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

net/publication/320960866

Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation

Chapter · June 2017

CITATIONS READS
6 46,311

3 authors:

Kakul Agha Feza Tabassum Azmi

Skyline University College Aligarh Muslim University
22 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sami A Khan
King Abdulaziz University
30 PUBLICATIONS 728 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transition from Oil towards Solar Energy in Saudi Arabia View project

HAPPINESS LAB View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sami A Khan on 02 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation

Chapter 5 in the Book: The Work-Family Balance in Light of

Globalization and Technology
(pp. 109-130)

Cite as:
Agha, K., Azmi, F. T. & Khan, S. A. (2017). Work-Life Balance:
Scale Development and Validation. In: Heras, M. L., Chinchilla, N.
& Grau, M. (eds). The Work-Family Balance in Light of
Globalization and Technology (pp. 109-130). Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
 5

WORK-LIFE BALANCE:
SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

KAKUL AGHA,
SKYLINE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
FEZA A. TABASSUM
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, INDIA
AND SAMI A. KHAN
KING ABDUL AZIZ UNIVERSITY, KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Introduction
Analyzing the dynamic human resource management (HRM) function,
complexities of working relationships and the increasing importance for
organizations to retain their workforce, it becomes imperative to study
issues that help engagement and motivation of the workforce for optimum
performance in the workplace. In that context, work-life balance (WLB)
and flexible working practices become highly relevant. It is important from
the perspective of the employees that they are able to integrate work and
family matters in a balanced way so that their performance does not get
hampered. A good WLB entails satisfaction and worthy functioning at
work and home with a minimum role conflict (Clark 2000). Employment
flexibility and achieving a positive work-life balance have also emerged as
important issues for contemporary employers seeking to make best use of
their diverse workforce. WLB is currently regarded highly by policy
makers, practitioners, consultants, HR managers, and academics. Greater
flexibility and balance between work and family has led to tangible benefits
for employees as well as organizations (Agha and Azmi 2011; Baltes,
Briggs, Huff, Wright and Neuman 1999; Becker 1995; Standen, Daniels
and Lamond 1999).
Studies in WLB emphasize an increased burden for women in
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 3

employment (Frankenhaeuser et al, 1989; Lundberg et al. 1994; Smithson

and Stokoe 2005, Gerson 2010). Some of the researchers have defined
work-life balance in a broad sense and Byrne (2005) describes work life
balance as “juggling five aspects of our lives at any one point in time:
work, family, friends, health and spirit (or self)”. The other issues that are
important in the workplace include increased levels of stress, competition
and insecurities that disrupt life balance (Bonney 2005).
Rigid models of work are driving highly qualified workers into jobs
with diminished skill level in order for them to have a life outside work
(EOC 2007). Unfortunately, the UK distinguishes itself with a “long hour
culture” called presentism, known as “face time” in the United States.
Research shows that many people work very arduous long hours and that
one in five regularly takes work home in the evening, but less than one in
two workers has any control over his or her working hours (Doyle and
Reeves 2001, Simpson, 1998). European Legislation defines 48 working
hours a week as an appropriate maximum and reviews of literature on
working hours and health inform that when people work much beyond
these hours, their health and performance begin to deteriorate and their
overall work-life balance becomes affected (Sparks et al. 1997). A balance
at work is important for employees, which has emerged as a vital policy
consideration in organizations as an increasing number of families are
struggling to juggle between work and their family commitments (Heraty,
Morley and Cleveland 2008; Khan and Agha 2013). Therefore, there is a
global understanding of the importance of balancing and integrating family
and work for all employees in contemporary times. It warrants deeper
insight into the phenomenon of WLB. This research investigates and
validates the scale on WLB.

Research Gap and Objectives

Work-life balance is concerned with people, the most important connecting
link between an organization and its success. Workers experience family
conflict when the stress felt at work is carried into their family
environment. They experience work conflict when they encounter stress at
home, which affects their work. Organizations are reducing this conflict by
providing flexibility and supportive work environments to foster integration
of work and family role (Agha 2014). Thus, considering WLB issues and
formulating supportive strategies help integrate work and family issues, and
provide tangible benefits to all stakeholders (Friedman and Greenhaus
2000; Pollitt 2004).
Work-life balance is a topic related to the entire global workforce.
4 5

Currently, due to diversity amongst workforce and emerging realities of

global business, the focus has shifted to maintaining a good WLB for
making the workforce productive, happier and engaged. If employees see
how the organization makes it easier to balance work and family, the
organization may gain a competitive advantage in recruitment and
retention. Employees who have access to family responsive policies have
greater organizational commitment and have a significantly lower intention
to quit (Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne 2007; Grover and Crooker 1995).
Therefore, the perception of employees about the organization’s intention
to support WLB policies at a strategic level need to be in a positive
direction and should enable the employee to establish a psychological
contract with the organization.
Despite the increasing importance of WLB, there is still a paucity of
empirical research on work-life balance in the context of the Sultanate of
Oman. Invariably, a large amount of literature is available on HRM,
especially training and development, omanization and human resource
development (Bordia and Blau 1998) but insignificant research on WLB.
The dynamic business environment of the Sultanate of Oman is a good
testing field for this concept. Keeping in mind the fact that Oman is rapidly
becoming a busy and vibrant place to live and work, a study on WLB in the
Omani context is timely and pertinent.
The research objective of this study is scale development and validation
of the work-life balance scale using the three constructs of Work
Interference with Personal Life (WIPL), Personal Life Interference with
Work (PLIW), and Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE).

