A Comparison of Frequency- and Agreement-Based Response Formats in the Measurement of Burnout and Engagement

Jiajin Tong, Robert M. Bickmeier and Steven G. Rogelberg
Additional contact information
Jiajin Tong: School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Robert M. Bickmeier: Organizational Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
Steven G. Rogelberg: Organizational Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 2, 1-15

Abstract: The present research compares and contrasts frequency versus agreement response formats, two approaches to measuring job burnout and work engagement. Construct-based and measurement-based arguments for the superiority of the frequency response format in measuring burnout/engagement are provided, demonstrating that frequency-based measurements will explain relatively more variance in outcome variables. Fair comparison, time order counterbalance, and multiple measuring waves justify the comparison and reduce common method errors of self-report measures. Sample 1 ( N = 242) was composed of employees from multiple organizations, while the participants in Sample 2 ( N = 281) were employees from one company. Relative importance analysis showed that frequency outperforms the agreement response format in measuring burnout and engagement in both samples. These findings suggest that the frequency response format provides a more valuable method of detecting the dynamic nature of burnout/engagement, which offers methodological guidance for future research involving dynamic constructs. These findings can lead to improvements in the measurement of the dynamic experiences of burnout and engagement. This is one of the first studies to provide evidence whether the dynamic nature of the constructs would have any bearing on the response formats.

Keywords: burnout; engagement; frequency response format; agreement response format; usefulness analysis; relative importance analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/543/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/2/543/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:543-:d:308836

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().