Work engagement scale: Validating the Japanese UWES-9 standard through an automotive industry sample

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) is widely used as a psychometric assessment scale to measure work engagement by relative evaluation. Determining standard values for absolute evaluation would make it more useful. The merit of absolute evaluation is that it can offer an objective evaluation to personnel members regardless of their status in the organization.

OBJECTIVE:

This study examines the criteria for absolute evaluation of the Japanese version of UWES-9 and creates a database for the evaluation of work engagement.

METHODS:

To examine the evaluation criteria for the total points of UWES-9 for 417 automotive industry workers, responses were validated via a one-way analysis of variance and receiver-operating characteristic analysis, using the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” in the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire with similar work engagement concepts.

RESULTS:

In both scales, the ability to predict was at its highest when divided into the high work engagement group (wherein the total points of UWES-9 are 21 points and above).

CONCLUSIONS:

In the relative evaluation, 24 points from the average of the total points of UWES-9 is the standard. In the absolute evaluation, the lower standard around 21 points is probable.

Keywords

UWES worthwhileness of work level of job satisfaction evaluation criterion

1 Introduction

Work engagement refers to the state of having pride in, devoting energy for, and obtaining satisfaction from your work. Work engagement is a significant factor for positive mental health and a notable theme in organizational planning [1 –4]. Positive emotions help reduce stress and can predict mental health and physical well-being. Furthermore, by expanding the range of thoughts and actions, it is possible to predict organizational behavior and job performance [5 –8]. Job and personal resources are determinants of work engagement. Job resources are physical, social, and organizational factors that lower stress and decrease physical and mental disorders caused by stressors. They encourage goal achievement and the growth and development of personnel [9 –15]. Personal resources are mental resources within a member of personnel, including coping skills in different situations, feelings of self-efficacy, self-respect within the organization, optimism, and resilience, among others [5, 16]. Factors within “job resources” and “personal resources” correlate symbiotically and raise work engagement [17].

The three measurement scales of work engagement are the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) [18 –20], and Schaufeli et al. developed Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) [2]. MBI-GS and OLBI— from the standpoint that work engagement is a polar opposite of the negative emotion that is burnout— evaluated work engagement as high when the points of the burnout scale are low [18 –24]. UWES directly measures positive emotions related to work engagement on the basis of “vigor,” “dedication,” and “absorption.” It is a widely used work engagement measurement scale standardized in various countries. UWES-9 is the short version with the most distinctive items selected. Shimazu translated the Japanese version, and its satisfactory reliability and validity were confirmed [25]. UWES grasps the condition by relative evaluation that is based on the average value of the survey group [26]. Currently, in terms of absolute evaluation, a standard value that shows the status level does not exist. If a point is set as an evaluation criterion, an absolute evaluation at an individual level is possible through UWES. If absolute evaluation is possible, the usefulness of UWES will increase. The merit of absolute evaluation is that it can offer an objective evaluation to a member of personnel regardless of the status level in the organization. Numerical goals that employees should achieve can be clarified. It is possible to promote the improvement of work engagement while considering personnel skills and careers and adjusting to the work environment wherein the employee is situated. As for MBI-GS and OLBI, relative evaluation using percentile cutoff is the mainstream, but there is a movement to use absolute evaluation [27 –30]. However, the clinical validity of the standard in Japan has yet to be fully verified.

In conducting stress checks based on the law, it is necessary to include three areas—main factors of stress, stress responses, and main factors of relief—in the questionnaire. Although not stipulated by law, it is recommended to use the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) [31]. It includes headings related to “job resources” and “personal resources,” which are primary factors in raising work engagement [9–13 , 33]. Some question headings, such as content related to the “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction,” are closely related to work engagement [25 , 34–40]. Work engagement encompasses the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction.” The validity of this was examined and confirmed. “Worthwhileness of work” is defined as “work motivation” by the International Economy & Work Research Institute [41], stating that motivation toward work is not extrinsically created from the main factors of the environment or conditions but intrinsically developed from the work itself. When a member of personnel firmly believes that his/her work has great societal meaning, he/she can tackle it by feeling its worthwhileness [42]. A movement exists to define work engagement as “worthwhileness of work” and to formally propose how companies should manage employment and develop human resources [43, 44]. A fixed evaluation of its validity as a scale is believed possible from the similarity with the composition of the concept of work engagement. The definition of job satisfaction is “a happy or positive feeling created as a result of evaluating one’s own work” [45]. In relation to work engagement, it indicates the emotions or awareness of a member of personnel when performing work. The level of job satisfaction indicates the emotions or awareness regarding or toward work. The level of job satisfaction emphasizes cognitive factors [46]. Therefore, work engagement has higher activity levels than job satisfaction level does, but both scales recognize positive attitude and awareness toward work as affirmative factors. Given their similarities, a fixed evaluation of their validity as scales is possible [34]. BJSQ evaluates “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” on a four-point scale, and their satisfactory reliability and validity were confirmed [31, 47]. Comparisons using these scales, which are similar in makeup to the concept of work engagement, clarify the criteria for absolute evaluation of UWES-9.

In this study, the evaluation criteria for UWES-9 using the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” were examined. Furthermore, a database for effective evaluation of work engagement was created. Using the Japanese version of BJSQ, workers from an automotive engineering company were targeted, and their responses on the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” were compared. The target is limited to the automobile industry and is unaffected by other occupational factors. The automobile industry occupies a position as an important industry that supports the Japanese economy. The pilot study for the Japanese automobile industry will contribute to the development of evaluation methods for the work engagement of Japanese workers.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Survey methods

This is a pilot study of workers in a single automotive engineering facility; the automotive industry is an important industry that supports the Japanese economy. A total of 487 employees (360 men [73.9% ] and 127 women [26.1% ]) who worked in the Japanese manufacturing industry (developing and selling automobile-related parts) became survey targets. Questionnaires and consent forms for study were recovered from all survey targets (100% recovery rate). Among the survey targets, 420 employees (317 men [75.5%] and 103 women [24.5% ]) signed an agreement allowing the use of the contents of the responses to the questionnaire in the study. Among them, the results from the valid responses of 417 employees (317 men [76.0%] and 100 women [24.0% ]) who had no deficiencies in their answers and had been able to answer all question items were analyzed. The survey was carried out from October to November 2017 through the Internet or paper questionnaires. All the participants provided their gender, age, and job position. The survey used the Japanese versions of BJSQ and UWES-9. BJSQ comprises 57 items on a four-point scale and four factors, namely, main factors of stress (nine scales/17 items); stress responses (six scales/29 items); main factors of relief (three scales/nine items); and level of satisfaction (two scales/two items), that is, 20 scales in all [47]. “Worthwhileness of work” is included in the main factors of stress. “Level of job satisfaction” is included in “level of satisfaction.” Because this is a pilot study, it is necessary to understand the state of occupational stress in the group under study and collate it with the average value among Japanese workers. Therefore, all 57 items included in BJSQ were used in the survey. The method of selecting employees with high stress, as stated in the Manual for Carrying Out Stress Checks [31], has an ordinal scale with four points, with 4 indicating high stress and 1 indicating low stress for each question item. The higher the point total, the less healthy the state of the employee. Employees who had 77 points or more in the “stress responses” (29 items) category or who had a total of 76 points or more in the “main factors of stress” (17 items) and “main factors of relief” (9 items) categories and had 63 points or more in the “stress responses” category were selected as high-stress employees. For “level of satisfaction,” the total points are not calculated or used for selection as high-stress employees. UWES-9 is a measurement scale for work engagement, made up of nine items on a seven-point scale and comprising three factors (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Each factor contains three items [26, 48]. The higher the points are, the better the state of the employee is. The total points (three items) of each factor (vigor, dedication, and absorption) ranged from 0 to 18 points. The total points (all nine items) of UWES-9 ranged from 0 to 54 points [48]. No cutoff point became the evaluation standard.

