4.5 Article

Korean Version of the 17-Item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for University Students: A Validity and Reliability Study

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10040642

Keywords

engagement; reliability; validity; students

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Work engagement is a crucial factor for college students' learning outcomes, but the psychometric properties of the 17-item Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES-S) in the Korean version have not been determined. This study tested the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the 17-item UWES-S among Korean college students and found it to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing and improving work engagement in college students.
Work engagement is a factor that has key influence on learning outcomes for college students. The psychometric properties of the Korean version of the 17-item Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES-S) survey have yet to be determined. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the 17-item UWES-S among Korean college students. A total of 248 college students were recruited from three universities in South Korea. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS and the Mplus program. Among 248 college students, the mean age was 21.19 years, and 87.5% of the students were female. Reliability was deemed satisfactory by Cronbach's alpha 0.940, McDonald's omega 0.941, and composite reliability 0.941. Construct validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis results (CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.08). Convergent validity was supported by the significant relationship between academic engagement and burnout (r = -0.344, p < 0.001). Our findings showed that the Korean version of the 17-item UWES-S was a reliable and valid instrument. This instrument can be used to assess and improve work engagement in college students.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available