WLB Constructs
Hayman (2005) developed a psychometric instrument to measure WLB in
organizations. A 15-item scale had been adapted from a 19-item scale
originally developed by Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003) that was designed to
capture employee perceptions on WLB. The 15-item scale measured Work
Interference with Personal Life (WIPL), Personal Life Interference with
Work (PLIW), and Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE) as three
constructs of WLB.
Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003) examined the relation between
employees’ beliefs about having a balance between work and personal life
and the feeling of job stress, job satisfaction, and reasons why an employee
would quit his or her job. They simplified the WLB by placing three
measurable dimensions, namely: work interference with personal life;
personal life interference with work; and work and personal life
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 5

enhancement. The dimensions indicate that interference of work in personal

life and on the other hand the interference of life issues in work related
matters are important to study while understanding work-life balance
related issues. Constructs of WLB are:

Construct 1: Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL)

According to Hayman (2005), this construct includes work related factors

that impact an individual’s personal life. It measures the impact of work on
personal life. The seven items measured by this construct are: 1) My
personal life suffers because of work 2) My job makes personal life
difficult 3) I neglect personal needs because of work 4) I put personal life
on hold for work 5) I miss personal activities because of work 6) I struggle
to juggle work and non-work and 7) I am unhappy with the amount of time
for non-work activities.

Construct 2: Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW)

Hayman (2005) explains the second construct as the impact of or the

interference of the personal life on work. It measures the reverse
phenomenon i.e. the impact of personal life on the work of individuals. The
four items measured are: 1) My personal life drains me of energy for work
2 ) I am too tired to be effective at work 3) My work suffers because of my
personal life and 4) It is hard to work because of personal matters.

Construct 3: Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE)

The third construct explains how work and personal life enhance each
other. The items help understand the support and enhancement provided by
work on personal life and vice-versa. The four items measured are: 1) My
personal life gives me energy for my job 2) My job gives me energy to
pursue personal activities 3) I have a better mood at work because of
personal life and 4) I have a better mood because of my job.

Research Methodology
A research design details the procedures necessary for obtaining the
information needed to structure or solve research problems (Malhotra and
Birks 2007). Studies aimed at quantifying relationships are descriptive and
experimental. Yin (1994) informs of the use of a rigorous research
methodology (RM) in a study. In line with his suggestions, this research
6 5

aims at reducing discrepancies by utilizing a rigorous RM.

There are various ways in which research work can be carried out. For
this study, single cross-sectional design was used. In order to empirically
test the scales, primary data was collected from Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) in the Sultanate of Oman. Teachers were respondents as
they are the subject of this study. Authors like Arthur and Boyles (2007)
have supported the aptness of the deployment of one respondent as it helps
providing valid and reliable data in comparison to data from multiple
sources.
In order to collect data, a research instrument was compiled based on an
extensive literature review. The questionnaire was pilot tested and after
necessary modifications, it was administered to the study sample. It was
translated into Arabic, the mother tongue of the Sultanate of Oman. The
reliability and validity of the research instrument were ascertained. Data
generated was then subject to analysis.

Development of Research Instrument

The final survey instrument based on the above constructs contained the
following items:

Independent Variables: Measures of Work-Life Balance (WLB)

• Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL)

• Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW)
• Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE)

WLB was measured using a 5-point Likert scale anchored with the end
points 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. These descriptors were
chosen to balance or neutralize any tendency to over-report difficult or
unacceptable behaviours and conditions faced by the respondents at their
workplace (Fairbrother and Warn, 2003). Five-point scale has been
commonly used in WLB research (e.g. Boyar et al. 2003; Fairbrother and
Warn 2003; Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne 2007). Fairbrother and Warn
(2003) further noted that ambiguity in questions lead to confusion amongst
respondents, thereby altering the meaning of the question. This lead to error
in the data collected through the questionnaires. Arthur and Boyles (2007)
point out that researchers should design questionnaire items that capture the
specific substantive focus of the component being assessed. Hence, efforts
were made to keep the items as simple, specific and objective as possible.
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 7

The research instrument was developed in three stages:

Stage 1: Identification of measures/constructs from literature and

adaptation of the questionnaire

Extensive review of literature was carried out to have a thorough

understanding of the measures and constructs of WLB, teaching
satisfaction and job satisfaction. An initial draft of the questionnaire was
developed.

Stage 2: Modification in draft questionnaire on the basis of

inputs/suggestions from academics/researchers

During the second stage, the expertise of academics in India and Oman was
sought through personal meetings and e-mails. Four researchers/academics
were contacted; two were domain experts and two were RM experts. They
were requested to critique the content and format of the questionnaire,
enabling the researcher to finalize the constructs and its items and to
modify the questionnaire leading to a stronger and more valid instrument.

Stage 3: Translation of the questionnaire into Arabic for effective data

collection

As the data collection had to be carried out in Oman, it was considered vital
to get the research instrument translated in Arabic, the national language of
Oman. A large number of HEI teachers are more conversant in Arabic in
comparison to English, hence, there was a need have a bilingual
questionnaire.
To avoid discrepancies in translation, back translation method is
suggested by Green and White (1976). In a study conducted by Berkanovic
(1980) on Hispanic individuals, some of the respondents were interviewed
in Spanish whereas the rest of the group was interviewed in English. As
Abu-Shanab (2011) pointed out, any research conducted using a different
language but failed to utilize the backward translation would yield
inaccurate results. Backward translation will definitely help decrease the
influence of the language and increase the reliability of the research
instrument (Brislin 1976; Su and Parham 2002).
Therefore, the questionnaire was translated into Arabic by a
professional translator. Two Omani researchers, experts in spoken/written
English and Arabic, translated the Arabic questionnaire back to English.
Some changes were made to the draft questionnaire on the basis of the
8 5

inputs of the experts. Here it is important to note that all questionnaires

were bilingual, giving the respondent a choice to read in either or both
languages.

Method of Analysis
A measurement model is a graphical structure that describes the
relationship between latent variables and observed variables (Silva and
Scheines 2005) and assists in describing how effectively the observed
indicators serve as a measurement instrument for the latent variables.
According to Garver and Mentzer (1999), specifying the measurement
model involves assigning indicators, which are actual items of the
questionnaire to a construct or latent variable. An extensive measurement
analysis gives confidence in terms of findings that reflect accuracy in the
constructs. Furthermore, empirically reliable and valid scales can be used
on different populations in studies to be conducted in the future.
Measurement scales must exhibit unidimensionality, reliability and validity
(Green et al. 2006).
For this study, measurement analysis was performed on three scales viz.
WIPL, PLIW and WPLE. In order to assess the unidimensionality of the
study scales, both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were
performed. Scale reliability and validity were also assessed.

Assessing Scale Unidimensionality

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In most empirical studies “numerous variables are used to characterize

objects” (Rietveld and Van Hout 1993, 251). Hence, Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) attempts to bring inter-correlated variables together under
more general, underlying variables. EFA is easy to adopt, suitable for
survey questions, used as a basis for other instruments such as regression
analysis with factor scores, and easy to combine with other techniques like
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Ahire et al. 1996). The conventional
approach to scale validation consists of performing an EFA to identify
major factors according to item-factor loadings and refining the scales
using Cronbach’s alpha (Ahire et al. 1996, Hurley, et al. 1997).
EFA was performed on each scale separately to check and confirm that
all items load on a single construct. To determine the likelihood of the data
factoring well, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling
Adequacy and Bartlett’s Tests of Sphericity were performed before
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 9

proceeding with EFA (Rietveld and Van Hout 1993). KMO is a measure
that helps understand the degree of inter-correlations among the variables
and if greater than 0.50, one can proceed with factor analysis (Malhotra
2004; Rietveld and Van Hout 1993). KMO values for all scales for this
study were within acceptable range, informing that the data was suitable for
factor analysis.
An important measure is Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity to “test the null
hypothesis that the original correlations matrix is an identity matrix” (Field
2000, 457). A significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is required (Malhotra
2004). For this study p = 0.000 (associated probability is less than 0.05) for
all scales, thus indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The
results of KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity for all scales are given in
Table 5.1:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Results of KMO and

Bartlett Test of Sphericity

KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity WIPL PLIW WPLE

Measures
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.892 0.780 0.723
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 317.237 62.421 88.028
df 14 2 2
Sig. .000 .000 .000

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is a powerful statistical technique

that combines measurement model or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
and structural model into a simultaneous statistical test. SEM is valuable to
carry out inferential data analysis and testing of hypothesis (Hoe 2008).
Chin (1998) adds that SEM has the flexibility to model relationships
amongst predictors and variables and statically tests theoretical
assumptions and empirical data through CFA.
Researchers have opined that CFA is a rigorous test of assessing the
measurement model when using SEM (Medsker et al. 1994). Although the
results obtained in EFA confirmed unidimensionality of all the scales
except JS scale, it was decided to perform CFA as a further test of scale
unidimensionality, reliability and validity. High loading values obtained in
CFA provide strength to the fact that the measurement model is acceptable.
CFA values were further used to assess scale reliability and validity.
A goodness of fit index (GFI) of a value very close to 0.90 or higher for
10 5

the model suggests that evidence for unidimensionality existed (Jöreskog

and Sörbom 2002). The GFI indices for all scales were above 0.90,
indicating that scales were unidimensional. A summary of items in each
scale with their GFI values are given in Table 5.2 along with the loading
value range.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2 GFI values of WLB

Constructs

GFI Values for all Scales Number of Items with GFI Loading Value
values Range
WIPL 7 Items (GFI=0.90) 0.64-0.84
PLIW 4 Items (GFI=0.95) 0.70-0.90
WPLE 4 Items (GFI=0.93) 0.60-0.77

Assessment of Reliability
After establishing the unidimensionality of scales, the researcher tested the
statistical reliability of the scales before proceeding with the validation
analysis (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Mentzer et al. 2001; Steenkamp and
Trijp 1991). For a scale to be valid, it should first be established as reliable
(Peterson 1994). Reliability refers to the degree of dependability, stability
and internal consistency of a scale. According to Garver and Mentzer
(1999), reliability is defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, test,
observation or any measurement procedure gives same results on repeated
trials. Conceptually, reliability is defined as the degree to which measures
are free from random error and therefore yield consistent results. Two types
of reliability estimates were calculated: (1) indicator reliability and (2) scale
reliability.

Indicator Reliability

Indicator reliability is a very crucial measure to find out reliability of

individual indicators. They are calculated by finding the squared factor
loadings and are called communalities. The squared values generally range
from 0-1 in order to be acceptable (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2002). In SEM
terms, reliability of an indicator is defined as variance in the indicator that
is not accounted for by measurement error (Wu 2005). Some researchers
have informed that indicator reliability should preferably be 0.5 or close
(Long 1983; Schumacker and Lomax 2004). The indicator reliability of the
three scales, viz. WIPL, PLIW, and WPLE were high or close to the desired
values. Table 5.3 illustrates indicator reliability for indicators in each scale.
Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 11
12 5

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..3 Indicator

Reliability

Indicator Reliability of the Scales WIPL PLIW WPLE

Indicators
1 0.7 0.5 0.4
2 0.7 0.5 0.6
3 0.7 0.8 0.4
4 0.6 0.7 0.6
5 0.6 - -
6 0.5 - -
7 0.7 - -

Scale Reliability

Reliability is the ability of an instrument to measure consistently (Tavakol

et al. 2008). It is closely related to validity and cannot be achieved without
measuring the validity of the tool. However, reliability of an instrument is
independent of its validity (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Calculating
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency is the most common
method used. Gliem and Gliem (2003) have explained that the test of
reliability is measured by Cronbach’s alpha, which requires only a single
test administration to provide a unique estimate of reliability for a given
scale.
Cronbach’s Alpha: Cronbach’s alpha is a pervasive objective measure
of reliability. Alpha was developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951, to provide a
measure of the internal consistency of a test or scale and is expressed as a
number between 0 and 1 (Tavakol et al. 2008). Cronbach’s alpha is an
index of reliability related to the variation accounted for by the true score of
the underlying construct (Hatcher 1994). Alpha coefficient ranges from 0-1
and is used to explain the reliability of factors extracted from multi-point
scales (i.e. rating scale: 1 to 5). A value of Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 or more
is used as a criterion for a reliable scale (Hair et al. 1998; Nunnally and
Bernstein 1994; Werts et al. 1974). Low alpha values could be due to low
number of questions, poor interrelatedness between items or heterogeneous
constructs. Reliability assessments of the three scales obtained through
Cronbach’s alpha values are presented in Table 5.4. It is clear that all
values suggest high reliability.
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 13

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..4 Scale Reliability -

Values of Cronbach’s alpha

Scale Reliability – Cronbach’s Alpha Scale Cronbach’s alpha

WIPL 0.9
PLIW 0.9
WPLE 0.8

SEM based Methods

Internal consistency, measured through alpha, is crucial but not a sufficient
condition for measuring unidimensionality or reliability in test items.
Sometimes coefficient alpha values present underestimated or
overestimated reliability (Cortina 1993, Garver and Mentzer 1999). Hence,
for estimating reliability, the researcher calculated the SEM construct-
reliability and variance-extracted measures. Furthermore, Garver and
Mentzer (1999) add that these are easy and reliable techniques and can be
calculated for each construct. Fornell and Bookstein (1982), Fornell and
Larcker (1981), and Garver and Mentzer (1999) describe the concepts of
Construct Reliability (CR) and Variance Extracted (VE) as follows:

• Construct Reliability (CR): In SEM, CR is a LISREL-generated

estimate of internal consistency analogous to Cronbach’s alpha.
• Variance Extracted (VE): VE is for finding construct reliability
and is known as variance extraction measure.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Formulae for CR and VE

“sli” denotes the standardized loadings for the indicators of a variable;

“ei” denotes the corresponding error terms for the chosen variable.
Variance extracted estimates assess the amount of variance captured by
a construct’s measure in relation to variance due to random measurement
error.
14 5

