Abstract
Frictions between work and family life have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing negative consequences on the mental health and quality of life of workers. Without validated instruments, it is not possible to determine the impact of Work-Family and Family-Work conflict. To date, no studies have been conducted to provide evidence of the validity and reliability of The Survey Work-Home Interaction Nijmegen (SWING; 22 items) in the population of Argentine workers. The SWING was administered to 611 Argentine workers of both sexes (73.6% female) aged between 18 and 70 years (M = 35.33; SD = 9.16) selected from a non-probabilistic accidental sampling. The confirmatory factor analysis showed satisfactory fit indices of the original four-factor model (χ2 = 647.073, gl = 203, CFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05, AIC = 557.9, BIC = 821.5). The level of reliability was acceptable (α between 0.68 and 0.86, ω = 0.79–0.89). The relationships of the subscale scores with the engagement and burnout variables were as expected according to previous studies. Having an instrument adequately adapted to the population of Argentine workers facilitates the development of studies aimed at evaluating the role of W-F or F-W interactions and their implications for health and productivity.
Introduction
The balance between family and work life is increasingly difficult to maintain in today’s world (Vesga-Rodríguez, 2019). Frictions between work and family life have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic that led to workers being forced to use a telecommuting mode. This unplanned transition, abruptly determined by circumstances, has generated multiple consequences, such as increased negative emotions and perceived lower productivity at work (Howe and Menges, 2020).
The imbalance or conflict Work-Family and Family-Work (W-F/F-W) has significant negative consequences on mental health and quality of life of individuals. Thus, numerous studies highlight that W-F/F-W conflict is associated with higher burnout (e.g., Dyrbye et al., 2011; Chernyak-Hai and Tziner, 2016; Rhnima et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2019), worse job satisfaction, and low professional self-efficacy (Shimada et al., 2010; Serenko et al., 2017; Jacobsen and Fjeldbraaten, 2018). Conversely, the balance between W-F/F-W has been associated with other positive aspects, such as workers’ engagement, psychological sense, and availability at work (Rothmann and Baumann, 2014; Queirós et al., 2016; Łaba and Geldenhuys, 2018).
Given the relevance of these phenomena, several scales have been developed (Kopelman et al., 1983; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Kelloway et al., 1999; Frone, 2000; Dolcos and Daley, 2009; DiRenzo et al., 2011). The Survey Work-Home Interaction Nijmegen (SWING, Geurts et al., 2005) is one of the most widely used instruments worldwide. It is a brief self-report questionnaire (22 items) that measures the interaction of both areas, discriminating the direction of the influence, whether W-F or F-W, as well as the quality of the influence, both positive and negative. This instrument was developed based on scientific evidence, especially the Effort-Recovery Theory (Meijman and Mulder, 1998). In the original study, the scale demonstrated a robust four-factor structure, which was replicated in different samples.
SWING validations have been carried out in different cultures: France (Lourel et al., 2005), Romania (Ispas and Iliescu, 2019), Japan (Shimada et al., 2018), Portugal (Pereira et al., 2014) and South Africa (Marais et al., 2009), Spain (Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2009), and Latin American population (Romeo et al., 2014). Satisfactory results were obtained in all cases (the alpha ranged from 0.72 to 0.90), and the original four-factor model was replicated without the need to modify the structure of the instrument (Table 1).
Table 1
| Validation | Reliability | Structure: number of factors | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original Study Holand (Geurts et al., 2005) | α = 0.72 to 0.85 | 4 | |
| South Africa (Marais et al., 2009) | α = 0.82 to 0.90 | 4 | |
| Japan (Shimada et al., 2018) | α = 0.75 to 0.86 | 4 | |
| Portugal (Pereira et al., 2014) | α = 0.72 to 0.86 | 4 | |
| France (Lourel et al., 2005) | α = 0.73 to 0.84 | 4 | |
| Rumania(Ispas and Iliescu, 2019) | 4 | ||
| Spain (Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2009) | α = 0.77 to 0.89 | 4 | |
| Spanish talking countries (Romeo et al., 2014) | α = 0.85 to 0.90 | 4 | |
| Argentina (Gabini, 2017) | Coefficient of compound reliability = 0.81 and 0.82 | 2 Named: Work-Family Enrichment and Work–Family Conflict |
Psychometric data of the SWING scale and its validations to other populations.
