Complementary variable- and person-centred approaches to the dimensionality of work engagement: a longitudinal investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study illustrates complementary variable- and person-centred approaches to the investigation of the underlying dimensionality of the work engagement construct. A sample of 730 participants completed a questionnaire twice across a four-month period. The results showed that employees’ ratings of their work engagement simultaneously reflected a global overarching work engagement construct, which co-existed with three specific dimensions (vigour, dedication, and absorption). Relying on factor scores from this initial measurement model, the present study examined latent profiles of employees defined based on their global (work engagement) and specific (vigour, dedication, and absorption) levels of work engagement. The results revealed five distinct work engagement profiles, which proved to be fully identical, and highly stable, across the two time points. These profiles characterized disengaged-vigorous, normative, totally disengaged, vigorously absorbed, and engaged yet distanced employees. These profiles were also showed to be meaningfully related to employees’ levels of stress, intentions to leave the organization, health, and job satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".