4.6 Article

Brief Version of the Frankfurt Emotional Work Scale and Gender Difference in Emotional Labour

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15042925

Keywords

emotional labour; FEWS; non-university teachers; psychometric properties; gender effect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a brief version of the Frankfurt Emotion Work Scale (FEWS) adapted for Spanish teachers, considering gender differences. The sample consisted of 9020 teachers in the Valencian Community, with the results showing overall adequate psychometric properties for the scale. The study concluded that using this diagnostic tool for Spanish non-university teachers seems justified.
This study was designed to assess the psychometric properties of a brief version of the Frankfurt Emotion Work Scale (FEWS) adapted to Spanish in a sample of teachers, taking into consideration gender differences. Method: The sample consisted of 9020 teachers of public education in the Valencian Community (M-age = 45.33 years, SD = 9.15; 72.5% female). Results: The psychometric properties are adequate. It consists of 12 items grouped into six factors that explain 79.54% of the variance. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability coefficients (CRC) for the full scale are adequate: alpha = 0.79; CRC = 0.90. Confirmatory Factorial Analyses also confirm the structure of the scale (chi(2) = 890.36, S-B chi(2) = 747.38, df = 39, NFI = 0.945, NNFI = 0.911, CFI = 0.947, IFI = 0.947, MFI = 0.925, and RMSEA = 0.069). Convergent and discriminant validity were also probed. Finally, a gender effect over Emotional labour was found, there was a difference between gender in the scale and all of the dimensions of the questionnaire, with higher values on women. Conclusions: according to the results of this study, the use of this diagnostic tool for Spanish non-university teachers appears to be justified.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available