2.2 Method of analysis

The BJSQ and UWES survey data published based on previous studies are shown by gender, taking into account biological and sociological factors, and the analysis of this study should follow suit. In addition, because work environments and tasks differ for men and women at the target facility, the survey results of BJSQ and UWES-9 were compared by gender, and the criteria for the absolute evaluation of the Japanese version of UWES-9 were verified with respect to gender. In terms of basic attributes, a gender comparison was conducted through a t-test and chi-square test. BJSQ evaluated the total points for each question item on each scale. The total points for each were scored by gender comparison through a t-test. The number and percentage of employees selected as high-stress employees on the basis of the high-stress employee selection standards were evaluated by gender using the chi-square test. UWES-9 provided the total points of each question item. Gender t-test comparisons were conducted for each question item, along with the total points (three items) of each factor and the total points of UWES-9. Subsequently, the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction,” which are conceptually similar to the concept of work engagement from BJSQ, were selected. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was obtained between the following aspects: attributes and the total points of UWES-9, “worthwhileness of work,” and “level of job satisfaction.” The total points of UWES-9 and the total points (three items) of each factor, separate from the responses (“worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction”) were comparison-tested using a one-way analysis of variance. To determine the evaluation criterion for the total points of UWES-9, the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” were used as the state variable and the total points of UWES-9 as the independent variable for comparison. Next, a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted at every separation point in the range of 0 to 54 points in the total points of UWES-9. Next, the prediction ability was evaluated by comparing the areas under curves (AUC). The state variable scale was classified into two points with the four-point scale as the center. The “worthwhileness of work” scale was subdivided into “very much” and “moderately” for the “feels worthwhileness of work group” and “somewhat” and “not at all” for the “does not feel worthwhileness of work group.” The “level of job satisfaction” scale was subdivided as “satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” for the “satisfied group” and “somewhat dissatisfied” and “dissatisfied” for the “dissatisfied group.” IBM SPSS version 25 was used for the analysis, and the statistical significance was 5%.

2.3 Ethical consideration

Research subjects were informed that participation was voluntary and that answering questions was optional. There would be no repercussions on denying consent, survey results would not be shared with workplace personnel, and anonymity would be guaranteed when the research was made public. Authors received written consent from research subjects and from the research facilities they were affiliated with for research work. Furthermore, the survey was conducted after attaining approval from the Ethics Committee of Shubun University (Authorization Number 2017SR010).

3 Results

Table 1 presents the attributes of the analyzed subjects. The average age of all subjects was 37.7 years (SD: 10.7). In the age comparison by gender, men were significantly older than women (p < 0.01). In terms of job position, men in managerial positions significantly outnumbered women (p < 0.001).

Table 1
The attributes of the subjects of analysis

All (N = 417) Men (n = 317) Women (n = 100) p value

Age Years Mean 37.7 38.4 35.2 <0.01

Standard deviation 10.7 10.9 9.9

Median 36.8 37.4 34.4

Max 70 70 64

Mini 20 20 20

Number 20–29 years 105 69 36

30–39 years 155 121 34

40–49 years 101 81 20

50–59 years 33 25 8

60 years and above 23 21 2

Job position Number Department chief and above 48 47 1 <0.001

Middle management 108 94 14

General position 261 176 85

			All (N = 417)	Men (n = 317)	Women (n = 100)	p value
Age	Years	Mean	37.7	38.4	35.2	<0.01
		Standard deviation	10.7	10.9	9.9
		Median	36.8	37.4	34.4
		Max	70	70	64
		Mini	20	20	20
	Number	20–29 years	105	69	36
		30–39 years	155	121	34
		40–49 years	101	81	20
		50–59 years	33	25	8
		60 years and above	23	21	2
Job position	Number	Department chief and above	48	47	1	<0.001
		Middle management	108	94	14
		General position	261	176	85

t-test and chi-square test (3 groups).

Table 2 presents the summary of the survey results. The average of the total points of UWES-9 was 24.20 (SD: 11.85), and there were no gender distinctions between the points of each question item and the total points. The average point value on the “worthwhileness of work” scale was 2.30 points (SD: 0.88), and again, there were no gender distinctions. The average point value of the “level of job satisfaction” scale was 2.40 points (SD: 0.83), and no distinction was noted between the genders. As for BJSQ, among the “four scales of the main factors of stress,” “total points of main factors of stress,” and “one scale of the stress responses,” the points for men were significantly greater than those for women (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). Based on the high-stress employee selection standards, 49 employees were identified as high-stress employees. The high-stress employees constituted 11.8% of the whole; 12.9% were men, and 8% were women. For high-stress employee selection, there was no distinction between the genders (Table 3).

Table 2

Summary of the survey results

				All (N = 417)					Men (n = 317)					Women (n = 100)					p value
Questionnaire	Factor	Scale	Question item	Mean	Standard deviation	Median	Max	Mini	Mean	Standard deviation	Median	Max	Mini	Mean	Standard deviation	Median	Max	Mini
Brief Job Stress Questionnaire	Main factors of stress	Worth-whileness of work	My job is worth doing.	2.30	0.88	2.26	4.00	1.00	2.27	0.88	2.23	4.00	1.00	2.37	0.85	2.33	4.00	1.00	n.s.
	Level of satisfaction	Level of job satisfaction	I am satisfied with my job.	2.40	0.83	2.38	4.00	1.00	2.42	0.84	2.40	4.00	1.00	2.34	0.77	2.33	4.00	1.00	n.s.
Japanese version of UWES-9	Vigor	Vigor 1	At my work, I feel bursting with energy.	2.72	1.44	2.71	6.00	0.00	2.73	1.46	2.75	6.00	0.00	2.70	1.40	2.61	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Vigor 2	At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.	2.62	1.44	2.57	6.00	0.00	2.60	1.45	2.57	6.00	0.00	2.67	1.39	2.58	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Vigor 3	When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.	2.64	1.70	2.58	6.00	0.00	2.66	1.69	2.62	6.00	0.00	2.58	1.72	2.47	6.00	0.00	n.s.
			Total points (3 items)	7.98	4.16	8.03	18.00	0.00	7.99	4.18	8.12	18.00	0.00	7.95	4.13	7.68	18.00	0.00	n.s.
	Dedication	Dedication 1	I am enthusiastic about my job.	3.28	1.47	3.29	6.00	0.00	3.27	1.48	3.29	6.00	0.00	3.33	1.44	3.27	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Dedication 2	My job inspires me.	2.64	1.54	2.59	6.00	0.00	2.59	1.57	2.56	6.00	0.00	2.79	1.46	2.69	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Dedication 3	I am proud of the work I do.	2.74	1.55	2.75	6.00	0.00	2.82	1.53	2.87	6.00	0.00	2.49	1.58	2.39	6.00	0.00	n.s.
			Total points (3 items)	8.67	4.12	8.60	18.00	0.00	8.68	4.13	8.64	18.00	0.00	8.61	4.11	8.48	18.00	8.00	n.s.
	Absorption	Absorption 1	I feel happy when I am working intensely.	2.16	1.58	2.10	6.00	0.00	2.18	1.57	2.12	6.00	0.00	2.10	1.60	2.04	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Absorption 2	I am immersed in my work.	2.56	1.57	2.56	6.00	0.00	2.61	1.54	2.66	6.00	0.00	2.39	1.68	2.22	6.00	0.00	n.s.
		Absorption 3	When I am working, I forget everything else around me.	2.84	1.53	2.87	6.00	0.00	2.88	1.51	2.92	6.00	0.00	2.69	1.57	2.69	6.00	0.00	n.s.
			Total points (3 items)	7.56	4.22	7.60	18.00	0.00	7.68	4.17	7.81	18.00	0.00	7.18	4.37	6.91	18.00	0.00	n.s.
			Total points (9 items)	24.20	11.85	24.34	54.00	0.00	24.35	11.84	24.50	54.00	0.00	23.74	11.92	24.00	54.00	0.00	n.s.

t-test (n.s.: not significant).

Table 3

The number and percentage of employees selected as high-stress employees

		All (N = 417)	Men (n = 317)	Women (n = 100)	p value
Selected high-stress	High-stress	49 (11.8%)	41 (9.8%)	8 (1.9%)	n.s.
(number/%)	Non-stressed	368 (88.2%)	276 (66.2%)	92 (22.1%)

chi-square test (n.s.: not significant).

