May et 13-item questionnaire To explore the Utilized Kahn’s Built mainly on Kahn’s 213 employees at a Cronbach’s (overall Three scales were developed α al.’s measuring engagement determinants and (1990) definition of (1990) study. large insurance firm psychological to measure the three (cognitive, emotional, mediating effects of engagement at work Psychological located in engagement scale) = dimensions (cognitive, and physical); five-point the three Engagement scales were Midwestern US .77 emotional, and physical) scale ranging from psychological developed to measure the dimensions of Kahn’s Measure Disagree to conditions three components of theorized psychological ‘Strongly – Strongly Agree’ meaningfulness, Kahn’s psychological engagement safety and engagement: cognitive, May, Sample items: availability emotional, and physical Significantly related to the – Gilson, and developed by Kahn engagement. three psychological Performing my job is so Harter (1990) on employee conditions of absorbing that I forget (2004) engagement in their meaningfulness, safety and about everything else. (Cognitive) work availability I get excited when I perform well on my job. (Emotional) I exert a lot of energy performing my job. (Physical) Saks’ Job Two six-item To test a model of the The author built on Based on social exchange 102 employees Cronbach’s (Job A principal components α questionnaires for job antecedents and the definitions theory (SET) and review working in a variety engagement scale) = factor analysis with a and engagement and consequences of job provided by various of existing literature of jobs and .82 promax rotation resulted in organization and organization other well-known organizations, mainly two factors that engagement; engagements based scholars in Canada Cronbach’s corresponded to job and α scale ranging from on social exchange (Organization organization engagements. Scales disagree’ to theory engagement scale) = The two scales were ‘Strongly agree’ .90 developed to measure the ‘Strongly Saks (2006) two types of engagement, Sample items: as proposed by the author. I really myself “throw” (Job Results suggested that there into my job. engagement) is a meaningful difference between job and This job is all consuming; (Job organization engagements. I am totally into it. engagement) Significantly related to other Being a member of this constructs including organization is very (Org. perceived organizational captivating. engagement) support, procedural justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
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,
Employee-Engagement-Instruments-A-Review-of-the-Literature.docx