Few psychometric studies were conducted in the Argentine population. The study by Gabini (2017) constitutes an approach of this valuable tool to the local population; however, the resulting scale and the process carried out may be questionable. In this study, the number of SWING items was reduced from 22 to 8, and the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed only two dimensions. To date, no studies have been conducted to provide evidence of the validity and reliability of the SWING scale (22 items) in the population of Argentine workers. Having an instrument with adequate psychometric properties will allow the development of research on W-F/F-W conflict, as well as the evaluation of the impact of interventions aimed at improving workers’ wellbeing. For this reason, this study aims to evaluate the factor structure of SWING as well as the reliability of the scores and the construct of each dimension. In addition, we seek to gather valid evidence for its relationship with other variables by associating the SWING scores with burnout and engagement scores of Argentinian workers.
Materials and methods
Participants
The sample comprised 611 Argentinian workers of both sexes (73.6% women) aged between 18 and 70 years (M = 35.33; SD = 9.16) selected from a non-probabilistic accidental sampling. Of the participants, 36.1% reported being married, 38.2% single, 0.7% widowed, 0.8% divorced, and 24.3% cohabiting with their partner. 70.8% of the participants reported having 1–5 children (M = 1.56; SD = 1.35), with ages ranging from 0 to 40 years (M = 8.09; SD = 7.63). Of the workers, 71.8% worked full time and the remaining 28.2% worked part time (up to 6 h) at the time of data collection. Regarding the area of work: 37% worked in commerce, 9.1% in health, 2.4% in public administration, 6.1% in education, and the remaining 45.5% in other unspecified areas. The size of the sample was sought to exceed 300 cases to guarantee its adequacy to the expected statistical tests planned for this study, particularly in terms of factor analysis (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014; Ventura-León et al., 2020; Jordan-Muiños, 2021).
Instruments
Ad hoc questionnaire of socio demographic data
Participants’ sex, age, marital status, existence of children, number of children, age of the youngest child, and work time (full-time/half-time) were inquired.
SWING scale
This scale is composed of 22 items that evaluate four types of interactions: positive work-family (for example: Having to organize your time at work has made you learn to better organize your time at home), negative work-family (for example: You have to work so much that you do not have time for your hobbies), positive family-work (for example: You have more self-confidence at work because your life at home is well organized), and negative family-work (for example: Problems with your partner/family/friends affect your work performance; Geurts et al., 2005). In other words, it differentiates between the quality and direction of interactions between the two spheres of life. The response options are Likert-type: Never (0), Sometimes (1), Often (2), and Always (3). The Spanish version adapted for the Spanish population by Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2009) was used for this study.
UWES engagement questionnaire
This scale has 17 items with three factors: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, adapted for workers in Córdoba, Argentina, Spontón et al., 2012). The responses are graduated and range from 0 = “never” to 6 = “always.” In the present study, the reliability level of this instrument was acceptable for all subscales (vigor α = 0.780, dedication α = 0.876, absorption α = 0.728, Oviedo and Campo-Arias, 2005).
Maslach burnout inventory-general survey
The validation made by Spontón et al. (2019) in the Argentine population was used (Schaufeli et al., 1996). The burnout and cynicism scales were used, each composed of four items with graduated response options (from 0 = “never,” to 6 = “always”). In this study, the level of reliability of these scales was adequate, with results of α = 0.756 for exhaustion, and α = 0.783 for cynicism.
Procedure
The ad hoc Sociodemographic Data Questionnaire and the SWING Scale were administered to the entire sample (N = 611) in their respective workplaces, after agreement with the authorities of the organizations and the workers. The questionnaires were administered in small groups (approximately 10 people) in the workplace by the authors of the research, who provided the instructions and all the necessary information related to the research. In all cases, written consent was obtained by means of a note clarifying the purpose of the study and guaranteeing the voluntary and anonymous nature of participation. Finally, a written report with the main results and specific recommendations for optimizing recovery levels in workers was provided to the institutions and companies that agreed to participate in the research. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university where the research project was submitted. A subsample (n = 165) was additionally administered the UWES Engagement Questionnaire and the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) scales for the criterion validity study.
Statistical analysis
Data handling, descriptive statistics, and reliability analysis were computed with the IBM SPSS software version 25 (IBM Corporation, 2017). A descriptive exploration of the data was carried out, in which atypical and missing cases were searched for, and the distribution of the responses was analyzed.