Table 4 presents the Pearson’s correlation coefficient obtained between the following aspects: attributes (age and job position) and the total points of UWES-9, “worthwhileness of work,” and “level of job satisfaction” by gender. “The total points of UWES-9” and attributes (age and job position) showed a weak correlation in men (p < 0.05 or p < 0.001). “Worthwhileness of work” and attributes (job position) showed a weak correlation for both men and women (p < 0.05 or p < 0.001). “Level of job satisfaction” and attributes (age and job position) were not correlated.

Table 4

Correlation between UWES-9 and similar scales and attributes

		Japanese version of UWES-9 total points (9 items)		Worthwhileness of work		Level of job satisfaction
		Correlation coefficient	p value	Correlation coefficient	p value	Correlation coefficient	p value
Age	All (N = 417)	0.123	<0.05	–0.012	n.s	–0.087	n.s
	Men (n = 317)	0.123	<0.05	0.004	n.s	–0.083	n.s
	Women (n = 100)	0.117	n.s	–0.042	n.s	–0.113	n.s
Job position	All (N = 417)	–0.218	<0.001	0.268	<0.001	0.062	n.s
	Men (n = 317)	–0.243	<0.001	0.281	<0.001	0.081	n.s
	Women (n = 100)	–0.123	n.s	0.209	<0.05	0.048	n.s

Rank Correlation coefficient (Pearson’s Significance Test n.s.: not significant).

Table 5 presents the results comparing UWES-9 as seen separately from the responses of “worthwhileness of work.” “The total points of UWES-9” and “the total points (three items) for each factor” for employees who felt their work was worthwhile were significantly higher in both men and women than they were for those who did not (p < 0.001). Table 6 presents the results comparing UWES-9 as seen separately from the responses of “level of job satisfaction.” “The total points of UWES-9” and “the total points (three items) regarding each factor” for employees who felt a “level of job satisfaction” were significantly higher in both men and women than they were for those who did not (p < 0.001).

Table 5

Total points of the UWES-9 related to the worthwhileness of work that are separate from the responses

		All (N = 417)				Men (n = 317)				Women (n = 100)
		Group that feels worthwhileness of work		Group that does not feel worthwhileness of work		p Value	Group that feels worthwhileness of work		Group that does not feel worthwhileness of work		p value	Group that feels worthwhileness of work		Group that does not feel worthwhileness of work		p value
		(n = 271)		(n = 146)			(n = 208)		(n = 109)			(n = 63)		(n = 37)
		Very much so	Moderately so	Some what	Not at all	Very much so	Moderately so	Some what	Not at all	Very much so	Moderately so	Some what	Not at all
	Number	69	202	99	47		57	151	74	35		12	51	25	12
Vigor total points (3 items)	Mean	12.26	8.64	5.74	3.55	<0.001	12.25	8.50	5.92	3.23	<0.001	12.33	9.08	5.20	4.50	<0.001
	Standard deviation	3.74	3.02	3.13	3.85		3.63	2.99	3.24	3.78		4.44	3.10	2.74	4.06
	Median	12.25	8.61	5.67	2.89		12.09	8.53	5.82	2.67		13.50	8.82	5.25	3.50
	Max	18.00	17.00	16.00	18.00		18.00	17.00	16.00	18.00		18.00	16.00	11.00	13.00
	Mini	0.00	2.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	2.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	3.00	0.00	0.00
Dedication total points (3 items)	Mean	12.87	9.36	6.22	4.66	<0.001	12.75	9.27	6.38	4.40	<0.001	13.42	9.63	5.76	5.42	<0.001
	Standard deviation	3.53	2.97	3.07	4.33		3.40	2.87	3.12	4.72		4.19	3.24	2.92	2.97
	Median	13.21	9.11	6.39	4.80		13.06	9.04	6.50	3.80		14.50	9.29	6.00	5.33
	Max	18.00	17.00	16.00	18.00		18.00	17.00	16.00	18.00		18.00	16.00	10.00	12.00
	Mini	0.00	3.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	3.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	3.00	0.00	1.00
Absorption total points (3 items)	Mean	11.72	8.07	5.32	3.94	<0.001	11.51	8.09	5.59	4.06	<0.001	12.75	8.02	4.52	3.58	<0.001
	Standard deviation	3.44	3.49	3.29	3.96		3.39	3.46	3.36	4.17		3.65	3.63	2.97	3.42
	Median	11.38	8.12	5.46	3.08		11.21	8.14	5.72	3.22		13.33	8.07	4.80	2.75
	Max	18.00	18.00	14.00	18.00		18.00	18.00	14.00	18.00		18.00	17.00	10.00	12.00
	Mini	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Japanese version of UWES-9 total points (9 items)	Mean	36.86	26.07	17.28	12.15	<0.001	36.51	25.85	17.89	11.69	<0.001	38.50	26.73	15.48	13.50	<0.001
	Standard deviation	9.94	8.71	8.59	11.28		9.63	8.62	8.87	11.79		11.63	9.04	7.56	10.00
	Median	36.00	25.56	17.76	11.00		35.80	25.50	18.00	11.00		41.50	25.67	16.67	11.00
	Max	54.00	52.00	46.00	54.00		54.00	52.00	46.00	54.00		54.00	48.00	27.00	37.00
	Mini	0.00	7.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	7.00	0.00	0.00		18.00	7.00	0.00	3.00

One-way analysis of variance.

Table 6

Total points of the UWES-9 related to the level of job satisfaction that are separate from the responses

		All (N = 417)				Men (n = 317)				Women (n = 100)
		Satisfied group		Dissatisfied group		p Value	Satisfied group		Dissatisfied group		p Value	Satisfied group		Dissatisfied group		p Value
		(n = 244)		(n = 173)			(n = 182)		(n = 135)			(n = 62)		(n = 38)
		Satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Dissatisfied		Satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Dissatisfied		Satisfied	Somewhat satisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Dissatisfied
	Number	49	195	130	43		38	144	99	36		11	51	31	7
Vigor total points (3 items)	Mean	12.90	8.67	6.47	3.81	<0.001	12.76	8.69	6.64	3.86	<0.001	13.36	8.61	5.94	3.57	<0.001
	Standard deviation	4.08	3.36	3.35	3.24		4.31	3.36	3.37	3.24		3.32	3.39	3.30	3.46
	Median	13.31	8.76	6.32	3.67		13.00	8.89	6.54	3.75		14.00	8.31	5.43	3.00
	Max	18.00	18.00	17.00	14.00		18.00	16.00	17.00	14.00		18.00	18.00	14.00	10.00
	Mini	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	1.00	0.00	0.00
Dedication total points (3 items)	Mean	12.92	9.29	7.05	5.88	<0.001	12.95	9.31	7.10	6.06	<0.001	12.82	9.25	6.87	5.00	<0.001
	Standard deviation	4.15	3.27	3.57	4.58		4.32	3.23	3.53	4.60		3.71	3.43	3.72	4.69
	Median	13.60	9.26	7.06	5.50		13.50	9.39	7.19	5.80		13.20	8.95	6.57	4.00
	Max	18.00	18.00	18.00	18.00		18.00	16.00	18.00	18.00		18.00	18.00	18.00	14.00
	Mini	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	3.00	0.00	0.00
Absorption total points (3 items)	Mean	11.98	8.07	6.09	4.60	<0.001	12.00	8.17	6.33	4.83	<0.001	11.91	7.80	5.32	3.43	<0.001
	Standard Deviation	4.21	3.47	3.61	4.56		4.39	3.35	3.47	4.72		3.70	3.80	3.98	3.69
	Median	12.08	8.35	6.14	3.30		11.92	8.52	6.38	3.56		12.67	7.64	5.14	2.33
	Max	18.00	17.00	18.00	16.00		18.00	15.00	18.00	16.00		18.00	17.00	17.00	11.00
	Mini	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		6.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Japanese version of UWES-9 total points (9 items)	Mean	37.80	26.03	19.61	14.30	<0.001	37.71	26.16	20.07	14.75	<0.001	38.09	25.67	18.13	12.00	<0.001
	Standard Deviation	11.96	9.32	9.87	11.36		12.52	9.20	9.79	11.46		10.33	9.74	10.14	11.43
	Median	38.33	25.96	19.00	12.80		38.00	26.83	19.14	14.00		41.00	25.00	18.00	10.00
	Max	54.00	52.00	52.00	45.00		54.00	47.00	52.00	45.00		54.00	52.00	49.00	35.00
	Mini	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00		18.00	6.00	0.00	3.00

One-way analysis of variance.

