ¼ 14), technicians (n ¼ 11), work-
ers (n ¼ 10), engineers (n ¼ 8), bank clerks (n ¼ 7),
accountants (n ¼ 5), security officers (n ¼ 5), doctors
(n ¼ 3), policemen (n ¼ 3), and pharmacists (n ¼ 2).
In Study 2, the same data collection process was
used as in Study 1.

1 5.38 1.45 .70 5.30 1.49 .68

2 5.39 1.44 .85 5.26 1.47 .85
Measures
3 4.56 1.69 .72 4.49 1.68 .67 Life satisfaction. Life Satisfaction was measured with
4 5.25 1.54 .78 5.09 1.58 .75 the Satisfaction with Life Scale, which was developed
5 5.28 1.46 .89 5.11 1.53 .89 by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) and
6 5.22 1.45 .87 5.06 1.48 .87 adapted into Turkish by Köker (1991). It consists of
7 5.29 1.31 .85 5.15 1.39 .84 five Likert-type items regarding life satisfaction, with
answers ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly
8 4.69 1.70 .72 4.66 1.65 .66
agree (7). Köker (1991) previously determined that the
Taşdelen-Karçkay and Bakalım
scale’s test–retest consistency coefficient at a three-
week interval was r ¼ .85 and that the item-total
correlations ranged from .71 to .80. The internal con-
sistency coefficient was .76 (Köker, 1991). In our
study, Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Work–family conflict and family–work conflict. Work-to-
family conflict and family-to-work conflict were
assessed using five-item scales developed by
Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996) and
adapted to Turkish by Efeoğlu (2006). Using a five-
point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree),
participants were asked to indicate the extent to which
they agreed with each item. Higher scores reflect
higher levels of work–family conflict and family–
work conflict. Netemeyer et al. (1996) reported that
Cronbach’s alpha ranged between .83 and .89.
Efeoğlu (2006) reported that Cronbach’s alpha
ranged between .83 and .88. In our study, the
Cronbach’s alpha for the work–family conflict was
.90 and for family–work conflict was .87.
Data analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS
(v.17) and AMOS (v.21). CFA was conducted to val-
idate the Work–Life Balance Scale with the second
study sample. In Study 2, internal reliability and com-
posite reliability were also calculated. Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994) suggested that a Cronbach’s alpha
value of .70 and an item-total correlation of >.30
were acceptable. Independent t tests were used in
order to examine the data for potential gender differ-
ences in the initial analysis. The relationships among
all of the variables for the sample group were investi-
gated through correlation analysis. The direct, indir-
ect, and meditational effects of the study variables
were tested using structural equation modeling pro-
cedures. In order to test the hypothesized mediation
effects, the bias corrected bootstrap method was used
for calculating confidence intervals (CI).
The fit of the CFA model was first evaluated using
the ratio of the chi square value to the degrees of
freedom. In this context, the ratio should be <3
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Additional fit indexes
used were Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI),
Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR),
Table 2. Fit indices for the Work–Life Balance Scale.
Sample 2 df 2/df
Female 47.747 20 2.39
Male 44.112 20 2.21
Total 55.173 20 2.76
IFI: incremental fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA: root mean
square error of approximation.
7
and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). According to Beauducel and Wittmann
(2005), Hu and Bentler (1999), and Schreiber, Nora,
Stage, Barlow, and King (2006), an excellent fit is
indicated by IFI, CFI, and GFI values ‘‘close to’’
.95, an SRMR value less than or equal to .08, and
RMSEA values ‘‘close to’’ .08.
Models were compared with the Expected Cross
Validation Index (ECVI) and Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC) values. When comparing different
models, smaller values of ECVI and AIC represent a
better fit (Byrne, 2001; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006;
Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, & King, 2006). In
addition, multi-group analysis was used to test
whether the path coefficients were significantly differ-
ent for women and men.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
For the single-factor model, the ratio of the chi square
value to the degrees of freedom was 2.76 (55.173/20,
p < .001). The goodness-of-fit indices (shown in
Table 2) were all good for both females and males
and the total sample.
The standardized factor loadings of the Work–Life
Balance Scale items were between .66 and .89, p < .001
(see Table 1). In conclusion, the results confirmed the
single-factor model of the Work–Life Balance Scale.
Internal consistency reliability. To determine internal con-
sistency reliability of the Work–Life Balance Scale, we
calculated Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliabil-
ity, and examined the corrected item-total correl-
ations. Both evaluations of the internal consistency
reliability and the composite reliability resulted in
strong values, with both coefficient alpha and the
composite reliability of the Work–Life Balance Scale
calculated as .92. The corrected item–total correl-
ations ranged from .62 to .84. These values supported
the Work–Life Balance Scale’s internal consistency.
Preliminary analysis
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and
Pearson r correlation analyses that were used to inves-
tigate the relationships among all the study variables.
IFI CFI GFI SRMR RMSEA
.97 .97 .94 .033 .08
.97 .97 .94 .031 .08
.98 .98 .96 .025 .07
8 Australian Journal of Career Development 26(1)