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..5 Scale Reliability –

CR and VE Scale

Scale Reliability – CR and Construct Reliability Variance Extracted

VE Scale (CR) (VE)
WIPL 0.9 0.6
PLIW 0.9 0.6
WPLE 0.8 0.5

Assessment of Validity
Validity of a scale is the extent to which differences in observed scale
scores reflect true differences among objects of characteristic being
measured (Malhotra and Birks 2007). Researchers typically establish
construct validity by presenting correlations between a measure of a
construct and a number of other measures that should, theoretically, be
associated with it, which is known as convergent validity, or vary
independently of it, which is called discriminant validity (Westen and
Rosenthal 2003). A scale has validity if it is measuring the concept that it
was intended to measure (Bagozzi 1981).
Construct validity is a complex process and is used to assess what
construct or characteristic the scale is in fact measuring (Cronbach and
Meehl 1955). Construct validity can be found by using several types of
validity tests such as convergent, discriminant, predictive and criterion
validity tests. For this study convergent, discriminant, and nomological
validity were measured with the help of the measurement model, while
criterion validity was measured through the structural model.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is the extent to which items in a scale correlate

positively with each other (Campbell and Fiske 1959) implying that all
items (measured variables) correctly measure the designed construct or the
latent variable (Garver and Mentzer 1999) and helps understand that
constructs in a scale converge on one scale or are correlated to each other.
CFA is frequently used to evaluate convergent validity (Bagozzi 1981,
Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
Kaplan and Sacuzzo, (1993) explained that internal consistency is a
type of convergent validity. Since unidimensionality and high internal
consistency of three scales for this study had already been established,
evidence of moderate convergent validity already existed. Moreover,
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 15

Bagozzi (1981) suggests that all items should load on their hypothesized
dimensions and the estimates should be greater than 0.50. In this study, all
scales had loadings of more than 0.5 indicating convergent validity.
The convergent validity of all five scales was checked with Bentler-
Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI) using LISREL for this study. This index
measures the extent to which different approaches to measuring a construct
produce the same results (Ahire et al. 1996). A value of 0.90 and above
demonstrates strong convergent validity (Hartwick and Barki 1994). The
Bentler-Bonett coefficient for all constructs was greater than 0.90,
indicating high convergent validity for this study. The values of NNFI also
support the convergent validity and have been found to be acceptable. The
values are presented in Table 5.6:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..6 Convergent

Validity

NFI and NNFI Values of Scales NFI NNFI

WIPL 0.94 0.91
PLIW 0.96 0.90
WPLE 0.91 0.80

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity proves that none of the items in a scale measure other
constructs or other scales. Bagozzi and Yi (1988) inform that discriminant
validity measures the degree to which a construct and its indicators differ
from another construct. Discriminant validity can be assessed in several
ways (Mentzer et al. 2001) one being comparing Cronbach’s alpha of a
construct to its correlations with other model variables (Sila and
Ebrahimpour 2005). If the value of alpha is sufficiently larger than the
average of its correlations with other variables, this is evidence of
discriminant validity (Ghiselli et al. 2001).
For this study, the difference between the alpha value for each of three
constructs and the average correlation of each construct with other
constructs was fairly large. This provides evidence of discriminant validity
for three scales as shown in Table 5.7.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document..7 Discriminant

Validity

Scale Correlations Average of Alpha Existence

WIPL PLIW WPLE Correlations Values of DV
16 5

WIPL 1.00 0.57 0.21 0.4 0.9

PLIW - 1.00 0.12 0.4 0.9
WPLE - - 1.00 0.2 0.8

Nomological Validity

Ahire et al. (1996) and Garver and Mentzer (1999) recommend assessing
nomological validity by examining correlations between constructs in the
measurement theory. The covariance matrix Phi (Ф) of construct
correlations is useful in this assessment. SEM is considered ideal for testing
correlations and determining nomological validity of the constructs of
interest. SEM takes into account measurement error by estimating
measurement error variances from the data, whereas traditional correlation
techniques do not. The latter would underestimate true correlations due to
inherent measurement errors (Ahire et al. 1996).
Nomological validity was assessed for three study scales viz. WIPL,
PLIW and WPLE, and it was found that all correlation values were positive
and significant thus giving evidence of nomological validity. Since the
above constructs are theoretically related it is assumed that constructs will
also be statistical correlated. As presented in Figure 5.2, correlation values
are positive giving sufficient proof of nomological validity.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2 Nomological Validity

 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 17

Discussion, Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Discussion and Conclusions
This study was initiated with an understanding that the scenario of HRM is
changing and the concept of WLB is taking shape among professionals.
The development of HRM has happened to an extent that employees are
reaping the benefits of the changed job conditions, flexibility within
organizations and supportive work environment. There is conceptual clarity
amongst employers on the role and responsibilities of employees. Taking
care of employees and providing them with requisite support is one of the
most important HRM functions. Globalization, knowledge, technology, and
innovation are prominent reasons for the changing nature of work and the
workforce on a global scale. In order to have a competitive edge,
organizations need to consider the employees as the prime asset and need to
support and develop them to enhance their satisfaction levels.
This study conducted in Oman attempts to develop and empirically
validate the WLB scale. The sector chosen for research was the Higher
18 5

