PYC4807
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.
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.
