Review: Validity of Work-Life Balance Assessment
Research provides
various constructs of evaluating work-life balance (WLB). Regarding such assessments it is imperative
to consider the validity of the testing.
A particular case recorded in the article, Satisfaction with work-family balance among German office workers (2010),
examined the concept of WLB. The test
was qualitative and multifaceted, measuring satisfaction with work-family
balance, organizational time expectations, psychological job demands, job
insecurity, negative work-to-home interference, job control, social support at
work, and controls. Researchers utilized
a Likert scale to evaluate each factor.
In addition, the assessment of each component is seemingly appropriate and
comprehensive as they relate to the overall concept. Hence, the degree of accuracy in relation to
the process, technique, and tools utilized to determine the theory in question
supports the validity of the study (Russ-Eft & Preskill, 2009).
The first factor, satisfaction
with work-family balance, was measured using three items: (1) “How satisfied or
dissatisfied are you with the way you divide your time between work and
personal life?”, (2) "How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your
ability to meet the needs of your job with those of your personal or family
life?", and (3) "How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the
opportunity you have to perform your job well and yet be able to perform
home-related duties adequately?" (Beham & Drobnic, 2010, p.677). The range of responses went from 1, very
dissatisfied, to 5, very satisfied. The
next element, organizational time expectations, evaluated worker’s views of the
company’s time requirements. This was
measured from 1 – 5, strongly disagree to strongly agree. Third, psychological job demands were examined
using five items from the Swedish Demand-Control-Support
Questionnaire (DCSQ). The scale
employed ranged from 1 – 4, never to always.
Then, job insecurity was tested by examining four items measured from 1
– 5, strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The fifth component, negative work-to-home interference, employed three
items from
the SWING Work-Home Interaction Survey Nijmegen. Responses ranged from 1 – 4, never to
always. Sixth, job control was
assessed employing two items from the DCSQ.
Responses
ranged from 1 – 4, never to always.
The next factor, social support at work, addressed five items of the
DCSQ and rated responses from 1 – 5, strongly disagree to strongly agree. The last component, controls, considered the
variables associated with the study; sex, age, organizational tenure, number of
children, supervisor status, and type of organization. Also, it should be noted, 716 online
questionnaires were collected via email from the HR departments of 2
organizations, a financial service and an information technology company, both
in Germany (Beham & Drobnic, 2010).
Although
the method of testing was deemed suitable, researchers provided a listing of
limitations associated with the study as well.
Such issues included the fact that cross-sectional non-experimental
designs fail to account for causal conclusions.
Results are often considered vague in these instances. Therefore, the authors recommend experimental
research designs and longitudinal studies in forthcoming studies. Additionally, the fields of work selected,
financial service and an information technology, limit potential outcomes. Future studies should include individuals
from a larger sample of occupational backgrounds. Another limitation affecting the validity of
the research involves the reliance of participant feedback. Individuals may refrain from correctly
answering items. Participants must
respond openly and honestly concerning their occupational and leisure
experiences inclusive of their opinions, beliefs, and emotions associated
therein.
References
Beham, B. & Drobnic, S. (2010).
Satisfaction with work-family balance among German office
workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(6),
669-689.
Russ-Eft, D. & Preskill, H.
(2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach
to enhancing
learning, performance, and change (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