Table 7 presents the results of ROC analysis using the “worthwhileness of work” as a state variable. Significant differences were observed in the 4-to-41-point range of each separation point regarding the total points of UWES-9 (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). Table 8 presents the results of ROC analysis using the “level of job satisfaction” as a state variable. A significant difference was observed in the 8-to-40-point range of each separation point regarding the total points of UWES-9 (p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 or p < 0.001). For both, regardless of whether the state variable was “worthwhileness of work” or “level of job satisfaction,” the AUC results showed the highest value and the highest prediction ability when there was a division along the “high work engagement group” (in which the total points of UWES-9 are 21 or more) and the “low work engagement group” (in which the total points of UWES-9 are 20 or less). In women, the “worthwhileness of work” was found at 22 and 24 points, which became the highest value of AUC, and although it increased slightly, it showed an approximate value when compared with the whole. In men, the “level of job satisfaction” was found at 20, 21, and 24 points, which became the highest value of AUC.

Table 7

ROC analysis using the worthwhileness of work as a state variable

	All (N = 417)				Men (n = 317)				Women (n = 100)
Japanese version of UWES-9 total points (9 items)	AUC	95% Cl		p value	AUC	95% Cl		p value	AUC	95% Cl		p value
		Lower limit	Upper limit			Lower limit	Upper limit			Lower limit	Upper limit
≧0	0.500	0.442	0.558	n.s.	0.500	0.433	0.567	n.s.	0.500	0.382	0.618	n.s.
≧1	0.532	0.473	0.591	n.s.	0.539	0.471	0.607	n.s.	0.514	0.395	0.632	n.s.
≧2	0.532	0.473	0.591	n.s.	0.539	0.471	0.607	n.s.	0.514	0.395	0.632	n.s.
≧3	0.539	0.480	0.598	n.s.	0.548	0.480	0.617	n.s.	0.514	0.395	0.632	n.s.
≧4	0.560	0.500	0.619	<0.05	0.566	0.498	0.635	n.s.	0.541	0.421	0.660	n.s.
≧5	0.573	0.514	0.633	<0.05	0.576	0.507	0.644	<0.05	0.568	0.447	0.688	n.s.
≧6	0.580	0.521	0.640	<0.01	0.585	0.516	0.654	<0.05	0.568	0.447	0.688	n.s.
≧7	0.594	0.534	0.654	<0.01	0.599	0.530	0.667	<0.01	0.581	0.461	0.701	n.s.
≧8	0.604	0.544	0.664	<0.001	0.610	0.541	0.679	<0.01	0.587	0.467	0.707	n.s.
≧9	0.621	0.562	0.681	<0.001	0.624	0.555	0.692	<0.001	0.614	0.494	0.734	n.s.
≧10	0.634	0.575	0.694	<0.001	0.628	0.559	0.696	<0.001	0.654	0.536	0.773	<0.05
≧11	0.644	0.585	0.703	<0.001	0.632	0.564	0.700	<0.001	0.681	0.565	0.798	<0.01
≧12	0.660	0.601	0.718	<0.001	0.653	0.585	0.720	<0.001	0.681	0.565	0.798	<0.01
≧13	0.680	0.622	0.737	<0.001	0.671	0.604	0.738	<0.001	0.706	0.592	0.820	<0.01
≧14	0.690	0.632	0.747	<0.001	0.680	0.613	0.746	<0.001	0.719	0.607	0.832	<0.001
≧15	0.687	0.630	0.744	<0.001	0.684	0.618	0.750	<0.001	0.696	0.582	0.809	<0.01
≧16	0.693	0.637	0.750	<0.001	0.693	0.627	0.758	<0.001	0.693	0.580	0.806	<0.01
≧17	0.696	0.640	0.752	<0.001	0.690	0.625	0.756	<0.001	0.712	0.602	0.823	<0.001
≧18	0.716	0.661	0.771	<0.001	0.708	0.644	0.772	<0.001	0.739	0.632	0.847	<0.001
≧19	0.750	0.698	0.802	<0.001	0.751	0.691	0.812	<0.001	0.745	0.639	0.851	<0.001
≧20	0.762	0.710	0.813	<0.001	0.767	0.708	0.826	<0.001	0.745	0.639	0.851	<0.001
≧21	0.775	0.725	0.825	<0.001	0.771	0.713	0.829	<0.001	0.785	0.686	0.885	<0.001
≧22	0.768	0.719	0.818	<0.001	0.756	0.698	0.814	<0.001	0.805	0.710	0.899	<0.001
≧23	0.757	0.707	0.806	<0.001	0.742	0.683	0.801	<0.001	0.800	0.707	0.892	<0.001
≧24	0.746	0.696	0.796	<0.001	0.727	0.668	0.786	<0.001	0.805	0.715	0.896	<0.001
≧25	0.745	0.696	0.794	<0.001	0.735	0.678	0.793	<0.001	0.774	0.679	0.869	<0.001
≧26	0.719	0.668	0.769	<0.001	0.718	0.660	0.776	<0.001	0.718	0.617	0.820	<0.001
≧27	0.703	0.652	0.754	<0.001	0.696	0.637	0.756	<0.001	0.719	0.620	0.818	<0.001
≧28	0.714	0.665	0.763	<0.001	0.707	0.650	0.764	<0.001	0.733	0.636	0.829	<0.001
≧29	0.700	0.650	0.750	<0.001	0.692	0.634	0.750	<0.001	0.725	0.627	0.822	<0.001
≧30	0.681	0.631	0.732	<0.001	0.682	0.624	0.740	<0.001	0.677	0.574	0.780	<0.01
≧31	0.671	0.620	0.722	<0.001	0.674	0.616	0.732	<0.001	0.661	0.556	0.766	<0.01
≧32	0.667	0.616	0.718	<0.001	0.674	0.616	0.732	<0.001	0.645	0.539	0.752	<0.05
≧33	0.649	0.597	0.701	<0.001	0.652	0.593	0.712	<0.001	0.637	0.530	0.745	<0.05
≧34	0.640	0.587	0.692	<0.001	0.643	0.583	0.703	<0.001	0.629	0.521	0.737	<0.05
≧35	0.623	0.570	0.676	<0.001	0.626	0.565	0.687	<0.001	0.613	0.504	0.723	n.s.
≧36	0.605	0.551	0.659	<0.001	0.604	0.542	0.667	<0.01	0.606	0.495	0.716	n.s.
≧37	0.590	0.535	0.644	<0.01	0.587	0.524	0.650	<0.05	0.598	0.487	0.708	n.s.
≧38	0.580	0.525	0.635	<0.01	0.570	0.506	0.634	<0.05	0.611	0.502	0.720	n.s.
≧39	0.578	0.523	0.633	<0.01	0.570	0.506	0.634	<0.05	0.603	0.493	0.713	n.s.
≧40	0.572	0.517	0.628	<0.05	0.565	0.501	0.629	n.s.	0.595	0.484	0.706	n.s.
≧41	0.561	0.506	0.617	<0.05	0.553	0.489	0.618	n.s.	0.587	0.476	0.699	n.s.
≧42	0.556	0.500	0.612	n.s.	0.546	0.481	0.611	n.s.	0.587	0.476	0.699	n.s.
≧43	0.549	0.492	0.605	n.s.	0.539	0.474	0.604	n.s.	0.579	0.467	0.691	n.s.
≧44	0.539	0.483	0.596	n.s.	0.532	0.466	0.597	n.s.	0.563	0.450	0.677	n.s.
≧45	0.530	0.473	0.587	n.s.	0.524	0.458	0.590	n.s.	0.548	0.433	0.662	n.s.
≧46	0.523	0.465	0.580	n.s.	0.517	0.451	0.584	n.s.	0.540	0.425	0.655	n.s.
≧47	0.524	0.467	0.582	n.s.	0.522	0.456	0.588	n.s.	0.532	0.416	0.647	n.s.
≧48	0.521	0.463	0.578	n.s.	0.517	0.451	0.583	n.s.	0.532	0.416	0.647	n.s.
≧49	0.517	0.459	0.574	n.s.	0.515	0.448	0.581	n.s.	0.524	0.408	0.640	n.s.
≧50	0.513	0.455	0.571	n.s.	0.512	0.446	0.579	n.s.	0.516	0.399	0.633	n.s.
≧51	0.511	0.454	0.569	n.s.	0.510	0.443	0.576	n.s.	0.516	0.399	0.633	n.s.
≧52	0.511	0.454	0.569	n.s.	0.510	0.443	0.576	n.s.	0.516	0.399	0.633	n.s.
≧53	0.506	0.448	0.564	n.s.	0.505	0.438	0.572	n.s.	0.508	0.391	0.625	n.s.
≧54	0.502	0.444	0.560	n.s.	0.500	0.433	0.567	n.s.	0.508	0.391	0.625	n.s.
≧55	0.500	0.442	0.558	n.s.	0.500	0.433	0.567	n.s.	0.500	0.382	0.618	n.s.
≧56	0.500	0.442	0.558	n.s.	0.500	0.433	0.567	n.s.	0.500	0.382	0.618	n.s.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis (n.s.: not significant).

