, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
Question 1
a) Identify and define the type of reliability that was determined for the UWES-S.
The study by Brand et al. (2025) determined the internal consistency reliability of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale-Student (UWES-S). Internal consistency is a measure of reliability that assesses
the extent to which all items on a test or subscale measure the same underlying construct or concept
(Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 62). It evaluates the homogeneity of the items within a scale, indicating
how well they correlate with each other. As stated by Brand et al. (2025), internal consistency
"reveals the extent to which the items of an instrument accurately evaluate the concept it is designed
to assess."
b) Discuss the findings of this research on the reliability of the UWES-S with reference to the
statistical method/s used, the values of the reliability coefficients and whether these values are
acceptable. Refer to Brand et al. (2025), the criteria in the prescribed book and at least one other
source in evaluating the magnitude of the reliability coefficient.
To assess the internal consistency of the UWES-S, Brand et al. (2025) calculated both Cronbach's
alpha coefficient (α) and McDonald's omega coefficient (ω) for the three factors of the scale.
The findings for each factor were as follows (Brand et al., 2025):
Vigour: α = 0.873, ω = 0.878
Dedication: α = 0.783, ω = 0.849
Absorption: α = 0.769, ω = 0.772
The study considered these values acceptable as they all exceeded the 0.70 threshold (Brand et al.,
2025). When evaluating these coefficients against established criteria, they are generally deemed
acceptable to good. According to the prescribed book, standardised measures should ideally have
reliabilities ranging between .80 and .90, while a reliability of .85 or higher is suggested for making
decisions about individuals (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 67). Based on this criterion, the Vigour
subscale shows strong reliability. The Dedication and Absorption subscales are slightly lower but
still fall within an acceptable range for research and group-level decisions, which require a
coefficient of .65 or higher (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 67). However, they fall short of the .85
threshold recommended for individual decision-making.
Another source by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, as cited in Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 62)
suggests that for applied settings, a reliability of .70 is a modest benchmark, while .80 is more
desirable. The values for Dedication and Absorption are above the .70 minimum but below the more
robust .80 standard for applied use. The higher reliability for Vigour could be because its items are
more directly related to feelings of energy, which form a cohesive construct. The slightly lower
values for Dedication and Absorption might be due to the more complex nature of these constructs,
which include feelings of pride, inspiration, and being fully immersed, possibly leading to less
consistent responses among a diverse student population.
Question 1
a) Identify and define the type of reliability that was determined for the UWES-S.
The study by Brand et al. (2025) determined the internal consistency reliability of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale-Student (UWES-S). Internal consistency is a measure of reliability that assesses
the extent to which all items on a test or subscale measure the same underlying construct or concept
(Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 62). It evaluates the homogeneity of the items within a scale, indicating
how well they correlate with each other. As stated by Brand et al. (2025), internal consistency
"reveals the extent to which the items of an instrument accurately evaluate the concept it is designed
to assess."
b) Discuss the findings of this research on the reliability of the UWES-S with reference to the
statistical method/s used, the values of the reliability coefficients and whether these values are
acceptable. Refer to Brand et al. (2025), the criteria in the prescribed book and at least one other
source in evaluating the magnitude of the reliability coefficient.
To assess the internal consistency of the UWES-S, Brand et al. (2025) calculated both Cronbach's
alpha coefficient (α) and McDonald's omega coefficient (ω) for the three factors of the scale.
The findings for each factor were as follows (Brand et al., 2025):
Vigour: α = 0.873, ω = 0.878
Dedication: α = 0.783, ω = 0.849
Absorption: α = 0.769, ω = 0.772
The study considered these values acceptable as they all exceeded the 0.70 threshold (Brand et al.,
2025). When evaluating these coefficients against established criteria, they are generally deemed
acceptable to good. According to the prescribed book, standardised measures should ideally have
reliabilities ranging between .80 and .90, while a reliability of .85 or higher is suggested for making
decisions about individuals (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 67). Based on this criterion, the Vigour
subscale shows strong reliability. The Dedication and Absorption subscales are slightly lower but
still fall within an acceptable range for research and group-level decisions, which require a
coefficient of .65 or higher (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 67). However, they fall short of the .85
threshold recommended for individual decision-making.
Another source by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, as cited in Foxcroft & Roodt, 2018, p. 62)
suggests that for applied settings, a reliability of .70 is a modest benchmark, while .80 is more
desirable. The values for Dedication and Absorption are above the .70 minimum but below the more
robust .80 standard for applied use. The higher reliability for Vigour could be because its items are
more directly related to feelings of energy, which form a cohesive construct. The slightly lower
values for Dedication and Absorption might be due to the more complex nature of these constructs,
which include feelings of pride, inspiration, and being fully immersed, possibly leading to less
consistent responses among a diverse student population.