Education Sector and the academic staff members were considered as

subjects for the present study. The teaching faculty employed in private
higher education institutions; Government University; Colleges of Applied
Sciences and Colleges of Technology were contacted for the study. Males
and females as well as Omani nationals and expatriates were the
respondents. They held Bachelors, Masters, Doctorates or Post Doctorate
degrees and they were teaching either bachelors, masters or at both the
levels. They had teaching experience ranging from 1 to >10 years and had
been employed for a minimum of 2 years. Finally, 621 responses were
considered for evaluation and analysis.
In order to establish unidimensionality of the scale used, scale
validation, reliability and validity tests were performed. The scores of the
reliability and validity tests were acceptable thus establishing
unidimensionality of the scale. The scale adapted in this study has been
validated by previous researchers; still a need was felt to further validate in
the context of Oman (Hayman 2005; Ho and Au 2006). This study attempts
to establish the relationship of three constructs, viz. WIPL, PLIW and
WPLE.
Interestingly, studies related to WLB have been carried out in the
western world and hence follow a western model. The scales have been
tested in the context of western countries and definitely not in the Middle
East context. Hence, it becomes very interesting to note that even though
the scales of WIPL, PLIW and WPLE have been validated in the western
world in different studies, they have not been consolidated at any time. This
study not only consolidates and contextualizes the scales but also validates
them in the context of Oman. In Oman, where this conceptual model was
tested, it was found that a good spread of Omani and expatriate teachers
were present in HEIs. Additionally, a judicious mix of males and females
can also be seen from the data collected by the researcher to carry out the
study. This study has hence, laid the foundation for further research in
Oman on WLB.
It implies that work-life balance is a global phenomenon. Even though
they are western models, when validated in the Omani context they reveal
similar results, proving that they are similar for human beings around the
world. Even if the context is different, the behaviour of human beings (i.e.
employees) remains consistent. This study validated the work-life balance
scale by finding the validity and reliability of the three constructs of the
scale namely WIPL, PLIW and WPLE. It is indicative in the study that all
the three constructs are reliable and valid and that they can be used by
researchers throughout the world for research purposes.
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 19

Directions for Future Research

Now that the WLB scale has been validated by the study, an opportunity
for using the scale has been provided for the researchers. This tool can be
combined with job satisfaction and other issues to study the relationship
and impact on the employees. Future researchers can test the scale with
moderating variables like gender, differing level of education and different
levels of management. Furthermore, the researchers can consider the
limitations of this study to enhance the scale that would suit the culture and
other factors of the working conditions.

References
Abu-Shanab, Emad. "Quality Assurance Initiatives: The Influence of
Language." In The International Arab Conference on Quality Assurance
in Higher Education, Zarqa, Jordan. 2011.
Agha, Kakul. “The Coping-up Strategies Used by Staff to Integrate Family
and Work Lives: A Case from Middle East College, Oman.” In
Proceedings of Applied Information and Communications Technology,
Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Elsevier Publications, 2014. 785-790.
ISBN No. 978-89-3510-72850.
Agha, Kakul, and Feza, T. Azmi. “ICT Interventions and Workforce
Flexitime: An Exploratory Study at MECIT, Oman.” In Proceedings of
International Conference on Applied Information and Communications
Technology, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. 2011. ISBN No. 978-81-
8424-738-1.
Ahire, Sanjay L., Damodar Y. Golhar, and Matthew A. Waller.
"Development and Validation of TQM Implementation
Constructs." Decision Sciences 27, no. 1 (1996): 23-56.
Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. "Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach." Psychological Bulletin 103, no. 3 (1988): 411-423.
Arthur, Jeffrey B., and Trish Boyles. "Validating the Human Resource
System Structure: A Levels-Based Strategic HRM Approach." Human
Resource Management Review 17, no. 1 (2007): 77-92.
Bagozzi, Richard P. "Evaluating Structural Equation Models With
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment." Journal
of Marketing Research 18, (1981): 375-381.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Yi, Y. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation
Models.” Journal of Academic Marketing Science 16, (1988):74–94.
Baltes, Boris B., Thomas E. Briggs, Joseph W. Huff, Julie A. Wright, and
20 5

George A. Neuman. "Flexible and Compressed Workweek Schedules:

A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Work-Related Criteria." Journal of
Applied Psychology 84, no. 4 (1999): 496-513.
Berkanovic, Emil. "The Effect of Inadequate Language Translation on
Hispanics' Responses to Health Surveys." American Journal of Public
Health 70, no. 12 (1980): 1273-1276.
Bonney, Norman. "Overworked Britons? Part-Time Work and Work-Life
Balance." Work, Employment & Society 19, no. 2 (2005): 391-401.
Bordia, Prashant, and Gary Blau. "Pay Referent Comparison and Pay Level
Satisfaction in Private Versus Public Sector Organizations in India."
International Journal of Human Resource Management 9, no. 1 (1998):
155-167.
Boyar, Scott L., Carl P. Maertz Jr, Allison W. Pearson, and Shawn Keough.
"Work-Family Conflict: A Model of Linkages between Work and
Family Domain Variables and Turnover Intentions." Journal of
Managerial Issues 15, no. 2 (2003): 175-190.
Brislin, Richard W. "Comparative Research Methodology: Cross‐Cultural
Studies." International Journal of Psychology 11, no. 3 (1976): 215-
229.
Byrne, Una. "Work-Life Balance Why Are We Talking About It At
All?" Business Information Review 22, no. 1 (2005): 53-59.
Becker, Franklin, Kristen L. Quinn, and Livit U. Callentine. The Ecology of
the Mobile Worker. Workscape 21: The Ecology of New Ways of
Working. State University of New York: Ithaca College of Human
Ecology at Cornell University, 1995.
Campbell, Donald T., and Donald W. Fiske. "Convergent and Discriminant
Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix." Psychological
Bulletin 56, no. 2 (1959): 81-105.
Chin, Wynne W. "Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation
Modeling." MIS Quarterly, 22 (1998): vii-xvi.
Clark, Sue Campbell. "Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of
Work/Family Balance." Human Relations 53, no. 6 (2000): 747-770.
Cortina, Jose M. "What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory
and Applications." Journal of Applied Psychology 78, no. 1 (1993): 98-
104.
Cronbach, Lee J., and Paul E. Meehl. "Construct Validity in Psychological
Tests." Psychological Bulletin 52, no. 4 (1955): 281-302.
Doyle, Judith, and Richard Reeves. Time Out: The Case for Time
Sovereignty. London: The Work Foundation, 2001.
EOC. Working Outside the Box: Changing Work to Meet the Future.
Survey Report. EOC, Manchester, 2007. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 21

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/Employers/workin
g_outside_box_summary.pdf
Fairbrother, Kerry, and James Warn. "Workplace Dimensions, Stress and
Job Satisfaction." Journal of Managerial Psychology 18, no. 1 (2003):
8-21.
Field, Andy. Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. CA:
Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2000.
Fisher-McAuley, Gwenith, J. Stanton, J. Jolton, and James Gavin.
"Modelling the Relationship between Work-Life Balance and
Organizational Outcomes." In Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Orlando, pp. 1-26. 2003.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. "Evaluating Structural Equation
Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error." Journal
of Marketing Research 18, no. 1 (1981): 39-50.
Fornell, Claes, and Fred L. Bookstein. "Two Structural Equation Models:
LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory." Journal of
Marketing Research 19, no. 4 (1982): 440-452.
Forsyth, Stewart, and Andrea Polzer‐Debruyne. "The Organisational Pay‐
Offs for Perceived Work-Life Balance Support." Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources 45, no. 1 (2007): 113-123.
Frankenhaeuser, Marianne, Ulf Lundberg, Mats Fredrikson, Bo Melin,
Martti Tuomisto, Anna‐Lisa Myrsten, Monica Hedman, Bodil
Bergman‐Losman, and Leif Wallin. "Stress On and Off the Job as
Related to Sex and Occupational Status in White‐Collar
Workers." Journal of Organizational Behavior 10, no. 4 (1989): 321-
346.
Friedman, Stewart D., and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus. Work and Family-Allies
or Enemies?: What Happens When Business Professionals Confront
Life Choices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Garver, Michael S., and John T. Mentzer. "Logistics Research Methods:
Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Test for Construct
Validity." Journal of Business Logistics 20, no. 1 (1999): 33-57.
Gerson, Kathleen. The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is
Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender in America. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Ghiselli, Richard F., Joseph M. La Lopa, and Billy Bai. "Job Satisfaction,
Life Satisfaction, and Turnover Intent: Among Food-Service
Managers." Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2001): 28-37.
Gliem, Rosemary R., and Joseph A. Gliem. "Calculating, Interpreting, and
Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type
Scales." Proceedings of the 2003 Midwest Research-to-Practice
22 5

Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 2003: 82-

88. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/Gliem-Gliem.pdf
Green, Amie S., Eshkol Rafaeli, Niall Bolger, Patrick E. Shrout, and Harry
T. Reis. "Paper or Plastic? Data Equivalence in Paper and Electronic
Diaries." Psychological Methods 11, no. 1 (2006): 87-105.
Green, Robert T., and Phillip D. White. "Methodological Considerations in
Cross-National Consumer Research." Journal of International Business
Studies 7, no. 2 (1976): 81-87.
Grover, Steven L., and Karen J. Crooker. "Who Appreciates Family‐
Responsive Human Resource Policies: The Impact of Family‐Friendly
Policies on the Organizational Attachment of Parents and Non‐
Parents." Personnel Psychology 48, no. 2 (1995): 271-288.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. Multivariate
Data Analysis. 5th (ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
USA, 1998.
Hartwick, Jon, and Henri Barki. "Explaining the Role of User Participation
in Information System Use." Management Science 40, no. 4 (1994):
440-465.
Hatcher, Larry, and Edward J. Stepanski. A Step-By-Step Approach to
Using the SAS System for Univariate and Multivariate Statistics. NC:
SAS Institute, 1994.
Hayman, Jeremy. "Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed to
Measure Work- Life Balance." Research and Practice in Human
Resource Management 13, no. 1 (2005): 85-91.
Heraty, Noreen, Michael J. Morley, and Jeanette N. Cleveland.
"Complexities and Challenges in the Work-Family Interface." Journal
of Managerial Psychology 23, no. 3 (2008): 209-214.
Hoe, Siu Loon. "Issues and Procedures in Adopting Structural Equation
Modeling Technique." Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods 3, no. 1
(2008): 76-83.
Hurley, Amy E., Terri A. Scandura, Chester A. Schriesheim, Michael T.
Brannick, Anson Seers, Robert J. Vandenberg, and Larry J. Williams.
"Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Guidelines, Issues, and
Alternatives." Journal of Organizational Behavior 18, no. 6 (1997):
667-683.
Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom. LISREL 8: Structural Equation
Modeling With the SIMPLIS Command Language. Scientific Software
International, Lincolnwood 2002.
Kaplan, Robert M., and Dennis P. Saccuzzo. Psychological Testing:
Principles - Applications and Issues. 3rd ed., Brooks Cole, CA: Pacific
 Work-Life Balance: Scale Development and Validation 23