Table 3. Descriptive statistics (M and SD), mean differences using independent sample t tests for all variables by gender, and Pearson
correlations for study variables (n ¼ 356).

Women (n ¼ 186) Men (n ¼ 170) Pearson correlations

Variables M SD M SD t 1 2 3 4
NS
1. WLB 39.78 9.74 40.51 9.95 .69 .92
2. WFC 14.28 4.84 14.25 5.03 .07NS .34** .90
3. FWC 11.74 3.88 11.81 4.60 1.30NS .29** .47** .87
4. LS 22.74 6.64 21.86 7.21 1.19NS .41** .16** .13* .88
WLB: work–life balance; WFC: work–family conflict; FWC: family–work conflict; LS: life satisfaction, coefficients (a) for all variables are presented
along the diagonal. NS: not significant (p > .05).
*p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 4. Summary of fit indices for mediation models.

Models 2 Df 2/df IFI CFI RMSEA ECVI AIC

Model A 458.98 222 2.07 .95 .95 .06 1.60 566.98

Model B 459.73 224 2.05 .95 .95 .05 1.52 563.73
Model A: partial mediation model; Model B: full mediation model.
The best fit model is given in boldface.

Gender differences were tested using independent t
tests. These indicated that there was no statistically
significant difference by gender for all the study vari-
ables. All the correlations were significant.
Measurement model
The measurement model included four latent vari-
ables (work–family conflict, family–work conflict,
work–life balance, and life satisfaction) and 23
observed variables. All of the factor loading for the
indicators on the latent variables were significant
(p < .001), indicating that all latent variables were
well represented by their indicators.
Structural model
The results showed that a partially mediated model
(Model A) fitted well to the data (see Table 4). There
was a significant effect of work–family conflict on
work–life balance ( ¼ .33, p < .001) and family–
work conflict on work–life balance ( ¼ .31,
p < .005). Tests of parameter estimates showed that
coefficients of direct paths were all significant, except
the paths from work–family conflict to life satisfaction
( ¼ .10, p > .05) and family–work conflict to life
satisfaction ( ¼ .07, p > .05). Thus, these paths were
deleted and the model was retested as a full mediation
model (Model B). This was where work–family con-
flict and family–work conflict predicted work–life bal-
ance, which, in turn, predicted life satisfaction. These
analyses also revealed a good fit to the data, and sug-
gested that work–life balance mediated fully between
work–family conflict and family–work conflict and
life satisfaction.
The partial (Model A) and fully (Model B)
mediated models were compared with the EVCI and
AIC values. The full mediation model also had the
lowest ECVI and AIC (see Table 4). Therefore,
Model B was selected as the best fit (see Figure 1).
Testing for mediation
In order to test the hypothesized full mediation
effects, we used the bootstrapping estimation pro-
cedure in AMOS (Tarrés, Fina, & Piedrafita,
2010). Mackinnon, Lockwood, and William (2004)
indicated that the bootstrap method yields the most
accurate confidence intervals for indirect effects.
From the dataset, 3,000 bootstrap samples and
their associated 95% CI were generated (see
Table 5). The indirect effects of both dimensions
of work–family conflict and family–work conflict
on life satisfaction via work–life balance were stat-
istically significant.
Multi-group analyses
We used multi-group analysis to test whether the path
coefficients differed significantly between males and
females. The difference between the two sample
groups was examined by comparing the fully
mediated model (Model B), which allowed the struc-
tural paths across gender, with the second model,
which constrained the structural paths across gender
to be equal. The results of a chi-square difference test
showed that the two models did not differ significantly
from one another (D2 ¼ 16.11, df ¼ 22, p > .05),
showing that the structural paths of the full model
did not differ by gender.
Taşdelen-Karçkay and Bakalım
WFC
-.24 **
W LB
FWC -.20 **
Figure 1. The full mediation model. Note. WFC: work–family conflict; FWC: family–work conflict; WLB: work–life balance; LS: life
satisfaction. **p < .005, ***p < .001.
Table 5. Indirect effects and 95% CI for the fully mediated
model.
95% CI
Path Estimated Lower Upper
WFC!WLB!LS .11*** .17 .05
FWC!WLB!LS .09** .16 .03
WLB: work–life balance; WFC: work–family conflict; FWC: family–
work conflict; LS: life satisfaction.
**p < .005, ***p < .001.
Discussion
Study 1 and Study 2 were aimed at developing and
validating a scale to measure employees’ work–life
balance. First, EFA was performed to determine the
construct validity of the scale. The results of the ana-
lysis showed that the scale was a one-dimensional
structure. In addition, Study 2 confirmed the Work–
Life Balance Scale single-factor structure via CFA.
The alpha, the composite reliability, and the corrected
item-total correlation results showed that the Work–
Life Balance Scale had good psychometric values in
both studies. Previous studies have shown various
factor structures for work–life balance. Brough et al.
(2014), Haar, Russo, Suñe, and Ollier-Malaterre
(2014), and Nitzsche et al. (2014) found a single
factor structure; whereas other studies found more
