Introduction:

The article chosen for critical evaluation is "Remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the consequences for stress and work engagement" by
Wontorczyk and Rożnowski (2022), published in the International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health. This essay will critically evaluate the different sections and
methodology used in the article, including the introduction, literature review, methodology,
results, and discussion. Additionally, the essay will provide thoughts and ideas on the
methodology, data collection, and presentation of the results.

Summary of the Article:

The article explores the impact of different work arrangements (remote, hybrid, and on-site)
during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on employees' stress levels and work engagement. The
study aims to understand the relationship between work arrangements, stress, and work
engagement and provide insights for organizations to optimize employee well-being and
productivity. The authors conducted a quantitative study using a survey questionnaire
distributed among employees from various industries. The data collected were analyzed using
statistical techniques to draw conclusions and implications.

Critical Evaluation of Sections:

Introduction:

The introduction provides a clear overview of the research topic and its significance. It
effectively highlights the relevance of studying work arrangements during a pandemic and
their impact on employee well-being. However, the introduction could have provided more
context on the existing literature and gaps that the study aims to address.

Literature Review:

The literature review presents a comprehensive overview of relevant theories and previous
studies on work arrangements, stress, and work engagement. It establishes a strong
theoretical framework and justifies the research questions. However, the review could have
included more recent studies and alternative perspectives to provide a more balanced
analysis.

Based on the title and topic of the article, "Remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the consequences for stress and work engagement," several
relevant theories could have been used to inform and support the study. Here are a few
theories that could have been applicable:

Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model: The JD-R Model is a widely used framework in
occupational psychology that explores the relationship between job demands, job resources,
and employee well-being. It suggests that high job demands (e.g., workload, time pressure)
and low job resources (e.g., autonomy, social support) can lead to increased stress and
reduced work engagement (Adamovic, 2022). This theory could have provided a theoretical
foundation for understanding the impact of different work arrangements on stress and work
engagement during the pandemic.

Social Exchange Theory: Social Exchange Theory focuses on the social relationships and
interactions between individuals and how they influence behaviors and outcomes. In the
context of work arrangements during the pandemic, this theory could have been used to
examine the exchange relationships between employers and employees, such as the provision
of support, flexibility, and trust (Mawardi, 2022). It could have helped explain how different
work arrangements affect the perceived reciprocity and quality of social exchanges, which in
turn influence stress and work engagement.

Job Characteristics Model: The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) proposes that certain job
characteristics, such as skill variety, task identity, autonomy, feedback, and task significance,
can impact employee motivation, satisfaction, and engagement (Mawardi, 2022). This theory
could have been applied to understand how the different work arrangements during the
pandemic affected the core job characteristics and, subsequently, employee stress and work
engagement.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory: The COR Theory suggests that individuals
strive to acquire, protect, and build resources to meet their needs and cope with stressors. In
the context of work arrangements during the pandemic, this theory could have been used to
examine how remote, hybrid, and on-site work arrangements influenced the availability and
accessibility of personal, social, and job resources (Adamovic, 2022). It could have provided
insights into how resource availability or depletion impacted employee stress and work
engagement.

Transactional Model of Stress and Coping: The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping
emphasizes the interactive process between individuals and their environment in evaluating
and responding to stressors. This theory could have been utilized to explore how individuals
perceive and appraise the demands and challenges associated with different work
arrangements during the pandemic (Carnevale & Hatak, 2020). It could have provided
insights into the coping strategies employed by employees and their subsequent impact on
stress and work engagement.

These are just a few examples of theories that could have been relevant to the study on
remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the pandemic. The actual theories employed in the
article would require a detailed analysis of its content and methodology.

