Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:55:50.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of the Four-Dimensional Connectedness Scale in a Multisample Volunteer Study: A Distinct Construct from Work Engagement and Organisational Commitment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jasmine Y. Huynh,
Jacques C. Metzer and
Anthony H. Winefield
Jasmine Y. Huynh*
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Psychological Research, School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Jacques C. Metzer
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Psychological Research, School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Anthony H. Winefield
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Psychological Research, School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
*
e-mail: huyny003@mymail.unisa.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the psychometric properties of a new self-report instrument to measure organisational connectedness (The Four-Dimensional Connectedness Scale; 4DCS) in two volunteer samples: state emergency service volunteers and volunteer ambulance workers. Confirmatory factor analyses in both studies supported the proposed four-factor structure of the 4DCS (other workers, recipients, task and values). In addition, confirmatory factor analyses showed that connectedness, commitment and engagement were separate constructs—a three-factor model with a Connectedness factor, a Commitment factor and an Engagement factor fitted best to the data. Moreover, hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that connectedness and engagement each shared unique variance with job satisfaction and intention to continue. The results confirm the factorial, discriminant and predictive validity of connectedness relative to engagement and commitment. It is concluded that the 4DCS has acceptable psychometric properties and that the instrument can be used to study volunteer wellbeing.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude examine les propriétés psychométriques d’un nouvel outil d’auto-évaluation afin de mesurer la connexité (Four-Dimensional Connectedness Scale; 4DCS) (Échelle de connexité en quatre dimensions) chez deux échantillons de bénévoles : ceux participant au service d’urgence d’état et les ambulanciers. Les analyses de facteur confirmatif dans les deux études ont validé la structure proposée selon les quatre facteurs du 4DCS (autres travailleurs, destinataires, tâche et valeurs). En outre, les analyses de facteur confirmatif ont mis en évidence que la connexité, l’engagement et l’implication étaient des concepts distincts - un modèle à trois facteurs avec un facteur de Connexité, un facteur d’Engagement et un facteur d’Implication ajustés au mieux aux données. Par ailleurs, les analyses de régression multiple de type hiérarchique ont révélé que la connexité et l’implication avaient chacune en commun une variation unique avec la satisfaction quant au travail et l’intention de poursuivre. Les résultats ont confirmé la validité factorielle, discriminante et prédictive de la connexité relativement à l’implication et à l’engagement. On en conclut que le 4DCS est doté de propriétés psychométriques acceptables et que l’outil peut être utilisé pour étudier le bien-être des bénévoles.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Studie untersucht anhand zweier Beispiele von ehrenamtlich Tätigen - den freiwilligen Helfern des staatlichen Notfalldienstes und den freiwilligen Ambulanzmitarbeitern - die psychometrischen Eigenschaften eines neuen Selbstberichts-Instruments zur Messung der Verbundenheit (die vierdimensionale Verbundenheitsskala, im Englischen: The Four-Dimensional Connectedness Scale; 4DCS). Konfirmatorische Faktorenanalysen unterstützten in beiden Fällen die Verwendung der vorgeschlagenen Vier-Faktoren-Struktur der vierdimensionalen Verbundenheitsskala (andere Mitarbeiter, Leistungsempfänger, Aufgabe und Werte). Weiterhin ergaben die konfirmatorischen Faktorenanalysen, dass Verbundenheit, Einsatz und Engagement separate Konstrukte darstellten - ein Drei-Faktoren-Modell mit einem Verbundenheitsfaktor, einem Einsatzfaktor und einem Engagementsfaktor entsprach den Daten am besten. Hierarchische multiple Regressionsanalysen zeigten zudem, dass Verbundenheit und Engagement beide jeweils individuelle Abweichungen erkennen ließen im Hinblick auf die Zufriedenheit mit der Arbeit und die Absicht, die Tätigkeit fortzuführen. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen die faktorielle, diskriminante und prädiktive Validität der Verbundenheit in Verbindung mit Engagement und Einsatz. Man kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die vierdimensionale Verbundenheitsskala geeignete psychometrische Eigenschaften aufweist und das Instrument zur Untersuchung des Wohlbefindens ehrenamtlich Tätiger eingesetzt werden kann.