than a single dimension. In these studies, work/per-
sonal life enhancement, work–family/family–work
enrichment, and work–family conflict/family–work
conflict concepts made up the sub-structure of
work–life balance (Bee et al., 2013; Fisher, Bulger,
& Smith 2009; Pandu et al., 2013; Zhang et al.,
2012). Examining the literature reveals that work–
life balance is a different concept to these (Grzywacz
& Carlson, 2007; Hill et al., 2001). Therefore, it is vital
that the scaling devices developed are designed solely
for measuring work–life balance. According to
Kalliath and Brough (2008), evaluation of work–life
balance should only question balance directly. In the
9
.44 ***
LS
current scale development study, the concept of
work–life balance is evaluated as a unidimensional
concept that is compatible with this.
In this study, no difference was detected between
women and men on all variables. Some studies have
found that women experienced higher levels of work–
family conflict (Behson, 2002; Nielson, Carlson, &
Lankau, 2001). Even though the number of studies
that have compared gender is limited, the fact that
there was no significant difference between gender in
some of the current life and work variables is inter-
esting. This finding can be explained by the fact that
today work–life issues are equally important for both
genders in Turkey. According to Raiden and
Raisanen (2013), women and men equally experience
work–home interference because of more common
contribution to the financial well-being and the care
at home. Consequently, lack of work–life balance is a
problem for men as well as for women (Emslie &
Hunt, 2009).
In the second study, the relationships among the
concepts of work–family conflict, family–work
conflict, work–life balance, and life satisfaction were
examined to assess whether work–life balance
mediated the relationships between work–family
conflict, family–work conflict, and life satisfaction.
First, negative correlations were found between
work–family conflict and life satisfaction and between
family–work conflict and life satisfaction. These find-
ings were consistent with research results in the litera-
ture (e.g., Adams, King, & King, 1996; Haar, 2013;
Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Mesmer-Magnus &
Viswesvaran, 2005). Empirical evidence shows that
both types of conflict can have a negative effect on
work and family life, and that this in turn influences
physical health and psychological well-being (Adams
et al., 1996). Other studies have found that work–
family conflict was related to lower quality of family
life. Consequently, general life satisfaction was also
affected in a negative way (Bacharach, Bamberger,
& Conley, 1991; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992).
In other words, individuals who were more interested
in work than family experienced higher levels of
10
work–family conflict and psychological stress and a
lower level life satisfaction (Greenhaus, Collins, &
Shaw, 2002).
Second, work–family conflict and family–work
conflict were negatively related to work–life balance.
The findings verified these hypotheses, and were also
comparable to research results in the literature
(Greenhaus et al., 2002; Haar, 2013; Haar et al.,
2014). Associated with this, Clark (2000) described
work–life balance as satisfaction and good function-
ing at work and home, with minimum role conflict. In
other words, it is expected that when conflict
decreases, balance increases. According to Haar
(2013), where individuals maintain greater balance
among their multiple life roles, they will have add-
itional benefits beyond the influences of conflict.
Third, a positive and significant correlation was
found between work–life balance and life satisfaction.
Although many studies have examined the relation-
ship between work–life balance and job satisfaction,
only a few studies have suggested a relationship
between work–life balance and life satisfaction
(Bryant & Constantine, 2006; Haar, 2013; Haar
et al., 2014).
Finally, our findings supported the fully mediating
role of work–life balance on the relationship between
work–family conflict/family–work conflict and life
satisfaction. When we look at literature, despite the
high number of studies examining the relationship
between work–life balance and different outcome
variables, we could find only one study where the
effect of work–life balance as mediator is examined
(Haar, 2013). Our study also reached the conclusion
that work–life balance has a similar mediating effect
to that found by Haar (2013). This result suggests that
work–life balance should be studied as a significant
variable in studies on the mediating effect of work–life
issues.
Limitations and future research
Some limitations to this study should be addressed.
First, the data were obtained only from the popula-
tion who lived in Uşak city, Turkey. To address this,
future studies could examine a more diverse sample
obtained from different cities and international popu-
lations as a way of evaluating the Work–Life Balance
Scale’s factor structure and validity. Second, this
study was a scale development study; therefore, only
quantitative data were collected. In future research,
both qualitative and quantitative research methods
could be used. Third, the Work–Life Balance Scale
psychometrics evaluated in the current study includes
factor structure and internal consistency. Further
psychometric evaluation, such as assessing the
Work–Life Balance Scale’s test–retest reliability and
its discriminant validity, should be conducted. In our
study, gender differences in the structural model were
tested. In future research, other variables such as age,
Australian Journal of Career Development 26(1)
marital status, parenting status, educational level, and
working sector should be examined.
Conclusions
First, this study created a new work-life balance scale.
This scale was carefully structured to be independent
from other concepts in the work–life literature, such
as conflict, enrichment, and enhancement. As a result,
a single dimension structure related to work–life bal-
ance was verified via samples that consisted of work-
ing Turkish men and Turkish women.
Second, the study found correlations among work–
life conflict/family–work conflict, work–life balance,
and life satisfaction. However, these concepts did
not differ by gender. Last, the study found that
work–life balance was a full mediator between
work–family and family–work conflict and life
satisfaction.
It is hoped that developing a new work–life balance
scale, examining the relationships of this concept to
conflict and life satisfaction variables, and comparing
men and women will contribute to the work–life bal-
ance literature and will pioneer other studies to be
carried out in this field in Turkey.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996).
Relationships of job and family involvement, family
social support, and work-family conflict with job and
life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
411–420. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.411.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M.
(2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family
conflict: A review and agenda for future research.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.
doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.278.
Aziz, A., & Chang, A. (2013). Work–family balance: The 3
way interaction effect of role demands, collectivism
value and ethnicity. Journal of Global Management, 6,
22–39.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991).
Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers:
Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and sat-
isfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12,
39–53. doi:10.1002/job.4030120104.
Ballıca, S. (2010). Iş _ Görenlerin Iş_ Yaşam Dengesi
Algılamaları Ile _ Cinsiyet Rolleri ve Bireysel
_
Özelliklerinin Ilişkisi: _
Büyük Ölçekli Bir Işletmede
_
Inceleme [Relationship between employees’ work
family balance and gender roles perception and personal
characteristics: A study at a large scale firm].
Taşdelen-Karçkay and Bakalım
Unpublished master’s dissertation, Çukurova
University, Institute of Social Sciences, Adana.
Beauducel, A., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation
study on fit indexes in CFA based on data with slightly
distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling,
12, 41–75.
Bee, A. J., Baskar, K., & Vimala, V. (2013). Organisational
culture on work–life balance among married women
employees productivity. Indian Streams Research
Journal, 3, 1–7.
Behson, S. J. (2002). Coping with family-to-work conflict:
The role of informal work accommodations to family.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 324.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.4.324.
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T., Siu,
O. L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance: A
longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across
Australia and New Zealand workers. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2724–2744.
doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.899262.
Bryant, R. M., & Constantine, M. G. (2006). Multiple role
balance, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction in women
school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9,
265–271. doi:10.5330/prsc.9.4.31ht45132278x818.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with
AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches
to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instru-
ment. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
doi:10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is
work–family balance more than conflict and enrichment?
Human Relations, 62(10), 1459–1486. doi:10.1177/
0018726709336500.
Chandra, V. (2012). Work–life balance: Eastern and western
perspectives. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23, 1040–1056. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2012.651339.
Chernyak-Hai, L., & Tziner, A. (2016). The ‘‘I believe’’ and
the ‘‘I invest’’ of work-family balance: The indirect influ-
ences of personal values and work engagement via per-
ceived organizational climate and workplace burnout.
Revista de Psicologı´a del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, 32, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.rpto.2015.11.004.
Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2002). Gender differences in
the importance of work and family roles: Implications
for work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 47, 531–541.
doi:10.1023/A:1022021804846.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new
theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53,
747–770. doi:10.1177/0018726700536001.
Darcy, C., McCarthy, A., Hill, J., & Grady, G. (2012).
Work–life balance: One size fits all? An exploratory ana-
lysis of the differential effects of career stage. European
Management Journal, 30, 111–120. doi:10.1016/
j.emj.2011.11.001.
_
Demirer, S. (2011). Is¸-yas¸am dengesi: Antalya’daki A Grubu
Seyahat Acentelerinde bir Aras¸tırma [Work–life balance:
A research on a group travel agencies in Antalya].
Unpublished master’s dissertation, Antalya University,
Institute of Social Sciences, Antalya.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4901_13.
11
_ E. (2006). Is¸-Aile
Efeoğlu, I. _ _ Stresi,
Yas¸am Çatıs¸masının Is¸
_ Doyumu ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Üzerindeki Etkileri: Ilaç
Is¸ _
Sektöründe Bir Aras¸tırma. [The effects of work family
conflict on job stress, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: A study in the pharmaceutical industry].
Unpublished doctoral dissertion, Çukurova University,
Adana.
Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). Qualitative study of gender
and work–life balance among men and women mid-life.
Gender, Work and Organization, 16, 151–172.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00434.x.
Evans, A. M., Carney, J. S., & Wilkinson, M. (2013).
Work–life balance for men: counseling implications.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 436–441.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00115.
Fagan, J., & Press, J. (2008). Father influences on employed
mothers’ work–family balance. Journal of Family Issues,
29, 1136–1160. doi:10.1177/0192513X07311954.
Fisher, A. (2001). Is your business taking over your life?
Fortune Small Business, 11, 32–40.
Fisher, G. G., Bulger, C. A., & Smith, C. S. (2009). Beyond
work and family: A measure of work/nonwork interfer-
ence and enhancement. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14, 441. doi:10.1037/a0016737.
Fisher-McAuley, G., Stanton, J., Jolton, J., & Gavin, J.
(2003). Modelling the relationship between work life bal-
ance and organisational outcomes. In Annual conference
of the society for industrial-organisational psychology.
Orlando, 12 April 2003, pp. 1–26.
Forsyth, S., & Polzer-Debruyne, A. (2007). The organisa-
tional pay-offs for perceived work-life balance support.
Asia PaciOc Journal of Human Resources, 45, 113–123.
doi:10.1177/1038411107073610.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Work–family conflict and employee
psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.85.6.888.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992).
Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict:
Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.77.1.65.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1997).
Relation of work–family conflict to health outcomes:
A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 70, 325–335. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1997.tb00652.x.
Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Work–family conflict. Journal of
The Academy of Management Review, 45, 1–9.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2002). The
relation between work–family balance and quality of life.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510–531. doi:10.1016/
S0001-8791(02)00042-8.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and
family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625.
Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work–family spillover and health
during midlife: Is managing conflict everything?
American Journal of Health Promotion, 14, 236–243.
doi:10.4278/0890-1171-14.4.236.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing
work–family balance: Implications for practice and
12
research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9,
455–471. doi:10.1177/1523422307305487.
Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life
balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees
from New Zealand. The International Journal of
Human Management, 24, 3305–3324. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2013.775175.
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A.
(2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfac-
tion, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across
seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85,
361–373. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010.
Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric assessment of an instru-
ment designed to measure work life balance.
Research and Practice in Human Resource Management,
13, 85–91.
Higgins, C. A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992).
Work–family conflict in the dual-career family.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
51. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90004-Q.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M.
(2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive influ-
ence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life
balance. Family Relations, 50, 49–58. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2001.00049.x.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughes, D. L., & Galinsky, E. (1994). Gender, job and
family conditions, and psychological symptoms.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 251–270.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00454.x.
Jain, S., & Nair, S. K. (2013). Research on work–family
balance: A review. Business Perspectives and Research,
2, 43–58. doi:10.1177/2278533720130104.
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Achieving work–life bal-
ance. Journal of Management & Organization, 14,
224–226. doi:10.1017/S1833367200003230.
Keeton, K., Fenner, D. E., Johnson, T. R., & Hayward, R.
A. (2007). Predictors of physician career satisfaction,
work–life balance, and burnout. Obstetrics &
Gynecology, 109, 949–955. doi:10.1097/
01.AOG.0000258299.45979.37.
Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and out-
comes of work–family conflict among employed women
and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–177.
doi:10.1177/001872679805100203.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict,
policies, and the job–life satisfaction relationship: A
review and directions for organizational behavior-
human resources research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 139–149. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.83.2.139.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work–family
policy and productivity gap: A literature review.
Community Work & Family, 2, 139–149. doi:10.1080/
13668809908414247.
Köker, S. (1991). Normal ve sorunlu ergenlerin yas¸am
doyumu düzeyinin kars¸ılas¸tırılması [Comparison of the
level of life satisfaction of normal adolescents and adoles-
cents with problems]. Unpublished master’s dissertion.
Ankara University, Ankara.
Australian Journal of Career Development 26(1)
_ Yaşam
Kuzulu, E., Kurtuldu, S., & Özkan, G. V. (2013). Iş
Dengesi ile Yaşam Doyumu Ilişkisi _ Üzerine Bir
Araştırma. [A research on the relationship between
work–life balance and life satisfaction]. The Sakarya
Journal of Economics, 2, 88–127.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J.
(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
Distribution of the product and resampling methods.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Madipelli, S., Sarma, V. V., & Chinnappaiah, Y. (2013).
Factors causing work life imbalance among working
women – A study on school teachers. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 48, 621–634.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005).
Convergence between measures of work-to-family and
family-to-work conflict: A meta-analytic examination.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 215–232.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.004.
Munn, S. L. (2013). Unveiling the work–life system: The
influence of work–life balance on meaningful work.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15, 401–417.
doi:10.1177/1523422313498567.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996).
Development and validation of work–family conflict and
family–work conflict scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The
supportive mentor as a means of reducing work–family
conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1806.
Nitzsche, A., Jung, J., Kowalski, C., & Pfaff, H. (2014).
Validation of the work–life balance culture scale
(WLBCS). Work, 49, 133–142. doi:10.3233/WOR-
131643.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric
theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Omran, S. K. A., & Kamel, S. (2016). Work–family balance
dilemma among employed parents (an empirical study).
International Journal of Business and Economic
Development, 31.
_
Özen-Kapız, S. (2002). Iş-aile yaşamı dengesi ve dengeye
yönelik yeni bir yaklaşım: sınır teorisi [The work–
family life balance and a new approach to equilibrium:
the boundary theory]. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of
_
Social Sciences Izmir, 4, 139–153.
Pandu, A., Balu, A., & Poorani, K. (2013). Assessing work-
life balance among IT & ITES women professionals. The
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(4), 611–620.
Paoli, P., & Merllié, D. (2001). Third European survey on
working conditions 2000, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication for the
European Communities.
Pattusamy, M., & Jacob, J. (2015). Testing the mediation of
work–family balance in the relationship between work–
family conflict and job and family satisfaction. South
African Journal of Psychology, 46. doi:10.1177/
0081246315608527.
Peeters, M. C., Montgomery, A. J., Bakker, A. B., &
Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Balancing work and home:
Demands are related to burnout. International of
Stress Management, 12, 43–61. doi:10.1037/1072-
5245.12.1.43.
 Taşdelen-Karçkay and Bakalım 13