Subsequently, the internal structure of the instrument was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the Mplus program version 8.3 (Muthén and Muthén, 2019). The χ2, χ2 goodness-of-fit value of p, degrees of freedom (gl), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), normalized fit index (NFI), unnormalized fit index (TLI), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used. It was considered as critical values for CFI and TLI cutoff value close to 0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999); 0.93 for GFI (Cho et al., 2020); 0.90 and 0.95 acceptable and optimal fit for NFI, respectively (Sideridis and Jaffari, 2021); 0.06 for RMSEA (Hu and Bentler, 1999); and 0.08 for SRMR (Cho et al., 2020) smaller value for BIC (Profillidis and Botzoris, 2018) and AIC (Lord et al., 2021).
The reliability of the instrument was then analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha and the Omega coefficient (Viladrich et al., 2017; Hayes and Coutts, 2020; Kalkbrenner, 2021). Omega coefficient takes into account the ordinal nature of the data and, as such, it is recommended for Likert-type item scores (Viladrich et al., 2017). In order to provide common reference points with the previous literature, Cronbach’s alpha with the items treated as continuous was also computed and reported. According to George and Mallery (2003) reliability coefficients can be interpreted using the following guide: ≥0.90 excellent, ≥0.80 and <0.90 good, ≥0.70 and <0.80 acceptable, ≥0.60 and <0.70 questionable, ≥0.50 and <0.60 poor, and <0.50 unacceptable. We expect to obtain values between 0.90 and 0.80.
Finally, the relationships between the results obtained from the SWING Scale and the results obtained from the UWES Engagement Questionnaire and the MBI-GS scales were explored to verify concurrent validity.
Ethical considerations
The present study was conducted following the ethical standards of Argentina, as well as the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists [International Association of Applied Psychology and International Union of Psychological Science (IAAP and IUPsyS), 2008], the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [Organización Panamericana de la Salud and Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (OPS and CIOMS), 2017], and the Declarations of the Interamerican Society of Psychology.
Results
Exploratory and descriptive analysis
Firstly, the initial exploration of the data was carried out attending to outlier cases, missing cases, mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis. Sixty-three outliers (Z > 3 and <3.5) were detected and retained in the database because their presence did not markedly alter the distribution of the data. An outlier case of Z = 20 was also detected; this case was eliminated from the base because of its large deviation in relation to the rest of the data. No missing data above 5% were found; however, these were imputed by linear regression for the subsequent CFA tests. The data presented a normal distribution in all items with the exception of one item with skewness and kurtosis above the ±1.5 criterion (George and Mallery, 2003), namely, item 20 skewness = 1.72 and kurtosis = 2.17.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Considering the theoretical and psychometric background of the SWING scale, the CFA was performed. Three models with different numbers of factors were subjected to analysis. Model one (M1) shows a structure of two factors considering positive and negative interactions, model two (M2) also presents a two-factor structure of interactions family to work and work to family, while model three (M3) maintains the original structure of four-factor, the models are presented in Figures 1–3. The Maximum Likelihood Method was used, and multiple indicators were considered. It is observed that the original four-factor model (M3) is the one that presents a superior fit to the rest of the models tested. It should be clarified that the model still improves through three error correlations, as shown in M3r. The results are shown in Table 2.
Figure 1
Model 1.
Figure 2
Model 2.
Figure 3
Model 3.
Table 2
| Fit indices | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 (p) | Df | CFI | GFI | TLI | NFI | RMSEA | SRMR | AIC | BIC | |
| M1 | 1332.273 (0.000) | 208 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.09 | 0.83 | 1420.27 | 1613.59 |
| M2 | 2412.127 (0.000) | 208 | 0.52 | 0.66 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 2500.13 | 2503.65 |
| M3 | 487.147 (0.000) | 196 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 601.147 | 851.581 |
| M3r | 437.87 (0.000) | 193 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 557.9 | 821.5 |
Fit indices for each specified model of the SWING scale in Argentine workers.
Reliability analysis
The internal consistency of each subscale of the SWING was examined by means of Cronbach’s Alpha and the Omega coefficient. The results, presented in Table 3, are considered optimal and acceptable except for the α obtained in the Positive Work-Family Interaction subscale; however, the same yields satisfactory levels by using the ω coefficient.
