How to Cite
Arana Medina, C. M., Cárdenas Niño, L., Betancur Arias, J. D., & Montoya Zuluaga, P. A. (2023). Work Engagement Scale: Construct Validity and Reliability in the Colombian Organizational Context. International Journal of Psychological Research, 16(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.6408
License terms
The work that is sent to this journal must be original, not published or sent to be published elsewhere; and if it is accepted for publication, authors will agree to transfer copyright to International Journal of Psychological Research. 

To give up copyright, the authors allow that, International Journal of Psychological Research, distribute the work more broadly, check for the reuse by others and take care of the necessary procedures for the registration and administration of copyright; at the same time, our editorial board represents the interests of the author and allows authors to re-use his work in various forms. In response to the above, authors transfer copyright to the journal, International Journal of Psychological Research. This transfer does not imply other rights which are not those of authorship (for example those that concern about patents). Likewise, preserves the authors rights to use the work integral or partially in lectures, books and courses, as well as make copies for educational purposes. Finally, the authors may use freely the tables and figures in its future work, wherever make explicit reference to the previous publication in International Journal of Psychological Research. The assignment of copyright includes both virtual rights and forms of the article to allow the editorial to disseminate the work in the manner which it deems appropriate. 

The editorial board reserves the right of amendments deemed necessary in the application of the rules of publication.


This manuscript shows the results of the evidence of content and internal structure obtained from an instrument to measure work engagement. This instrument is aimed at workers of Colombian labor organizations that belong to different economic sectors (commerce, services, education, and health). The instrument was designed based on the postulates of cognitive theory and is structured into three factors that operationalize the construct: (a) behavioral dimension (15 items), (b) affective dimension (16 items), and (c) cognitive dimension (14 items), for a total of 45 items. The results of the content evidence through expert judgment suggested the elimination of three items, due to ambiguity and lack of clarity, leaving the 42- item test. After this evidence, the instrument was piloted in a sample of 460 participants. The item-test correlation analysis recommended the elimination of
one item due to its low correlation with the factor. The evidence of internal structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) proposed a three-factor structure, with an explained variance of 63%; 9 items were eliminated due to high residual.
The fit indicators showed a GFI = .99; and those of residual showed a RMSR =.03 and Kelley = .04; each factor obtained an ordinal Cronbach’s Alpha of .95 (behavioral), .97 (affective), and .87 (cognitive). These results indicate precision in the measurement and consistency of the items to measure each of the factors.



Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement:
An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649

Bakker, A. B. y Demerouti, E. (2013). Job demands-resources model. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 29, 107–115. http://dx. doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a16

Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Psychometric Properties of the Italian
Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000020.

Clark, D. A. (2004). Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy of OCD. Guilford Press.

Colquitt, J., LePine, J., & Wesson, M. (2007). Organizational Behavior: Improving Performance
and Commitment in the Workplace. McGraw Hill.

Chun-tat, T. & Ng, S. (2011). Measuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12529-011-9173-6

Cronbach, L. J. (1943). On estimates of test reliability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34(8), 485. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058608

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2010). Introducción a la psicología. El acceso a la mente y la conducta. Cengage Learning.

Delval, A. (1977). Lógica y Psicología del Razonamiento. In A. DelVal (Ed.), Investigaciones sobre lógica y psicología. Alianza.

Ferrando Piera, P. J., Lorenzo Seva, U., Hernández Dorado, A., & Muñiz Fernández, J. (2022). Decálogo para el Análisis Factorial de los Ítems de un Test. Psicothema,34(1), 7-17.

Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: algunas consideraciones adicionales. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1170-1175.https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199991.

Ferrando, P. J., amp; Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins,development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2),236-240. http://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304

Freiberg, H, Agustín, J, De la Iglesia, G., amp; Fernández, M. (2013). Correlaciones policóricas y tetracóricas en estudios factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios. Ciencias Psicológicas, 7(2), 151-164.

