Dimensionality of the 9‐item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Bengt Muthén,et al. Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. , 2012, Psychological methods.
[2] Sik-Yum Lee,et al. Basic and Advanced Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling: With Applications in the Medical and Behavioral Sciences , 2012 .
[3] E. Wagenmakers. A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.
[4] P. Barrett. Structural equation modelling : Adjudging model fit , 2007 .
[5] Li Cai,et al. Generalized full-information item bifactor analysis. , 2011, Psychological methods.
[6] C. Nerstad,et al. Factorial validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) across occupational groups in Norway. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.
[7] Rainbow Tin Hung Ho,et al. Factor analyses of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a Bayesian structural equation modeling approach , 2013, Quality of Life Research.
[8] R. Ho,et al. Testing gender invariance of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale using the classical approach and Bayesian approach , 2014, Quality of Life Research.
[9] Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in Two Spanish Multi‐Occupational Samples , 2012 .
[10] R. Poulin. SPECIES RICHNESS OF PARASITE ASSEMBLAGES: Evolution and Patterns , 1997 .
[11] W. Schaufeli,et al. Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) A Cross-Cultural Analysis , 2010 .
[12] John K Kruschke,et al. Bayesian data analysis. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.
[13] Tihomir Asparouhov,et al. Bayesian Analysis of Latent Variable Models using Mplus , 2010 .
[14] S. Ng,et al. Measuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale , 2011, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
[15] J. Fox,et al. Bayesian tests of measurement invariance. , 2012, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.
[16] C. Henn,et al. Dimensionality of the 9-Item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) , 2013, Psychological reports.
[17] A. Bakker,et al. The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire , 2006 .
[18] A. Bakker,et al. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach , 2002 .
[19] P. Bentler,et al. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .
[20] Philippe Golay,et al. Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling. , 2013, Psychological assessment.
[21] Thomas J. Dunn,et al. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. , 2014, British journal of psychology.
[22] P. Fayers,et al. Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30 , 2011, Quality of Life Research.
[23] J. H. Steiger,et al. The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. , 2007, Psychological methods.
[24] S. Vrieze. Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). , 2012, Psychological methods.
[25] W. Schaufeli,et al. Psychometric properties of the Russian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) , 2017 .
[26] A. Bakker,et al. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences , 2010 .
[27] Bengt Muthén,et al. Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling With Cross-Loadings and Residual Covariances , 2015 .
[28] Xin-Yuan Song and Sik-Yum Lee.. Basic and advanced Bayesian structural equation modeling , 2015 .