Table 3
| Subscale | α | ω |
|---|---|---|
| Work–Family negative interaction | 0.864 | 0.894 |
| Family–Work negative interaction | 0.836 | 0.890 |
| Work–Family positive interaction | 0.686 | 0.794 |
| Family–Work positive interaction | 0.786 | 0.855 |
Internal consistency of the SWING subscales.
Concurrent validity
Concurrent validity was then assessed by exploring the correlations between the results of the different SWING subscales, the UWES Engagement Questionnaire, and the MBI-GS scales. The results are in line with what is expected from the literature, as the negative interaction subscales correlated negatively with the engagement dimensions and positively with the burnout dimensions; on the contrary, the positive interaction subscales presented positive associations with the engagement variables and negative associations with the burnout variables. The results were mostly statistically significant and are shown in Table 4.
Table 4
| Vigor | Dedication | Absorption | Exhaustion | Cynicism | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative interaction W-F | −0.023 | −0.073 | 0.168* | 0.687** | 0.222** |
| Negative interaction F-W | −0.415** | −0.347** | −0.266** | 0.260** | 0.320** |
| Positive interaction W-F | 0.209** | 0.316** | 0.175* | −0.217** | −0.332** |
| Positive interaction F-W | 0.390** | 0.378** | 0.189* | −0.225** | −0.387** |
Correlations between SWING subscales and engagement and burnout variables.
p < 0.05.
p < 0.01.
In addition, SEM analyses were performed to verify the regression weights between the variables. The results show significant relationships of all subscales with some engagement and burnout variables (see Table 5).
Table 5
| Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vigor | ← | WFNEG | 0.151 | 0.085 | 1.775 | 0.076 |
| Dedication | ← | WFNEG | 0.077 | 0.11 | 0.699 | 0.484 |
| Absorption | ← | WFNEG | 0.266 | 0.085 | 3.122 | 0.002 |
| Exhaustion | ← | WFNEG | 0.708 | 0.065 | 10.902 | *** |
| Cynicism | ← | WFNEG | 0.093 | 0.078 | 1.189 | 0.235 |
| Vigor | ← | FWNEG | −1.37 | 0.225 | −6.101 | *** |
| Dedication | ← | FWNEG | −1.305 | 0.291 | −4.485 | *** |
| Absorption | ← | FWNEG | −0.953 | 0.226 | −4.225 | *** |
| Exhaustion | ← | FWNEG | 0.349 | 0.172 | 2.029 | 0.042 |
| Cynicism | ← | FWNEG | 0.772 | 0.207 | 3.736 | *** |
| Vigor | ← | WFPOS | 0.091 | 0.109 | 0.834 | 0.404 |
| Dedication | ← | WFPOS | 0.357 | 0.141 | 2.531 | 0.011 |
| Absorption | ← | WFPOS | 0.163 | 0.109 | 1.489 | 0.137 |
| Exhaustion | ← | WFPOS | −0.153 | 0.083 | −1.832 | 0.067 |
| Cynicism | ← | WFPOS | −0.29 | 0.1 | −2.897 | 0.004 |
| Vigor | ← | FWPOS | 0.483 | 0.106 | 4.54 | *** |
| Dedication | ← | FWPOS | 0.486 | 0.138 | 3.526 | *** |
| Absorption | ← | FWPOS | 0.169 | 0.107 | 1.58 | 0.114 |
| Exhaustion | ← | FWPOS | −0.024 | 0.081 | −0.298 | 0.766 |
| Cynicism | ← | FWPOS | −0.299 | 0.098 | −3.062 | 0.002 |
Regression weights.
<0.001.
Discussion
Given the important consequences of positive and negative interactions between work and family life, valid and reliable assessment instruments are required for their evaluation. This is especially important given the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlights the impact of these interactions on mental health. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SWING scale for a population of Argentine workers. The results provide evidence of a solid internal structure, acceptable levels of reliability, and concurrent validity in accordance with the scientific literature.
It should be noted that the instrument allows differentiating not only the value of the interactions between positive and negative, but also the direction of these interactions, either W-F or F-W. The internal structure was corroborated by CFA, and indicators of a good fit to the replication of the original four-factor model (Geurts et al., 2005) were obtained without eliminating any item. These results are consistent with previous studies of adaptation to other populations (Lourel et al., 2005; Marais et al., 2009; Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2014; Romeo et al., 2014; Shimada et al., 2018; Ispas and Iliescu, 2019) although they differ from the results reported by Gabini (2017) in Argentina, obtained through methodological processes different from those of the present study.
One aspect of interest is the use of residual error correlation in the CFA process to improve the fit indicators. This procedure improved the results of the present study and was also reported in the studies of Pereira et al. (2014) and Lourel et al. (2005). Relying on this background, it is possible to interpret that the lack of independence of the errors of these items could indicate the existence of common factors not specified by the model.
The reliability levels of the instrument were acceptable and optimal in this study. This is consistent with previous validations in other populations (Lourel et al., 2005; Marais et al., 2009; Moreno-Jiménez et al., 2009; Pereira et al., 2014; Romeo et al., 2014; Shimada et al., 2018; Ispas and Iliescu, 2019). The results improve with estimation using the omega coefficient, which is to be expected considering that Cronbach’s alpha is affected by the presence of uncorrected correlated errors (Viladrich et al., 2017).
The relationships between the results of the SWING scale and the burnout and engagement scales were mostly significant and consistent with other studies. Thus, burnout variables were positively associated with negative interactions either W-F or F-W, and negatively associated with positive interactions, coinciding with results from, among others, Chernyak-Hai and Tziner (2016), Dyrbye et al. (2011), Rhnima et al. (2016), Robinson et al. (2016), and Smith et al. (2019). For their part, engagement dimensions correlated positively with positive W-F and F-W interactions, and negatively with negative interactions; similar results were reported by Łaba and Geldenhuys (2018), Queirós et al. (2016), and Rothmann and Baumann (2014). However, the positive relationship between the results of the Negative W-F Interaction subscale and the scores obtained in absorption is striking since negative W-F interaction would be expected to hinder absorption at work, the role of absorption in this context should be further investigated.
Nevertheless, this study has some limitations that should be considered in future studies. On the one hand, the sample was non-probabilistic and it consisted mainly of women, which could have affected the measurement of some variables. Considering that there are contradictory antecedents in the Argentine population, it would be very important that further studies could analyze the stability of the psychometric properties of the SWING.
Since work-family relationships are crucial variables for individual, family, and organizational wellbeing, especially considering the changes generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hoped that the validation of this instrument will contribute to and encourage the study of these and other related phenomena. Providing a reliable tool for professional practice in their diagnostic and health promotion processes. Having an instrument adequately adapted to the population of Argentine workers facilitates the development of studies aimed at evaluating the role of W-F or F-W interactions and their implications for health and productivity. On the other hand, the present work has practical implications since it provides a useful input for the identification of workers with W-F /F-W conflict and for the evaluation of interventions aimed at promoting a healthier work-life balance.
Funding
The authors declare that this study received funding from Santander Bank. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
ELC, EC, and LAM contributed to conception and design of the study. ELC and LL organized the database and performed the statistical analysis. ELC wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EC, LL, LSM, and LAM wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
Chernyak-HaiL.TzinerA. (2016). The “I believe” and the “I invest” of work-family balance: The indirect influences of personal values and work engagement via perceived organizational climate and workplace burnout. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones32, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.rpto.2015.11.004
2
ChoG.HwangH.SarstedtM.RingleC. M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis. J. Mark. Analyt.8, 189–202. doi: 10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1
3
DiRenzoM. S.GreenhausJ. H.WeerC. H. (2011). Work interference with family and family interference with work scale [data base record]. APA Psyc. Tests. doi: 10.1037/t10318-000
4
DolcosS. M.DaleyD. (2009). Work-family conflict scale [data base record]. APA Psyc. Tests. doi: 10.1037/t01666-000
5
DyrbyeL. N.ShanafeltT. D.BalchC. M.SateleD.SloanJ.FreischlagJ. (2011). Relationship between work-home conflicts and burnout among American surgeons: A comparison by sex. Arch. Surg.146, 211–217. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.310
6
FroneM. R. (2000). Work-family conflict scale [data base record]. APA Psyc. Tests. doi: 10.1037/t08858-000
7
GabiniS. (2017). Interacción trabajo-familia: Adaptación y validación de un instrumento para medirla. Revista da UIIPS5, 24–32.
8
GeorgeD.MalleryM. (2003). SPSS for Windows Step By Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Updated. 4thEdn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9
GeurtsS. A.TarisT. W.KompierM. A.DikkersJ. S.Van HooffM. L.KinnunenU. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work Stress19, 319–339. doi: 10.1080/02678370500410208
10
HayesA. F.CouttsJ. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun. Methods Meas.14, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
11
HoweL. C.MengesJ. I. (2020). Mind sets about remote work predict employee well-being in home office: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic.Microsoft.
12
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J.6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
13
IBM Corporation (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (version 25.0). [Software]. Armonk, New York: IBM.
14
International Association of Applied Psychology and International Union of Psychological Science (IAAP and IUPsyS) (2008). Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. Berlin: IUPsyS.
15
IspasS. A.IliescuD. (2019). The Romanian adaptation of the survey work-home interaction, NijmeGen. Eval. Health Prof.42, 196–218. doi: 10.1177/0163278718791303
16
JacobsenD. I.FjeldbraatenE. M. (2018). Shift work and sickness absence-the mediating roles of work-home conflict and perceived health. Hum. Resour. Manage.57, 1145–1157. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21894
17
Jordan-MuiñosF. M. (2021). Valor de corte de los índices de ajuste en el análisis factorial confirmatorio. Psocial7, 66–71.
18
KalkbrennerM. T. (2021). Alpha, omega, and H internal consistency reliability estimates: reviewing These options and when to use them. Counsel. Outcome Res. Eval.1–12. doi: 10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118
19
KellowayE. K.GottliebB. H.BarhamL. (1999). Work and family conflict scale [data base record]. APA Psyc. Tests. doi: 10.1037/t02979-000
20
KopelmanR. E.GreenhausJ. H.ConnollyT. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and inter role conflict: A construct validation study. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform.32, 198–215. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2
21
ŁabaK.GeldenhuysM. (2018). Positive interaction between work and home, and psychological availability on women’s work engagement: A ‘shortitudinal’ study. S A J. Industr. Psychol.44, 1–11. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v44i0.1538
22
Lloret-SeguraS.Ferreres-TraverA.Hernández-BaezaA.Tomás-MarcoI. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Ann. Psychol.30, 1151–1169. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
23
LordD.QinX.GeedipallyS. R. (2021). Highway Safety Analytics and Modeling. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24
LourelM.GanaK.WawrzyniakS. (2005). Home-work interaction: a French adaptation and validation of “survey work-home interaction-Nijmegen” (SWING). Psychologie Du Travailet dês Organisations11, 227–239. doi: 10.1016/j.pto.2005.10.003
25
MaraisC.MostertK.GeurtsS.TarisT. (2009). The psychometric properties of a translated version of the survey work-home interaction-Nijmegen (SWING) instrument. S. Afr. J. Psychol.39, 202–219. doi: 10.1177/008124630903900206
26
MeijmanT. F.MulderG. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. in Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2nd Edn. eds. DrenthP. J. D.ThierryH.de WolffC. J. (Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis), 5–33.
27
Moreno-JiménezB.Sanz-VergelA. I.Rodríguez-MuñozA.GeurtsS. (2009). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española del Cuestionario de Interacción Trabajo-Familia (SWING). Psicothema21, 331–337.
28
Muthén and Muthén (2019). Mplus Program (Version 8.3). [Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
29
NetemeyerR. G.BolesJ. S.Mc MurrianR. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol.81, 400–410. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
30
Organización Panamericana de la Salud and Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (OPS and CIOMS). (2017). Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación relacionada con la salud con seres humanos. Ginebra: CIOMS.
31
OviedoH. C.Campo-AriasA. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista colombiana de psiquiatría34, 572–580.
32
PereiraA. M.QueirósC.GonçalvesS. P.CarlottoM.BorgesE. (2014). Burnout e interação trabalho-família em enfermeiros: Estudo exploratório como Survey Work-Home Interaction Nijmegen (SWING). Revista Portuguesa de Enfermagem de Saúde Mental11, 24–30.
33
ProfillidisV. A.BotzorisG. N. (2018). Modeling of Transport Demand: Analyzing, Calculating, and Forecasting Transport Demand. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34
QueirósC.PereiraA. M.MonteiroP.CameiraM. (2016). “Work-home interaction as predictor of engagement among family health units.” in: Work Presented in 25° Epidemiology in Occupational Health Conference. September 5-8, Barcelona, España.
35
RhnimaA.RichardP.NúñezJ. F.PousaC. E. (2016). El conflicto trabajo-familia como factor de riesgo y el apoyo social Del supervisor como factor protector Del agotamiento profesional. CIENCIA ergo-sum, Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria de Prospectiva23, 205–218.
36
RobinsonL. D.MageeC.CaputiP. (2016). Burnout and the work-family interface: A two-wave study of sole and partnered working mothers. Career Dev. Int.21, 31–44. doi: 10.1108/cdi-06-2015-0085
37
RomeoM.BergerR.Yepes-BaldóM.RamosB. (2014). Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the “survey work-home interaction–NijmeGen” (SWING) to Spanish speaking countries. Anales de Psicología30, 287–293. doi: 10.6018/analesps.30.1.148291
38
RothmannS.BaumannC. (2014). Employee engagement: The effects of work-home/home-work interaction and psychological conditions. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci.17, 515–530. doi: 10.4102/sajems.v17i4.419
39
SchaufeliW.LeiterM.MaslachC.JacksonS. (1996). “Maslach burnout inventory-general survey,” in the Maslach Burnout Inventory-test Manual. 3rdEdn. eds. MaslachC.JacksonS.LeiterM. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press).
40
SerenkoA.SatoO.PalviaP. C.TuranA. H.SasakiH. (2017). The effect of work-home conflict on IT Employees in Japan: The Moderating role of Conscientiousness. Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston.
41
ShimadaK.ShimazuA.BakkerA. B.DemeroutiE.KawakamiN. (2010). Work-family spillover among Japanese dual-earner couples: a large community-based study. J. Occup. Health52, 335–343. doi: 10.1539/joh.l9130
42
ShimadaK.ShimazuA.GeurtsS. A.KawakamiN. (2018). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the survey work-home interaction-NijmeGen, the SWING (SWING-J). Community Work Fam.22, 267–283. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2018.1471588
43
SideridisG. D.JaffariF. (2021). An R function to correct fit indices and omnibus tests in confirmatory factor analysis. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev.55, 48–70. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2021.1906159
44
SmithT. D.DeJoyD. M.DyalM. A.HuangG. (2019). Impact of work pressure, work stress and work-family conflict on fire fighter burnout. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health74, 215–222. doi: 10.1080/19338244.2017.1395789
45
SpontónC.MedranoL. A.MaffeiL.SpontónM.CastellanoE. (2012). Validación del cuestionario de Engagement UWES a la población de trabajadores de Córdoba, Argentina. Liberabit18, 147–154.
46
SpontónC.TrógoloM.CastellanoE.MedranoL. A. (2019). Medición del burnout: Estructura factorial, validez y confiabilidad en trabajadores argentinos. Interdisciplinaria Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines36, 87–103. doi: 10.16888/interd.2019.36.1.7
47
Ventura-LeónJ.Caycho-RodríguezT.Barboza-PalominoM. (2020). ¿Cuántos participantes son necesarios? Un método para estimar el tamaño muestral en SEM. Arch. Argent. Pediatr.118, 510–513.
48
Vesga-RodríguezJ. J. (2019). La interacción trabajo-familia en el contexto actual del mundo del trabajo. Equidad y Desarrollo1, 121–135. doi: 10.19052/eq.vol1.iss33.7
49
ViladrichC.Angulo-BrunetA.DovalE. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología/Ann. Psychol.33, 755–782. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
Summary
Keywords
reliability, validity, wellbeing, work–family relationship, organizational psychology
Citation
Colasanti EL, Castellano E, Lapuente L, Moretti LS and Medrano LA (2022) Psychometric properties of the survey work-home interaction nijmegen in Argentinian population. Front. Psychol. 13:876025. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.876025
Received
16 February 2022
Accepted
27 June 2022
Published
18 July 2022
Volume
13 - 2022
Edited by
Sai-fu Fung, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Reviewed by
Pierluigi Diotaiuti, University of Cassino, Italy; Marcos Fernandes, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Brazil
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Colasanti, Castellano, Lapuente, Moretti and Medrano.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Elena Lucía Colasanti, colasanti.el@gmail.com
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.