Assignment 4 PORTFOLIO 2026
Unique number:
Due date: October 2026
1. QUESTION 1: RELIABILITY OF THE UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE
STUDENT
1.1 Type of reliability determined
The reliability examined in the study was internal consistency reliability, which
considers whether items that are intended to measure the same construct produce
responses that fit together in a consistent way. Reliability is concerned with the
consistency of measurement rather than whether a measure is assessing the correct
construct, and internal consistency focuses specifically on agreement among items
within the same administration of a questionnaire (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, Chapter
4, p. 60). In the Brand et al. study, this form of reliability was suitable because the
researchers wanted to know whether the items within vigour, dedication and
absorption worked consistently as three related engagement dimensions.
,1. QUESTION 1: RELIABILITY OF THE UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE
STUDENT
1.1 Type of reliability determined
The reliability examined in the study was internal consistency reliability, which
considers whether items that are intended to measure the same construct produce
responses that fit together in a consistent way. Reliability is concerned with the
consistency of measurement rather than whether a measure is assessing the correct
construct, and internal consistency focuses specifically on agreement among items
within the same administration of a questionnaire (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, Chapter
4, p. 60). In the Brand et al. study, this form of reliability was suitable because the
researchers wanted to know whether the items within vigour, dedication and
absorption worked consistently as three related engagement dimensions.
Brand et al. (2025) treated internal consistency as an important part of the
psychometric evaluation because the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Student
contains several items for each of its three dimensions. If items placed under vigour,
dedication or absorption behave inconsistently, a total score for that dimension
becomes difficult to trust even when the questionnaire appears sensible on the
surface. The study therefore examined the consistency of the separate dimensions
rather than relying only on a single reliability estimate for the whole questionnaire.
1.2 Reliability findings and evaluation of the coefficients
The researchers used both Cronbach alpha and McDonald omega to estimate
internal consistency, which was a useful choice because the two statistics do not
depend on exactly the same assumptions about how strongly individual items
contribute to a scale. Cronbach alpha remains widely used in psychological
assessment, while omega can provide a useful additional estimate when item
loadings differ across a factor, so considering both coefficients gives a stronger
picture than reporting alpha alone (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). Brand et al. (2025)
regarded values above .70 as acceptable for their research purpose, which meant
that all three engagement dimensions met the minimum criterion applied in the
article.
, For vigour, the reported Cronbach alpha was .873 and McDonald omega was .878,
which shows strong agreement among the vigour items in this sample of university
students. Dedication produced an alpha of .783 and an omega of .849, while
absorption produced an alpha of .769 and an omega of .772 (Brand et al., 2025).
These results show that vigour had the strongest internal consistency, dedication
also performed well when omega was considered, and absorption had the lowest
coefficients although both remained above the .70 level used in the study.
The prescribed book requires a more careful judgement than simply saying that
every coefficient above .70 is good enough, because the acceptable level depends
on the purpose of assessment and the consequences of a decision. Standardised
measures are generally expected to have reliability coefficients between about .80
and .90, while a coefficient around .85 or higher is preferred when important
decisions are made about individual people, although lower values may be
acceptable for group decisions (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, Chapter 4, p. 68). When
those guidelines are applied, the vigour coefficients clearly fall within the preferred
range, the dedication omega also meets that standard, while the dedication alpha
and both absorption estimates are somewhat below the stronger benchmark for
individual decision making.
A second source also supports a cautious interpretation because coefficients around
.70 or higher are often accepted for research scales, but reliability should never be
judged through one cut off without considering scale length, item quality and the way
scores will be used (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). From my reading of these results,
the values are suitable for research on groups of university students, although I
would be more careful if a university wanted to use one of the lower coefficients to
make a serious decision about one student. A coefficient that is adequate for
comparing groups does not automatically provide enough precision for a high stakes
individual judgement.
The difference between the dedication alpha of .783 and omega of .849 is also worth
noticing because it suggests that the dedication items may not contribute equally to
the underlying factor. Omega is helpful in such circumstances because it allows item
contributions to differ, whereas alpha is more strongly linked to assumptions of