Guest, D. (2014). Employee engagement: A sceptical analysis. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 141-156.https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2014-0017

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Hernández, C., Llorenz, S., Rodriguez, A., & Dickinson, M. (2016). Validación de la escala UWES-9 en profesionales de la salud en México. Pensamiento Psicológico, 14(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javerianacali.PPSI14-2.veup

Hirschfeld, R. R. & Thomas, C. H. (2008). Representations of trait engagement: Integration, additions, and mechanisms. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00011.x

Hogan, T. (2004). Pruebas Psicológicas. Manual Moderno.

Jeung, C. W. (2011). The Concept of Employee Engagement: A Comprehensive Review from a Positive Organizational Behavior Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(2), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20110

Jericó, P. (2001). Gestión del Talento. Del profesional con talento al talento organizativo. Ed Prentice Hall Financial Times.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Karatepe, O. M. & Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction?: A study in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1254-1278.

Kelley, T. L. (1935). Essential traits of mental life. Harvard Studies in Education. Harvard
University Press.

Lang, P. J. (2000). Emotion and motivation: Attention, perception, and action. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(Suppl), 122-140.

Lancheros, L., Maroni, L., Manrique, M., & Mendivelso, M. (2007). Conceptos básicos acerca de las pruebas de actitud. Avances en Medición, 5, 163-167.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575.

Lloret, S., Ferreres, A., Hernández, A. & Tomás, I. (2014). El Análisis Factorial Exploratorio de los Ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x

Martínez, R., Hernández, M. J., & Hernández, M. V. (2006). Psicometría. Alianza.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2001). Usos y costumbres metodológicos en la Psicología española: un análisis a través de la vida de Psicothema (1990-1999). Psicothema,13, 671-677.

Muñiz, J., & Fonseca, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construcción de un test. Psicothema, 31
(1), 7-16. https//doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291.

Nerstad, C., Richardsen, A., & Martinussen, M. (2010). Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 51, 326-333.

Nienaber, H. & Martins, N. (2014). An Employee Engagement Instrument and Framework Building on Existing Research. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 485- 496. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p485

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. J. (1995). Teoría psicométrica (3ª ed). Editorial McGrawHill Latinoamericana.

Parra, P., & Pérez, C. (2010). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de compromiso académico, UWES-S (versión abreviada), en estudiantes de psicología. Revista de educación en ciencias de la salud, 8(1), 128-133.

Paškvan, M., & Kubicek, B. (2017). The Intensification of Work. In C. Korunka & B.Kubicek (Eds.), Job demands in a changing world of work: Impact on workers; health and performance and implications for research and practice (pp. 25-43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-54678-0

Pérez, E., & Medrano, L. (2010). Análisis Factorial Exploratorio: Bases Conceptuales y Metodológicas. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2(1), 58-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v2.n1.15924

Prieto Díez, F., Postigo, Á., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2021). Work Engagement: New scale for its measurement. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 53, 133-142. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2021.v53.15

Robbins, S. P. (1996). Compromiso Organizacional (Séptima Edición). Prentice Hall Hispanoamericana S.A.

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). El Engagement en el trabajo. Alianza editorial.

Seligman, M., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W.
(2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 10(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y

Schaufeli, W., Martínez, I., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. (2002). Burnout and Engagement in university students: A cross national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, 464-481.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES - Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual. Version 1.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716. https//doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Storm, K., & Rothmann, S. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht work engagement scale in the South African Police Service. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SATydskrif vir Bedryfsie- lkunde, 29(4), 62-70.https//doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v29i4.129

Souza, A., Santos, E. d., Cerentini, J., Simon, C., & Schaufeli, W. (2015). Adaptation and Validation of the Brazilian Version of the Utrecht work engagement scale. Psico-USF, 20(2), 207- 217. https//doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712015200202

Spontón, C., Medrano, L. A., Maffei, L., Spontón, M., & Castellano, E. (2012). Validación del cuestionario de Engagement UWES a la población de trabajadores de Córdoba, Argentina. Liberabit, 18(2), 147-154.

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A., Sakamoto, M., Irimajiri, H., Amano, S., Hirohata, K., & Goto, R. (2008). Work Engagement in Japan: Validation of the japanese version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Applied psychology: An International review, 57(3), 510-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.x


Download data is not yet available.

Cited by