Table 8

ROC analysis using the level of job satisfaction as a state variable

	All (N = 417)				Men (n = 317)				Women (n = 100)
Japanese version of UWES-9 total points (9 items)	AUC	95% Cl		p value	AUC	95% Cl		p value	AUC	95% Cl		p value
		Lower limit	Upper limit			Lower limit	Upper limit			Lower limit	Upper limit
≧0	0.500	0.444	0.556	n.s.	0.500	0.436	0.564	n.s.	0.500	0.383	0.617	n.s.
≧1	0.512	0.456	0.569	n.s.	0.511	0.447	0.576	n.s.	0.513	0.395	0.631	n.s.
≧2	0.512	0.456	0.569	n.s.	0.511	0.447	0.576	n.s.	0.513	0.395	0.631	n.s.
≧3	0.518	0.461	0.574	n.s.	0.519	0.454	0.583	n.s.	0.513	0.395	0.631	n.s.
≧4	0.530	0.473	0.587	n.s.	0.527	0.462	0.592	n.s.	0.539	0.421	0.658	n.s.
≧5	0.542	0.485	0.599	n.s.	0.534	0.470	0.599	n.s.	0.566	0.446	0.685	n.s.
≧6	0.548	0.491	0.604	n.s.	0.542	0.477	0.607	n.s.	0.566	0.446	0.685	n.s.
≧7	0.554	0.497	0.611	n.s.	0.553	0.488	0.618	n.s.	0.558	0.439	0.677	n.s.
≧8	0.572	0.515	0.628	<0.05	0.568	0.503	0.633	<0.05	0.584	0.465	0.703	n.s.
≧9	0.581	0.524	0.638	<0.01	0.579	0.514	0.644	<0.05	0.589	0.470	0.708	n.s.
≧10	0.590	0.534	0.647	<0.01	0.579	0.514	0.644	<0.05	0.629	0.510	0.747	<0.05
≧11	0.593	0.536	0.649	<0.01	0.574	0.510	0.639	<0.05	0.655	0.538	0.772	<0.05
≧12	0.595	0.539	0.652	<0.01	0.577	0.513	0.642	<0.05	0.655	0.538	0.772	<0.05
≧13	0.605	0.549	0.661	<0.001	0.584	0.519	0.648	<0.05	0.678	0.563	0.793	<0.01
≧14	0.623	0.567	0.679	<0.001	0.602	0.538	0.667	<0.01	0.691	0.578	0.805	<0.01
≧15	0.627	0.571	0.683	<0.001	0.609	0.545	0.673	<0.01	0.688	0.575	0.802	<0.01
≧16	0.635	0.580	0.691	<0.001	0.621	0.557	0.685	<0.001	0.685	0.573	0.798	<0.01
≧17	0.631	0.575	0.686	<0.001	0.623	0.559	0.687	<0.001	0.661	0.547	0.775	<0.01
≧18	0.660	0.606	0.715	<0.001	0.654	0.591	0.716	<0.001	0.688	0.576	0.799	<0.01
≧19	0.697	0.644	0.750	<0.001	0.699	0.639	0.759	<0.001	0.693	0.582	0.803	<0.01
≧20	0.705	0.653	0.757	<0.001	0.709	0.650	0.769	<0.001	0.693	0.582	0.803	<0.01
≧21	0.709	0.657	0.761	<0.001	0.709	0.650	0.769	<0.001	0.711	0.603	0.819	<0.001
≧22	0.693	0.641	0.746	<0.001	0.696	0.636	0.756	<0.001	0.687	0.577	0.797	<0.01
≧23	0.703	0.652	0.755	<0.001	0.705	0.646	0.764	<0.001	0.702	0.595	0.809	<0.01
≧24	0.703	0.652	0.754	<0.001	0.709	0.650	0.768	<0.001	0.686	0.578	0.794	<0.01
≧25	0.697	0.646	0.748	<0.001	0.705	0.646	0.763	<0.001	0.675	0.566	0.783	<0.01
≧26	0.681	0.629	0.733	<0.001	0.688	0.629	0.747	<0.001	0.661	0.552	0.769	<0.01
≧27	0.680	0.629	0.732	<0.001	0.696	0.637	0.754	<0.001	0.639	0.530	0.748	<0.05
≧28	0.690	0.639	0.741	<0.001	0.703	0.646	0.761	<0.001	0.652	0.544	0.760	<0.05
≧29	0.677	0.626	0.728	<0.001	0.688	0.630	0.746	<0.001	0.644	0.536	0.752	<0.05
≧30	0.654	0.602	0.706	<0.001	0.667	0.608	0.726	<0.001	0.617	0.507	0.727	n.s.
≧31	0.646	0.594	0.699	<0.001	0.655	0.596	0.715	<0.001	0.622	0.512	0.731	<0.05
≧32	0.646	0.594	0.698	<0.001	0.653	0.594	0.713	<0.001	0.627	0.518	0.735	<0.05
≧33	0.626	0.572	0.679	<0.001	0.629	0.568	0.689	<0.001	0.619	0.510	0.728	<0.05
≧34	0.620	0.567	0.673	<0.001	0.624	0.563	0.685	<0.001	0.611	0.501	0.721	n.s.
≧35	0.607	0.553	0.660	<0.001	0.611	0.550	0.673	<0.01	0.595	0.483	0.706	n.s.
≧36	0.591	0.537	0.645	<0.01	0.587	0.524	0.649	<0.01	0.608	0.498	0.718	n.s.
≧37	0.578	0.524	0.633	<0.01	0.572	0.509	0.635	<0.05	0.600	0.489	0.710	n.s.
≧38	0.577	0.522	0.631	<0.01	0.572	0.510	0.635	<0.05	0.592	0.481	0.703	n.s.
≧39	0.569	0.514	0.623	<0.05	0.564	0.501	0.627	n.s.	0.584	0.472	0.695	n.s.
≧40	0.563	0.508	0.617	<0.05	0.558	0.495	0.621	n.s.	0.576	0.463	0.688	n.s.
≧41	0.550	0.495	0.605	n.s.	0.545	0.481	0.608	n.s.	0.567	0.455	0.680	n.s.
≧42	0.544	0.489	0.599	n.s.	0.536	0.473	0.600	n.s.	0.567	0.455	0.680	n.s.
≧43	0.536	0.480	0.591	n.s.	0.528	0.464	0.592	n.s.	0.559	0.446	0.673	n.s.
≧44	0.531	0.475	0.586	n.s.	0.526	0.463	0.590	n.s.	0.543	0.429	0.658	n.s.
≧45	0.525	0.470	0.581	n.s.	0.525	0.461	0.588	n.s.	0.527	0.412	0.643	n.s.
≧46	0.522	0.466	0.578	n.s.	0.523	0.459	0.587	n.s.	0.519	0.403	0.635	n.s.
≧47	0.518	0.462	0.574	n.s.	0.520	0.456	0.584	n.s.	0.511	0.394	0.628	n.s.
≧48	0.514	0.458	0.570	n.s.	0.515	0.450	0.579	n.s.	0.511	0.394	0.628	n.s.
≧49	0.510	0.454	0.566	n.s.	0.512	0.448	0.576	n.s.	0.503	0.386	0.620	n.s.
≧50	0.516	0.460	0.572	n.s.	0.516	0.451	0.580	n.s.	0.516	0.400	0.632	n.s.
≧51	0.514	0.457	0.570	n.s.	0.513	0.449	0.577	n.s.	0.516	0.400	0.632	n.s.
≧52	0.514	0.457	0.570	n.s.	0.513	0.449	0.577	n.s.	0.516	0.400	0.632	n.s.
≧53	0.512	0.456	0.568	n.s.	0.514	0.450	0.578	n.s.	0.508	0.391	0.625	n.s.
≧54	0.508	0.452	0.564	n.s.	0.508	0.444	0.572	n.s.	0.508	0.391	0.625	n.s.
≧55	0.500	0.444	0.556	n.s.	0.500	0.436	0.564	n.s.	0.500	0.383	0.617	n.s.
≧56	0.500	0.444	0.556	n.s.	0.500	0.436	0.564	n.s.	0.500	0.383	0.617	n.s.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis (n.s.: not significant).

4 Discussion

This study examines the criteria for the absolute evaluation of the Japanese version of UWES-9 and creates a database for the evaluation of work engagement. Taking into account biological and sociological factors, all analysis results were shown with respect to gender. With regard to the basic attributes to be analyzed, people aged between 20 and 40 years were of prime working age. Because the employment rate of men has always been high, the ratio of male subjects was high. The most notable gender difference was the higher number of men than women in managerial positions. Those who progressed to leading positions in businesses were mainly men, and those in managerial positions have more significant job responsibilities. The higher the age and job position, the greater the independent work, feelings of self-efficacy (confidence toward work), and feelings of growth through work. Subsequently, work engagement increases as managerial opportunities and challenging work increase [41–43 , 49]. The tendency is confirmed in Table 4. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare judge those in the top 10% of a group as high-stress employees [31], but given the 11.8% of high-stress employees from this research analysis, the percentage selected was slightly high. BJSQ revealed another interesting distinction between the genders. It exposed the tendency of men to carry a slightly higher level of stress, referring to those with great responsibility and central roles in their business. One explanation is that men are more likely to have production roles, whereas women are placed in clerical jobs. Gender differences in working environments and tasks are reflected in the results of BJSQ but not in those of UWES-9. The gender difference in job stress was not considered to influence work engagement. Therefore, there was no gender distinction between the results for “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction,” which share a similar scale in work engagement. In the analysis in this study, it is considered that the data of men and women may be combined. In Japan, the average point value of “worthwhileness of work” is 2.13 (men: 2.22, women: 2.04) (converted) [50]. The analyzed subjects had slightly higher points on the “worthwhileness of work” scale than the average in Japan. The average “level of job satisfaction” in Japan is 2.40 points (men: 2.45, women: 2.34) (converted) [50]. The analyzed subjects scored approximately as much as the average in Japan on “level of job satisfaction” points. In a survey of 2,520 Japanese workers, the average value per question item for UWES-9 was 2.8 points (vigor 2.6 points, dedication 3.1 points, and absorption 2.7 points) [51]. In this study, the average value per question item for UWES-9 was 2.69 points (men: 2.71, women: 2.64) (vigor 2.66 points (men: 2.66, women: 2.65), dedication 2.89 points (men: 2.89, women: 2.87), absorption 2.52 points (men: 2.56, women: 2.39)). The analyzed subjects tended to have slightly lower UWES-9 points than other groups. The results suggest that the analyzed subjects’ status levels were slightly lower than the average of the Japanese population. It was confirmed that the status levels of the analyzed subjects did not deviate significantly from the Japanese average. The analysis in this study may yield common results in other Japanese populations.

Tables 5 and 6 suggest similarities between scale (“worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction”) and work engagement. In verifying the evaluation criteria of UWES-9, validity as a scale used for comparison was confirmed in both men and women. When the status of workers is evaluated on a four-point scale with “worthwhileness of work” as the scale, the total points of UWES-9 are equivalent to the four steps shown in Table 5. The range can also be predicted to some extent. In the verification of the absolute evaluation using “worthwhileness of work” as a comparative measure, from the average equivalent of “very much so,” a total of 36 points for men corresponds to employees with high work engagement. From the average equivalent of “not at all,” a total of 11 points corresponds to employees with low work engagement. From the average equivalent of “very much so,” a total of 38 points for women corresponds to employees with high work engagement. From the average equivalent of “not at all,” a total of 13 points corresponds to employees with low work engagement. The average value of UWES-9 according to the four-point scale with “worthwhileness of work” shows an approximate value, although there is a slight difference depending on the gender, and the value shown in the overall result can be referred to as a reference value for absolute evaluation. It is suggested that the cutoff value when the total points of UWES-9 are divided along two groups, a high work engagement group and a low work engagement group, is located around 20 points. Furthermore, analysis suggests that the criteria for satisfying work engagement, regardless of gender, are a total of about 20 points. When the status of workers is evaluated on a four-point scale with “level of job satisfaction” as a scale, the total points of UWES-9 are equivalent to four steps shown in Table 6. The range can also be predicted to some extent. In the verification of the absolute evaluation using “level of job satisfaction” as a comparative measure, from the average equivalent of “satisfied,” a total of 37 points for men corresponds to employees with high work engagement. From the average equivalent of “dissatisfied,” a total of 14 points corresponds to employees with low work engagement. From the average equivalent of “satisfied,” a total of 38 points for women corresponds to employees with high work engagement. From the average equivalent of “dissatisfied,” a total of 12 points corresponds to employees with low work engagement. The average value of UWES-9 according to the four-point scale with “level of job satisfaction” shows an approximate value, although there is a slight difference depending on the gender, and the value shown in the overall result can be referred to as a reference value for absolute evaluation. It is suggested that the cutoff value when the total points of UWES-9 are divided along two groups, a high work engagement group and a low work engagement group, is approximately 20 points. Furthermore, analysis suggests that the criteria for satisfying work engagement, regardless of gender, are a total of about 20 points. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, there are no major deviations in the UWES-9 points because of differences in gender or scale (“worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction”). From the average of the first quartile, as a measure for health promotion in the workplace, it is possible to set numerical targets such as setting the achievement target of work engagement using the total points of UWES-9 to around 26 points. Because it is an absolute evaluation, for example, 36–38 points can be defined as an employee with high work engagement, whereas 11–14 points can be identified as employees with low work engagement.

For the ROC analysis, to examine the cutoff point, the point that fluctuates depending on aims such as decreasing the false positive or decreasing the false negative, it was decided that AUCs would be valid in grasping the scale characteristics and verifying the initial evaluation criterion. When “worthwhileness of work” was used as the state variable, the AUC was higher than when the “level of job satisfaction” was used for both men and women. The “level of job satisfaction” places emphasis on cognitive factors [46]. Work engagement has higher activity levels than job satisfaction level; hence, the ability of “level of job satisfaction” to show work engagement may be weaker than that of “worthwhileness of work,” with the latter considered closer to the concept of work engagement. In relative evaluation, 24 points from the average of the total points of UWES-9 is the standard for both men and women. In absolute evaluation, the lower standard around 21 points is probable. From Table 7, in men, when “worthwhileness of work” was used as the state variable, and the total points of UWES-9 are cutoff at 24 points, the AUC tends to be slightly lower than when the total points of the UWES-9 are cutoff at 21 points. On the contrary, in women, the AUC had the highest value when the total points of the UWES-9 are cutoff at 22 and 24 points, so it is possible that there was a slight difference in susceptibility by gender. From Table 8, when “level of job satisfaction” was used as the state variable, the total points of UWES-9 at the highest value were 21 points for both men and women. In men, the AUC had the highest value with three cutoffs including 21 points. Around 21 points indicates high work engagement. Although there may be a slight difference in sensitivity depending on the gender, these results indicate the possibility of a reference standard for work engagement if the total points of UWES-9 are 21 or more (i.e., the high work engagement group). Although there are some variations, depending on the state variables used and gender, it is permissible to consider 21 points or more as a provisional reference point. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, as a whole, regardless of the status level in an organization, 21 points can be set as the lowest numerical target to be achieved by personnel and can be used in support tailored to each employee. There is a phenomenon called “crossover” in which the emotions and attitudes of personnel in a state of high work engagement are propagated to another person in the same environment [52, 53]. The higher the work engagement of an organization is, the higher the work engagement of its members is. Positive communication by workers in high work engagement allows personnel to acquire more job resources. If that employee is a leader, he or she will give positive feedback to the personnel. The workplace can also work to encourage workers who allow high work engagement to become the driving force behind revitalizing the entire organization through crossover. To prevent employee disadvantages, the business operator cannot handle the survey data. However, health care managers create maps for each organization based on UWES-9 survey results while understanding work environments and tasks and helping workers in high work engagement to revitalize workers in low work engagement.

However, the results do not show a particularly high value of AUCs attained through ROC analysis. An examination of whether it is possible to clearly distinguish the presence of work engagement from its hindrances is a subject for future study. With the total sample of 12,631 from nine countries shown in the UWES Preliminary Manual, the average value per item of UWES-9 was 4.05 points (vigor 4.18 points, dedication 4.28 points, and absorption 3.68 points) [26]. Furthermore, in the international epidemiological study, when comparing UWES-9 in 16 countries, the Japanese point values are low when compared with the other 15 countries. The average per item of UWES-9 in each country is around four points, while that in Japan is less than three points [54]. The level of job satisfaction and the feeling of self-efficacy are low as well in Japan when compared with the corresponding numbers in the other 15 countries [55, 56]. Regional and social structure differences may account for these results. Furthermore, these surveys are greatly impacted by a subject’s sensitivity toward the question content [54]. A 2019 survey of Japanese companies and workers reported no difference in work engagement depending on the size of residence and place of employment [41, 57]. There is a common sensibility among Japanese people. Therefore, the high work engagement group standard of 21 or more points of UWES-9 may be of limited use in Japan.

This study has certain limitations. The research study was conducted in a single automotive engineering facility and in one country. Therefore, the results may not be representative of the Japanese workplace as a whole. This study’s populations have more men than women in managerial positions. Another distinctive characteristic is that men run the business. Men skewed higher in the age bracket when compared with women. Working environments and tasks are different for men and women. Further analysis is required to consider the impact of gender, age group, job position, and country of citizenship. Future studies should extensively examine the evaluation criteria of UWES-9 when compared with the sample data of populations from a wide area. In the future, comparisons using other scales may be useful. Because of the similarity of the concept of work engagement, it may be possible to use the “vitality” scale included in BJSQ [58, 59]. As work engagement comprises several subconcepts, it is necessary to examine the relationships between all the concepts to determine whether the subconcepts are equally meaningful and whether specific ones constitute the core of engagement [60]. The structure of occupational stress may have changed under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. As times change, data acquisition and strengthening of the ability to predict confirmation should be continued. This study was a fixed-point examination of workplaces wherein the scales have concepts similar to work engagement, and care should be taken when interpreting the results. It is necessary to aim for higher precision and examine the evaluation method of UWES, while progressing with the accumulation and analysis of future data, focusing on a single evaluation criterion of 21 points of the total points of UWES-9 that this research study has led to as a reference.

5 Conclusion

The purpose of this single-survey study was to examine an absolute value for high work engagement in the Japanese version of the UWES-9 using the scales of “worthwhileness of work” and “level of job satisfaction” in the Japanese version of BJSQ. The standard for high work engagement was identified at a score of at least 21 points. This research study was completed in one country at a single automotive engineering facility.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful to the employees who participated in the survey. The authors thank Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd. (Ulatus, www.ulatus.jp) for their assistance in manuscript translation and editing.

Author contributions

KA designed the study and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. RI contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. All authors contributed to data collection and interpretation and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding

This research was supported by Shubun University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Schaufeli

, Bakker

. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study, J Organ Behav 2004;25(3):293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.

Schaufeli

, Salanova

, González-romá

, Bakker

. The measurement of engagement and burnout: Atwo-sample confirmative analytic approach, J Happiness Stud 2002;3(1):71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.

Schaufeli

, Dijkstra

, Shimazu

, Sato

Introduction to work engagement. Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2012.

Kosaka

, Sato

. Employee engagement and work engagement: Same wine, different bottles? Annals Bus Admin Sci 2020;19(6):227–39. doi: 10.7880/abas.0200911a.

Shimazu

Work engagement: Spending every day vigorously with positive mental health. Japan: Roudo Chosakai; 2014, pp. 26-43.

Shimazu

. Positive mental health and work engagement: Towards a strategic use of stress check-up system, Health Eval Prom 2016;43:320–5.

Bakker

, Leiter

, Shimazu

, Inoue

, Otsuka

, Shimazu

, et al. Work engagement: The handbook for research and basic theory. Tokyo, Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014.

Voltmer

, Voltmer

, Deller

. Differences of four work-related behavior and experience patterns in work ability and other work-related perceptions in a finance company, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(7):1521. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071521, PMID 30022016.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study, J Organ Behav 2004;25(3):293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.

10.

Bakker

, Demerouti

. The job demands-resources model: State of the art, J Manag Psychol 2007;22(3):309–28. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.

11.

Koyuncu

, Burke

, Fiksenbaum

. Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: Potential antecedents and consequences, Equal Oppor Int 2006;25(4):299–310. doi: 10.1108/02610150610706276.

12.

Hakanen

, Schaufeli

, Ahola

. The job demands-resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement, WorkStress 2008;22(3):224–41. doi: 10.1080/02678370802379432.

13.

Shimazu

. Occupational stress and work engagement, Stress Sci Res 2010;25:1–6.

14.

Nilsson

, Andersson

, Ejlertsson

. The work experience measurement scale (WEMS): A useful tool in workplace health promotion, Work 2013;45(3):379–87. doi: 10.3233/WOR-121541, PMID 23324702.

15.

Mache

, Vitzthum

, Wanke

, David

, Klapp

, Danzer

. Exploring the impact of resilience, self-efficacy, optimism and organizational resources on work engagement, Work 2014;47(4):491–500. doi: 10.3233/WOR-131617, PMID 23531578.

16.

Halbesleben

JRB

A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker A, Leiter MP, editors. Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research. New York: Psychology Press; 2010, pp. 102–17.

17.

Xanthopoulou

, Bakker

, Demerouti

, Schaufeli

. Demerouti, Schaufeli, WB, The role of personal resources in the job demand-resources model. Int J Stress Manag 2007;14(2):121–41. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.

18.

Maslach

, Leiter

. The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997.

19.

Demerouti

, Bakker

. The Oldenburg burnout inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. In: Halbesleben JRB, editor. The handbook of stress and burnout in health care. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2008, pp. 65–78.

20.

Demerouti

, Bakker

, Nachreiner

, Ebbinghaus

. From mental strain to burnout, Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2002;11(4):423–41. doi: 10.1080/13594320244000274.

21.

