May et al.’s Measure May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) 13-item questionnaire measuring engagement (cognitive, emotional, and physical); five-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree’ Sample items: Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else. (Cognitive) I get excited when I perform well on my job. (Emotional) I exert a lot of energy performing my job. (Physical) To explore the determinants and mediating effects of the three psychological conditions – meaningfulness, safety and availability – developed by Kahn (1990) on employee engagement in their work Utilized Kahn’s (1990) definition of engagement at work Built mainly on Kahn’s (1990) study. Psychological Engagement scales were developed to measure the three components of Kahn’s psychological engagement: cognitive, emotional, and physical engagement. 213 employees at a large insurance firm located in Midwestern US Cronbach’s α (overall psychological engagement scale) = .77 Three scales were developed to measure the three dimensions (cognitive, emotional, and physical) dimensions of Kahn’s theorized psychological engagement Significantly related to the three psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability Saks’ Job and Scales Saks (2006) Two six-item questionnaires for job engagement and organization engagement; scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’ Sample items: I really “throw” myself into my job. (Job engagement) This job is all consuming; I am totally into it. (Job engagement) Being a member of this organization is very captivating. (Org. engagement) To test a model of the antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagements based on social exchange theory The author built on the definitions provided by various other well-known scholars Based on social exchange theory (SET) and review of existing literature 102 employees working in a variety of jobs and organizations, mainly in Canada Cronbach’s α (Job engagement scale) = .82 Cronbach’s α (Organization engagement scale) = .90 A principal components factor analysis with a promax rotation resulted in two factors that corresponded to job and organization engagements. The two scales were developed to measure the two types of engagement, as proposed by the author. Results suggested that there is a meaningful difference between job and organization engagements. Significantly related to other constructs including perceived organizational support, procedural justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
The Social, Affective (ISA Scale) Truss, Alfes, Shantz, Rees, and Gatenby (2012) Nine-item questionnaire; seven-point scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ Sample items: I focus hard on my work. (Intellectual) I share the same work values as my colleagues. (Social) I feel energetic in my work. (Affective) To develop an engagement model that has three requirements: a work-role focus, activation, and positive affect To operationalize this model using a new measure that comprises of three dimensions: intellectual, social, and affective engagement. Proposed that engagement has three underlying facets: Intellectual engagement: “the extent to which one experiences a state of positive affect relating to one’s work role” (p. 532) Affective engagement: “the extent to which one experiences a state of positive affect relating to one’s work role” (p. 532) Social engagement: “the extent to which one is socially connected with the working environment and shares common values with colleagues” (p. 532) Review of the literature and related instruments Study 1: 540 employees of a manufacturing company Study 2: 1486 employees working for a retail organization Cronbach’s α (overall construct) = 0.91 Three scales were developed to measure the three engagement facets (intellectual, affective, and social), in accordance with the authors’ constitutive definition of the construct Results confirmed associations between engagement and three organizational outcome variables: task performance, OCB, and turnover intentions. ISA Engagement Scale explained additional variance in the three outcome variables after controlling for the UWES measure.