Methodology:

The methodology section outlines the research design, sample selection, and data collection
procedure. The study adopts a quantitative approach, employing a survey questionnaire to
collect data. The sample size and selection process are adequately described, enhancing the
study's credibility. However, the section lacks details on the survey instrument's validity and
reliability, which could raise concerns about the accuracy of the findings. Validity, according
to scholars in the field of research methodology, refers to the extent to which a study or
research instrument measures or assesses what it claims to measure or assess. It is a critical
aspect of research quality and ensures that the findings and conclusions drawn from a study
are accurate, meaningful, and applicable to the research objectives.

Scholars have identified different types of validity that researchers should consider in their
studies:

Internal Validity: Internal validity relates to the extent to which a study accurately
establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. It ensures that the observed
effects can be attributed to the manipulated independent variable and not to other
confounding factors. Researchers often address internal validity through careful research
design, control of extraneous variables, and randomization techniques (Dzwigol, 2022).

External Validity: External validity refers to the generalizability of research findings beyond
the specific context of the study. It assesses whether the results can be applied to other
populations, settings, or conditions. Researchers can enhance external validity by using
representative samples, selecting diverse research settings, and ensuring the ecological
validity of the study design (Goldstein, 2022).

Construct Validity: Construct validity refers to the extent to which a research instrument
accurately measures the theoretical constructs or concepts it intends to assess. It involves
demonstrating that the operationalization or measurement of variables aligns with the
underlying theoretical framework. Researchers can establish construct validity through the
use of established and validated measurement scales, conducting factor analysis, and
assessing convergent and discriminant validity (Dzwigol, 2022).

Content Validity: Content validity focuses on whether a research instrument adequately

represents the entire domain of the construct being measured. It ensures that the items or
questions in a survey or questionnaire cover all relevant aspects of the construct. Content
validity is often established through expert judgment, pilot testing, and comprehensive item
development (Goldstein, 2022).

Criterion Validity: Criterion validity assesses whether a research instrument or measure

correlates with an external criterion or gold standard. It involves comparing the scores
obtained from the research instrument with scores from an established measure of the same
construct. Researchers can establish criterion validity through concurrent validity
(simultaneous assessment of both measures) or predictive validity (assessing whether the
instrument predicts future outcomes).

Scholars emphasize the importance of considering and addressing these different types of
validity in research to ensure the accuracy, credibility, and meaningfulness of the findings
(Dzwigol, 2022). Validity assessment helps researchers ensure that their studies accurately
measure the intended constructs and provide reliable and trustworthy results.
Reliability, according to scholars in the field of research methodology, refers to the
consistency, stability, and repeatability of measurements or observations in a study. It is a
critical aspect of research quality and ensures that the results obtained from a study are
dependable and can be replicated.

Scholars have identified different types of reliability that researchers should consider in their
studies:

Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest reliability assesses the consistency of measurements or

observations over time. It involves administering the same instrument or test to the same
group of participants on two or more occasions and examining the degree of agreement
between the results. High test-retest reliability indicates that the instrument produces
consistent results over time (Dzwigol, 2022).

Internal Consistency Reliability: Internal consistency reliability assesses the extent to

which the items or questions within a research instrument consistently measure the same
construct. It is typically evaluated using statistical techniques such as Cronbach's alpha or
split-half reliability. High internal consistency reliability indicates that the items within the
instrument are strongly interrelated and measure the same underlying construct (Goldstein,
2022).

Inter-Rater Reliability: Inter-rater reliability focuses on the consistency of measurements or

observations between different raters or observers. It is relevant when multiple individuals
are involved in data collection or coding. Inter-rater reliability is assessed by comparing the
ratings or observations made by different raters and examining the level of agreement
between them (Goldstein, 2022).

Parallel Forms Reliability: Parallel forms reliability, also known as equivalent forms
reliability, assesses the consistency of measurements or observations obtained from two
different versions of the same instrument. It involves administering two parallel forms of the
instrument to the same group of participants and examining the degree of agreement between
the results. High parallel forms reliability indicates that both versions of the instrument
produce consistent results (Dzwigol, 2022).