Resumen

Resumen

Este estudio examina las propiedades psicométricas de un nuevo instrumento de auto-informe para medir la conectividad (La Escala de Conectividad de Cuatro Dimensiones; 4DCS) en dos ejemplos con voluntarios: voluntarios del servicio de urgencias estatal y trabajadores de ambulancia voluntarios. Los análisis factoriales confirmatorios en ambos estudios apoyaron la estructura propuesta de cuatro factores de la 4DCS (otros trabajadores, destinatarios, tarea y valores). Asimismo, los análisis factoriales confirmatorios mostraron que la conectividad, el compromiso y la implicación eran constructos separados – un modelo de tres factores con un factor de Conectividad, un factor de Compromiso y un factor de Implicación se ajustaba mejor a los datos. Asimismo, los análisis de regresión múltiple jerárquica revelaron que la conectividad y la implicación compartían cada uno de ellos una varianza exclusiva con la satisfacción del puesto de trabajo y la intención de continuar. Los resultados confirman la validez factorial, discriminante y predictiva de la conectividad en relación con la implicación y el compromiso. Se concluyó que la 4DCS tiene propiedades psicométricas aceptables y que el instrumento puede ser utilizado para estudiar el bienestar de los voluntarios.

摘要

摘要

本文以国家紧急救援志愿者和志愿流动救护工作者这两个志愿群体为例,讨论了一种用于测评志愿人员归属感(四维归属感测评尺度:4DCS)的新的自我报告测评工具的心理测评特性。在这两组研究中,验证性因素分析结果都支持所提出的 4DCS 的四因素结构(其他工作者、救援接受者、任务和价值)。另外,验证性因素分析结果还显示,归属感、承诺度和参与度这几个都是不同分析方向 – 由归属感因素、承诺度因素和参与度因素组成的三因素模型与数据结果最为相符。而且,多元层级回归分析结果显示,归属感和参与度这两项在工作满意度和继续参与意愿方面共同具有独特意义,均是重要的变量。这些结果确定了,相对于参与度和承诺度,归属感所具有的因素性的、判定性的和预测性的有效性。本文结论为:4DCS具有可以接受的心理测评属性,此测评工具可用于研究志愿人员的心理健康与福祉。

要約

要約

本研究では2つのボランティアのサンプルにおける連結性(四次元の連結性のスケール、4DCS)を測定して、新しい自己報告の計器として精神測定の特性を調査する。双方の研究における確認分析結果より、4DCS(他の労働者、受取人、タスク、値)で提案された4要素の構造が立証された。さらに確認要素分析から、連結性、責任、委任が別々の構造、つまりデータに最も当てはまる連結性の要素、責任の要素、委任の要素の3要素モデルであることが示された。さらに階層的な重回帰分析から、連結性と委任はそれぞれ任務で得られる満足感と継続性の意図においてユニークな変化を共有したことが明らかになった。結果として、委任と責任に比例して連結性の要因、識別性、予測的な妥当性が確認できた。4DCSには許容できる精神測定の特性があり、ボランティアの幸福を研究する計器として使用できることを結論づける。

ملخص

ملخص

هذه الدراسة تفحص الخصائص السيكومترية لتقرير الاداء الذاتي الجديد لقياس الترابط (مقياس الترابط رباعي الأبعاد؛ (DCS4)) في عينتين من المتطوعين، هما : متطوعين خدمة طوارئ الدولة والمتطوعين من رجال الإسعاف. دعمت تحليلات العامل المؤكد في كلا الدراستين هيكل الأربعة عوامل المقترح (DCS4) (العمال الآخرين، متلقين، المهمة والقيم). بالإضافة إلى ذلك ، أظهرت تحليلات العامل المؤكد أن الترابط ، الالتزام والمشاركة كانوا نظم منفصلة – نموذج العوامل الثلاثة مع عامل الترابط، ، عامل الالتزام و عامل المشاركة تناسبت أفضل للبيانات. علاوة على ذلك، كشفت تحاليل الإنحدار الهرمي المتعدد أن كل من الترابط والمشاركة شاركا تفاوت فريد من نوعه مع الرضا الوظيفي والنية للإستمرار. النتائج تؤكد سريان مفعول المضروب، والمعادلات متعددة الحدود و التنبؤية للترابط النسبي على المشاركة والالتزام. وإستنتجت أن(DCS4) له خصائص سيكومترية مقبولة والتي يمكن إستخدامها أداة لدراسة رفاهية المتطوعين.