Raiden, A. B., & Raisanen, C. (2013). Striving to achieve it
all: men and work–family–life balance in Sweden and the
UK. Construction Management and Economics, 31,
899–913. doi:10.1080/01446193.2013.802364.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). On multilevel
model reliability estimation from the perspective of
structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling, 13, 130–141. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1301.
Ruikar, S. K., & Abhyankar, S. C. (2015). Perceived social
support as a predictor of work–life enrichment.
Annamalai International Journal of Business Studies &
Research, 43–52.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., &
King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling
and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The
Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338.
doi:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.
Sujata, T. L., & Singh, S. (2011). Work–life balance issues of
women at call centers: A study. IUP Journal of
Management Research, 10, 68–79.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins
College Publishers.
Tarrés, J., Fina, M., & Piedrafita, J. (2010). Parametric
bootstrap for testing model fitting of threshold and
grouped data models: An application to the analysis of
calving ease of Bruna dels Pirineus beef cattle. Journal of
Animal Science, 88, 2920–2931.
Wattis, L., Standing, K., & Yerkes, M. A. (2013). Mothers
and work–life balance: Exploring the contradictions and
complexities involved in work–family negotiation.
Community, Work & Family, 16, 1–19. doi:10.1080/
13668803.2012.722008.
Zhang, H., Yip, P. S., Chi, P., Chan, K., Cheung, Y. T., &
Zhang, X. (2012). Factor structure and psychometric
properties of the work–family balance scale in an
urban Chinese sample. Social Indicators Research, 105,
409–418. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9776-3.

Appendix 1
Work–Life Balance Scale

Items

1. I can satisfy my own needs and the needs of the important people in my life
2. I can manage my roles related to family and professional life in a balanced manner
3. I can make enough time for myself by preserving the balance between my professional life and family life
4. I feel loyalty to my roles both in my professional life and my family
5. I manage my professional and family life in a controlled manner
6. I am successful at creating a balance between my multiple life roles (employee/spouse/mother, father, etc.)
7. I can deal with the situations that occur due to the conflict between my roles that are specific to my professional and family life
8. I am equally content with my roles in my family and professional life

View publication stats