Split-Half Reliability: Split-half reliability assesses the internal consistency of a research

instrument by splitting the items into two halves and comparing the results obtained from
each half. It involves calculating the correlation or agreement between the scores obtained
from the two halves. High split-half reliability indicates that the items within the instrument
are internally consistent.

Inter-Item Reliability: Inter-item reliability evaluates the consistency of measurements or

observations by examining the correlation or agreement between different items within a
research instrument. It assesses the extent to which the items within the instrument are
measuring the same underlying construct. High inter-item reliability indicates that the items
are measuring the intended construct consistently.

Reliability assessment is crucial for ensuring the consistency and dependability of research
instruments and measurements. By evaluating reliability, researchers can determine the extent
to which their findings are reliable, replicable, and free from measurement error (Goldstein,
2022). It is important to establish high reliability to enhance the overall quality and validity of
a study.

The case study used a purposive sampling technique. The study could have adopted
quantitative sampling technique such as simple random sampling, cluster sampling. This
could have reduced sampling bias and improves sample representation.

Results:

The results section presents the findings of the study using descriptive and inferential
statistics. The data analysis techniques are appropriate for the research questions and
hypotheses. The results are clearly presented, with relevant tables and figures. However, the
section could have provided more interpretation of the statistical findings and their practical
implications.

Discussion:

The discussion section interprets the results in light of the research objectives and compares
them with previous studies. It provides insightful explanations of the findings and offers
potential mechanisms and implications. However, the discussion could have delved deeper
into the limitations of the study and suggested avenues for future research.

Methodology Evaluation:
The methodology employed in the study is generally sound, as it utilizes a quantitative
approach to collect and analyze data. However, the lack of information on the questionnaire's
validity and reliability is a notable limitation. Assessing these aspects would have
strengthened the study's credibility and ensured the accuracy of the findings. Additionally,
the study could have considered a mixed-methods approach to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the topic.

Data Collection and Presentation Evaluation:

The data collection process, including sample selection and size, is adequately described,
enhancing the study's reliability. However, there could have been more details on the
response rate and any potential biases. The presentation of results using tables and figures is
clear and supports the findings. However, the article could have included more qualitative
insights from open-ended questions to provide a richer understanding of employees'
experiences.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Wontorczyk and Rożnowski's (2022) article provides valuable insights into the
impact of work arrangements on employee stress and work engagement during the SARS-
CoV-2 pandemic. The different sections of the article, including the introduction, literature
review, methodology, results, and discussion, contribute to understanding the research topic.
However, there are areas for improvement, such as providing more context in the
introduction, including more recent literature in the review, and addressing the limitations in
the discussion. Furthermore, enhancing the methodology by providing validity and reliability
information would strengthen the study's credibility. Overall, the article offers valuable
contributions to the field and provides a foundation for further research in this area.
 REFERENCES
Adamovic, M. (2022). How does employee cultural background influence the effects of telework on
job stress? The roles of power distance, individualism, and beliefs about telework.
International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102-437.

Canedo, J.; Graen, G.; Grace, M. & Johnson, R. . (2017). Navigating the New Workplace:
Technology, Millennials, and Accelerating HR Innovation. AIS Trans Hum.-Comput.
Interact, 9, 243–260.

Carnevale, J.B.& Hatak, I. . (2020). Employee adjustment and well-being in the era of COVID-19:.
Implications for human resource management. J. Bus, 116, 183–187.

Dzwigol, H. (2022). Research methodology in management science:. Triangulation. Virtual

Economics, 5(1), 78-93.

Goldstein, S. B. (2022). A systematic review of short-term study abroad research methodology and
intercultural competence outcomes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 87, 26-
36.

Mawardi, M. C. (2022). Alternative Work Arrangements, Work Environment, and Job Stress on Job
Satisfaction and Turnover Intention. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 2(1),
27-39.

Wontorczyk, A., & Rożnowski, B. (2022). Remote, hybrid, and on-site work during the SARS-CoV-2
pandemic and the consequences for stress and work engagement. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 19(4), 240.