Slisković

, Burić

, Sorić

. The relations between Principal support and work engagement andburnout: Testing the role of teachers’ emotions and educational level, Work 2019;64(2):203–15. doi: 10.3233/WOR-192987.

22.

Montero-Marin

, Zubiaga

, Cereceda

, Demarzo Piva

, Trenc

, Garcia-Campayo

. Burnout subtypes and absence of self-compassion in primary healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional study, PLOS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0157499. doi: 10.1371/ijerph0157499.

23.

Letona-Ibañez

, Carrasco

, Martinez-Rodriguez

, Amillano

, Ortiz-Marques

. Cognitive, relational and task crafting: Spanish adaptation and analysis of psychometric properties of the Job Crafting Questionnaire, PLOS ONE. 2019;14(10):e0223539. doi: 10.1371/ijerph, PMID 0223539.

24.

Boström

, Björklund

, Bergström

, Nybergh

, Schäfer

, Stigmar

, Wåhlin

, Jensen

, Kwak

. Health and work environment among female and male Swedish elementary school teachers-A cross-sectional study, Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;17(1):227>. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010227, PMID 31905608.

25.

Shimazu

, Schaufeli

, Kosugi

, Suzuki

, Nashiwa

, Kato

, Sakamoto

, Irimajiri

, Amano

, Hirohata

, Goto

, Kitaoka-Higashiguchi

. Work engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese version of Utrecht work engagement scale, Appl Psychol 2008;57(3):510–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00333.x.

26.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

Utrecht work engagement scale [preliminary manual]. Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht University; 2004.

27.

Brenninkmeijer

, Van Yperen

. How to conduct research on burnout: Advantages and disadvantages of a unidimensional approach in burnout research, Occup Environ Med 2003;60:16–26.

28.

Tipa

, Tudose

, Pucarea

. Measuring burnout among psychiatric residents using the Oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI) instrument, J Med Life 2019;12(4):354–60. doi: 10.25122/jml-2019-0089.

29.

Summers

, Gorrindo

, Hwang

, Aggarwal

, Guille

. Well-being, burnout, and depression among North American psychiatrists: The state of our profession, Am J Psychiatry 2020;177(10):955–64. doi: 10.1176/appi.aj2020.19090901.

30.

Kitaoka

, Masuda

, Ogino

, Nakagawa

. The Maslach burnout inventory-general survey (MBI-GS) and Japaneseversion, Hokuriku J Public Health. 2011;37(2):34–40.

31.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Labor Standards Bureau, Industrial Safety and Health Department, Occupational Health. Division; industrial health support office. Manual for the implementation of a stress check system based on the industrial safety and health law (revision); 2021.

32.

Iguchi

. Job demand and job resources related to the turnover intention of public health nurses: An analysis using a job demands-resources model, Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 2016;63(5):227–40. doi: 10.11236/jph.63.5_227.

33.

Padula

, Chiavegato

, Cabral

CMN

, Almeid

, Ortiz

, Carregaro

. Is occupational stress associated with work engagement? , Work 2012;41(Supplement 1):2963–5. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0549-2963.

34.

Iwata

. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In: Shimazu A, editor. (General translation). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014, pp. 19–48.

35.

Shimazu

. Work engagement and the level of demand of jobs –resource model: Heading towards the coexistence of health promotion and productivity improvement, Job Stress Res 2016;23:181–6.

36.

Judge

, Van Vianen

AEM

, De Pater

. Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research, Hum Perform 2004;17(3):325–46. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1703_4.

37.

Nakamura

, Kawahito

, Otsuka

. Relationships among job stressors, work environment suitability and work engagement in manufacturing employee, Job Stress Res 2012;19:255–63.

38.

Bostjančič

, Petrovcič

. Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction, work engagement and career satisfaction: The study from public university, Hum Syst Manag 2019;38(4):411–22. doi: 10.3233/HSM-190580.

39.

Mache

, Bernburg

, Groneberg

, Klapp

, Danzer

. Work family conflict in its relations to perceived working situation and work engagement, Work 2016;53(4):859–69. doi: 10.3233/WOR-162257.

40.

Ofei-Dodoo

, Long

, Bretches

, Kruse

, Haynes

, Bachman

. Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions among family medicine residency program managers, Int J Med Educ 2020;11:47–53. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5e3e.7f16.

41.

Public Interest Incorporated Association. International Economy & Work Research Institute [internet]. Definition of the meaning ofwork [cited Nov 16 2020].Available from: https://www.iewri.or.jp/.

42.

Ferraro

, Moreira

, Dos

SNR

, Pais

, Sedmak

. Decent work, work motivation and psychological capital: An empirical research, Work 2018;60(2):339–54. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182732.

43.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [internet]. Reiwa version of the labor and economic white paper –regarding the tasks surrounding “working methods” under shortage of workers; 2019 [cited 21July 2021]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/roudou/19/19-1.html.

44.

Tomietto

, Paro

, Sartori

, Maricchio

, Clarizia

, De Lucia

, Pedrinelli

, Finos

, PN Nursing GrouWork engagement and perceived work ability: An evidence-based model to enhance nurses’ well-being, J Adv Nurs 2019;75(9):1933–42. doi: 10.1111/jan.13981.

45.

Locke

The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnettle MD, editor. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1976, pp. 1297–349.

46.

Bakker

, Leiter

, Shimazu

, Inoue

, Otsuka

, Shimazu

, Taneichi

. Work engagement: The handbook for research and basic theory. Tokyo, Japan: Seiwa Shoten; 2014.

47.

Shimomitsu T [internet]. Manual for grasping the present situation of stress using the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire: For more effective improvement measures of the workplace environment; 2005 [cited 16 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-Shingikai-11201000-Roudoukijunkyoku-Soumuka/0000050920.pdf.

48.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, Salanova

. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study, Educ Psychol Meas 2006;66(4):701–16. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.

49.

Koon

, Ho

. Authentic leadership and employee engagement: The role of employee well-being, Hum Syst Manag 2021;40(1):81–92. doi: 10.3233/HSM-200943.

50.

Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo [internet]. Kenko- Ikiiki’ workplace making forum, about publication of the; 2012. New version of the brief job stress questionnaire [cited Nov 16 2020]. Available from: https://mental.m.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jstress.

51.

Kubota

, Shimazu

, Kawakami

. Association of workaholism and work engagement with recovery experiences among Japanese workers, Japanese. J Behav Med 2014;20(2):69–76.

52.

Bakker

, Shimazu

, Demerouti

, Shimada

, Kawakami

. Work engagement versus workaholism: A test of the spillover-crossover model, J Manag Psychol 2014;29:63–80.

53.

Westman

. Stress and strain crossover, Human Ralations 2001;54:717–51.

54.

Shimazu

, Schaufeli

, Miyanaka

, Iwata

. Why Japanese workers show low work engagement: An item response theory analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement scale, Biopsychosoc. Med 2010;4:17.

55.

Scholz

, Gutiérrez Doña

, Sud

, Schwarzer

. Is general self-efficacy a universal construct, Eur JPsychol Assess 2002;18(3):242–51. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.242.

56.

Lincoln

, Employee work attitudes and management practice in the U.S. and Japan: Evidence from a large comparative survey. Calif Manag Rev.1989;32(1):89–106. doi: 10.2307/41166736.

57.

The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training [internet]. Study related to working methods, etc., and the current situation surrounding worker shortage; 2020. ETC [cited Nov 16 2020]. Available from: https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/research/2020/193.html.

58.

Hakanen Jari

, Ropponen

, De Witte

, Schaufeli Wilmar

. Testing demands and resources as determinants of vitality among different employment contract groups, A study in 30 European countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(24):4951>. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16244951.

59.

van Scheppingen

, de Vroome Ernest

, Ten Have

, Zwetsloot

, Wiezer

, van Mechelen

. Vitality at work and its associations with lifestyle, self-determination, organizational culture, and with employees’ performance and sustainable employability, Work 2015;52(1):45–55. doi: 10.3233/WOR-141947.

60.

Shimazu

, Eguchi

. Work engagement: A literature review on current situation and future directions, Occup Health Rev 2012;25:79–97.