Keywords

VolunteersOrganisational connectednessWork engagementOrganisational commitmentValidityConfirmatory factor analyses

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2012, pp. 1056 - 1082
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1996.0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 26–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341–356. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Battaglia, A. M., & Metzer, J. (2000). Older adults and volunteering: A symbiotic association. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 5, 5–9.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. E. (2008). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 159–172. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.10.1002/9781118619179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 244–257. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analyses issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. Psychology Today, 30, 46–51.Google Scholar
Dein, S., & Abbas, S. Q. (2005). The stresses of volunteering in a hospice: A qualitative study. Palliative Medicine, 19, 58–64. doi: 10.1191/0269216305pm969oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 974–983.Google Scholar
Edgley, R. K. (2000). Application of the Myer and Allen model of organisational commitment to volunteer organisations. Unpublished honours thesis, University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Erez, M., Borochov, O., & Mannheim, B. (1989). Work values of youth: Effects of sex role typing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 350–360. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(89)90025-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidron, B. (1983). Sources of job satisfaction among service volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 12, 20–35. doi: 10.1177/089976408301200105.Google Scholar
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119–127. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holye, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Huynh, J.-Y. (2007). Applying the job demands-resources model in volunteer populations. Unpublished honours thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Huynh, Y., & Metzer, J. (2008). The application of the job demands-resources model in predicting stress and satisfaction in volunteer populations: A literature review. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 13, 49–61.Google Scholar
Huynh, J.-Y., Metzer, J. C., & Winefield, A. H. (2011). Engaged or connected? A perspective of the motivational pathway of the job demands-resources model in volunteers working for nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9233-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 119–138. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.1.119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemasz, B. & Tuckey, M. (2007). Volunteer demands and resources as antecedent to burnout, engagement, and team effectiveness (pp. 161–165). In Dollard, M., Winefield, T., Tuckey, M., Winwood, P. (Eds.). Better work, better organizations, better world: Conference Proceedings 7th Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference/1st Asia Pacific Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Lewig, K. A., Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Dollard, M. F., & Metzer, J. C. (2007). Burnout and connectedness among Australian volunteers: A test of the Job Demands-Resources Model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 429–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378–391. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.3.378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, R. (2000). Volunteer retention and feelings of connection. E-volunteerism: The Electronic Journal of the Volunteer Community, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
MacCallum, R. C., Brown, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, W., Kontopantelis, E., Bower, P., Kennedy, A., Rogers, A., & Reeves, D. (2009). What makes a successful volunteer Expert Patients Programmed tutor? Factors predicting satisfaction, productivity and intention to continue tutoring of a new public health workforce in the United Kingdom. Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 128–134. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In Marcoulides, G. A. & Schumacker, R. E. (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modelling, issues and techniques (pp. 315–353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishes.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organisational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzer, J. C. (2003). Volunteering work stress and satisfaction at the turn of the 21st century. In Dollard, M. F., Winefield, A. H., & Winefield, H. R. (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 389–407). London: Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.1201/9780203422809.ch14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolynytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. doi: 10.2307/3069391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, R. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 114–128.Google Scholar
Musick, M. A., Herzog, R., & House, J. S. (1999). Volunteering and mortality among older adults: Findings from a national sample. The Journal of Gerontology, 54, 173–180.10.1093/geronb/54B.3.S173CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pell, A. R. (1972). Recruiting, training and motivating volunteer workers. New York: Pilot Books.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 555–574. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, M. (2000). Comparison of job strain and job satisfaction between volunteer and paid staff in nursing homes. Unpublished honours thesis, University of South Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
Ross, M. W., Greenfield, S. A., & Bennett, L. (1999). Predictors of dropout and burnout in AIDS volunteers: A longitudinal study. AIDS Care, 11, 723–731. doi: 10.1080/09540129947631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruse, D. (2006). Employee fringe benefits, positive organisational behaviours and turnover intentions. Unpublished honours thesis, University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). UWES Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Preliminary Manual [Version 1, November 2003]. Utrecht University: Occupational Health Psychology Unit.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006a). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In Gilliland, S. W., Steiner, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (Volume 5): Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmatory analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006b). Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In Burke, R. J. (Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addition (pp. 193–220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behaviour. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 3–43.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Taris, T. W., Bok, I. A., & Meijer, Z. Y. (1998). Assessing stability and change of psychometric properties of multi-item concepts across different situations: A general approach. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 301–316. doi: 10.1080/00223989809599169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, A. M., & Bono, B. A. (1993). Work without wages: The motivation for volunteer firefighters. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52, 323–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1993.tb02553.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/BF02291170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utz, R. L., Carr, D., Nesse, R., & Wortmann, C. B. (2002). The effect of widowhood on older adults’ social participation: An evaluation of activity, disengagement and continuity theories. The Gerontologist, 42, 522–533. doi: 10.1093/geront/42.4.522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Seydel, E. R. (2008). Commitment with or without a stick of paid work: Comparison of paid and unpaid workers in a nonprofit organization. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 17, 315–326. doi: 10.1080/13594320701693175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar