Work Experience Measurement Scale (2023)

Area of Assessment

Quality of Life

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Cost Description

The questionnaires may not be changed in content or design but can be used in combination with other questions or questionnaires. Any other use or copying is not permitted. After completing the study, we are grateful to receive a copy (digital or hard copy) of the report, article or other presentation of results, where one or both questionnaires have been used. This allows us to create a better theoretical and practical knowledgebase over the two instruments. They can be sent to;
Email address: shis-wems@hkr.se
Postal mail can be sent to any of us below in the following
Mailing address: School of Health and Society, Kristianstad University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden

• 32-item 6-point Likert scale assessing 6 indices of work experiences
  -Management (MT), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
  -Reorganization (RO), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
  -Internal work experience (IW), 6 questions, score ranges 6-36
  -Pressure of time (PT), 3 questions, score ranges 3-18
  -Autonomy (AY), 4 question, score ranges 4-24
  -Supportive working conditions (SW), 7 questions, score ranges 7-42
• Each question is worth a maximum of 6 points, with “Totally agree” yielding 6 points and “Totally disagree” yielding 1 point.
• Total score ranges from 32 – 192 points. High scores indicate a positive experience and/or perception of work.
• It is possible to standardize the index values for the WEMS. A standardization makes the results easier to understand and compare. The standardization is done so that all index values varies between 0 and 100% regardless of their initial range of variation. The standardized index value is calculated as follows: 100 x (index value - minimum of theoretical value) / (maximum - minimum).

Number of Items

32

• Copy of assessment

Required Training

No Training

ICF Domain

Participation
Activity

Measurement Domain

Participation & Activities

Hospital Employees: (Nillson et al., 2010; n = 95)

• Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.36-0.71)

Hospital Employees

• Excellent internal consistency for indices MT, RO, IW, AY, and SW (Cronbach’s α = 0.80-0.89) (Nillson et al., 2010; n= 345-433)
• Adequate internal consistency for index PT (Cronbach’s α = 0.71) (Nillson et al., 2010; n = 425)
• Excellent internal consistent for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.85-0.96) (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 505)
• Excellent internal consistency for WEMS total (Cronbach’s α = 0.93) (Andruškienė et al., 2015; n = 714)

Convergent Validity

Hospital Employees

• Adequate correlation between indices IW (r = 0.32) and PT (0.32) with self-rated health (Nillson et al., 2010; n=425-431)
• Poor correlation between indices MT (r = 0.22), RO (0.10), AY (0.17), and SW (0.13) with self-rated health (Nillson et al., 2010; n=345-433)
• Adequate correlation between index IW (r = 0.39) with self-rated quality of life (Nillson et al., 2010; n=431)
• Poor correlation between indices MT (r = 0.18), RO (0.18), PT (0.28), AY (0.18), and SW (0.06) with self-rated quality of life (Nillson et al., 2010; n=345-433)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.56) and UWE-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
• Excellent correlation between index IW (r = 0.61) with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 432-491)
• Adequate correlation between indices SW (r = 0.48), AY (0.34), MT (0.35), and RO (0.36) with the UWE-9 (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 421-490)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.51) and SHIS (r = 0.51) (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
• Adequate correlation between all indices (r = 0.30-0.43) and Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 421-491)
• Adequate correlation between well-being (r = 0.31) and quality of life (0.32) with WEMS total score (Nillson et al., 2013; n = 405-453)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.59) and SHIS (Andruškienė et al., 2015; n = 714)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total care (r = 0.48) and SHIS (Piekutė et al., 2016; n = 386)

Teachers: (Nilson et al., 2017; n = 39)

• Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.39-0.80)

Municipality Employees: (Törnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 33)

• Poor to acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.60)

Dental Employees: (Linkmark et al., 2018; n = 301)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95)

School Employees: (Andruškienė et al., 2015; n = 334)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.94)

Teachers: (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 338)

• Excellent internal consistency for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.80-0.90)

Municipality Employees: (Törnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 444-478)

• Excellent internal consistency for all indices (Cronbach’s α = 0.85-0.92)

Convergent Validity

Dental Employees: (Linkmark et al., 2018; n = 301)

• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score and Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (r = 0.43)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score and SHIS (r = 0.45)

Teachers

• Excellent correlation between index PT (r = 0.62) and Work-Life Balance (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 327-331)
• Adequate correlation between index AY (r = 0.47), SW (0.41), IW (0.35), and MT (0.31) with Work-Life Balance (Nillson et al., 2017; n = 327-331)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.44) and accuracy of selecting the learning method (Ria et al., 2018; n = 129)
• Adequate correlation between WEMS total score (r = 0.54) and Work-Life Questionnaire (Ria et al., 2018; n = 129)

Municipality Employees: (Törnquist Agosti et al., 2017; n = 444-478)

• Adequate correlation between index SW with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.47), SHIS (0.41), quality of life (0.39), recovery (0.40), well-being (0.32), self-esteem and optimism (0.39), and living situation (0.43)
• Adequate correlation between index IW with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.48), SHIS (0.45), quality of life (0.44), recovery (0.43), well-being (.35), self-esteem and optimism (0.41), and living situation (0.48)
• Adequate correlation between index AY with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.34), quality of life (0.32), and living situation (0.30)
• Adequate correlation between index PT with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.44), and recovery (0.38)
• Adequate correlation between index MT with Work-Life Balance (r = 0.30), and living situation (0.30)

“The broad theoretical base of the WEMS, in addition to discussions on its theoretical content among researchers in the work field, gives the WEMS credibility and contributes to content validity. When the content of the WEMS was compared to the content of similar instruments (e.g. Health and Work Questionnaire, Quality Work Competence Instrument, Job Diagnostic Survey), as an indication of content validity, its theoretical content was in conformity with and suggested a clear relation to that of other instruments.” (Nillson et al., 2010)

“The study can be considered to have high content validity, also due to the evaluation by subject matter experts of whether the questions were essential and useful, i.e. covered all aspects of the theoretical definition of each concept.” (Ejlertsson et al., 2018)