Grove, 1993.
Khan, Sami A., and Kakul Agha. "Dynamics of the Work-Life Balance at
the Firm Level: Issues and Challenges." Journal of Management Policy
and Practice 14, no. 4 (2013): 103-114.
Long, J. S. Covariance Structure Models: An Introduction to LISREL.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.
Lundberg, Ulf, Bertil Mårdberg, and Marianne Frankenhaeuser. "The Total
Workload of Male and Female White Collar Workers as Related to
Age, Occupational Level, and Number of Children." Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 35, no. 4 (1994): 315-327.
Malhotra, Naresh K. Review of Marketing Research. Howard House:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2004.
Malhotra, Naresh K., and David F. Birks. Marketing Research: An Applied
Approach. New York: Pearson Education, 2003.
Medsker, Gina J., Larry J. Williams, and Patricia J. Holahan. "A Review of
Current Practices for Evaluating Causal Models in Organizational
Behavior and Human Resources Management Research." Journal of
Management 20, no. 2 (1994): 439-464.
Mentzer, John T., William DeWitt, James S. Keebler, Soonhong Min,
Nancy W. Nix, Carlo D. Smith, and Zach G. Zacharia. "Defining
Supply Chain Management." Journal of Business Logistics 22, no. 2
(2001): 1-25.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw
Hill, New York, 1994.
Pollitt, D. “Faber Maunsell’s “Family” Feel Puts a New Slant on Work-Life
Balance.” Human Resource Management International Digest 12, no. 4
(2004): 4-6.
Rietveld, Toni, and Roeland Van Hout. Statistical Techniques for the Study
of Language and Language Behaviour. Mishawaka, IN: Walter de
Gruyter, 1993.
Schumacker, Randall E., and Richard G. Lomax. A Beginner's Guide to
Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Routledge, Psychology
Press, 2004.
Sila, Ismail, and Maling Ebrahimpour. "Critical Linkages among TQM
Factors and Business Results." International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 25, no. 11 (2005): 1123-1155.
Silva, Ricardo, and Richard Scheines. "Generalized Measurement Models."
(2005). Retrieved June 10, 2013, from
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rbas/cald04-101.pdf
Simpson, Ruth. "Presenteeism, Power and Organizational Change: Long
Hours as a Career Barrier and the Impact on the Working Lives of
24 5

Women Managers." British Journal of Management 9, no.1 (1998): 37-

50.
Smithson, Janet, and Elizabeth H. Stokoe. "Discourses of Work-Life
Balance: Negotiating ‘Genderblind’ Terms in Organizations." Gender,
Work & Organization 12, no. 2 (2005): 147-168.
Sparks, Kate, Cary Cooper, Yitzhak Fried, and Arie Shirom. "The Effects
of Hours of Work on Health: A Meta‐Analytic Review." Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70, no. 4 (1997): 391-
408.
Standen, Peter, Kevin Daniels, and David Lamond. "The Home as a
Workplace: Work-Family Interaction and Psychological Well-Being in
Telework." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 4, no. 4 (1999):
368-381.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict EM, and Hans CM Van Trijp. "The Use of
LISREL in Validating Marketing Constructs." International Journal of
Research in Marketing 8, no. 4 (1991): 283-299.
Su, Chia-Ting, and L. Diane Parham. "Generating a Valid Questionnaire
Translation for Cross-Cultural Use." American Journal of Occupational
Therapy 56, no. 5 (2002): 581-585.
Tavakol, Mohsen, Mohammad Ali Mohagheghi, and Reg Dennick.
"Assessing the Skills of Surgical Residents Using Simulation." Journal
of Surgical Education 65, no. 2 (2008): 77-83.
Werts, Charles E., Robert L. Linn, and Karl G. Jöreskog. "Intraclass
Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions." Educational
and Psychological Measurement 34, no. 1 (1974): 25-33.
Westen, Drew, and Robert Rosenthal. "Quantifying Construct Validity:
Two Simple Measures." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 84, no. 3 (2003): 608-618.
Wu, C. H. "Factor Analysis of the Adult Attachment Scale-Taiwan
Version." In 44th Annual Conference of the Taiwanese Psychological
Association, Tau-Yuan, Taiwan. 2005.
Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publishing, 1994.
View publication stats