Running head: WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT IN...
Transcript of Running head: WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT IN...
36-2
Running head: WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT IN KOREA
Construct Validation of a Korean Version of the Work-Family Conflict Scale
Doo Hun Lim
University of Oklahoma, Norman
Michael Lane Morris
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Heather S. McMillan
Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau
Copyrights © 2010 Doo Hun Lim, Michael L. Morris, & Heather S. McMillan
36-2
Abstract
This research study seeks to further facilitate a cross-cultural study on a work-family
balance by developing the Korean language version of the Work-family Conflict (WFC)
construct. Our research purpose is to translate and establish construct validity of a
Korean version of work-family conflict for use in Korea. Factor analysis was used to
uncover the underlying structure of the Korean version of the WFC. Results indicate
that the Korean version demonstrates psychometric properties similar to the original
English version of the WFC.
Keywords: work family conflict, instrument validation, Korean case studies
36-2
Construct Validation of a Korean Version of the Work-Family Conflict Scale
For several decades, work-family conflict issues have been identified as one of
the stressful organizational dynamics impacting the workplace. This trend has become
prevalent in modern workplace organizations due to various factors. In an overview of
the work-family research literature, Morris (2008) noted that the changing landscape of
organizational life creates numerous stressors for employees and their organizations.
The changing landscape includes: mergers, acquisitions, lay-offs, spin-offs, competitive
advantage demands for globalization, competition for talent, increased technological
sophistication, and workforce diversity among others. Given the magnitude of change
these events create, it is natural to assume—and previous research has supported—that
these changes create conflicts in the interface of “work” and “family” (Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985). Within the work-family research, these conflicts have been shown to
influence productivity, recruitment, retention, turnover, job satisfaction, morale, loyalty,
commitment, motivation, citizenship behaviors, engagement, corporate image, ethical
behaviour, customer satisfaction and loyalty (Morris, 2008). Although work-family
issues are an emerging topic within HRD (Morris & Madsen, 2007), the role of HRD
researchers and scholarly practitioners is significant. Specifically, our HRD expertise is
needed in developing resources and interventions that assist employees and
organizations ameliorate and/or alleviate stressor demands that contribute to work-
family conflict creating value-added opportunities for organizational effectiveness
through the development and unleashing of human potential (Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley,
2002; Swanson & Holton, 2009). However, work-family conflict is not a U.S.
phenomenon only.
While reducing work-family conflict and keeping work-family balance have
been a critical workplace issue within western societies such as American and
36-2
European countries, research examining similar workplace issues has emerged in Asian
countries as their relatively fast economic development has occurred in recent decades
(Choi, Jung, & Cho, 2007; Sakamoto & Spinks, 2008). For example, a study about
women’s work-family conflict in Middle East Asian country indicated that women
were more suffering from work-family conflicts in jobs than men (Ng, Fosh, & Nalyor,
2002). From a Japanese study, it was found that, for women worker, a causal chain was
existed linking parental demands, work-family conflicts, and life strain (Matsui,
Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). From a cross-cultural perspective, several studies
indicated that life satisfaction is most influenced by work-to-family conflict in Asian
cultures, whereas family-to-work conflict has a greater impact in the Western cultures
(Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Ayree, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999). For example, in Asian
cultures, work issues affecting family life (e.g., heavy workloads interfere with the
length of parental time with children) are more influential than family issues affecting
work life (e.g., serving school matters for children affects attention to work).
Recently, there has been a growing population of Asian workers in the work
force and the participation of Asian workers is projected to grow in the U.S. (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2004). Internationally, women in industrialized
Asian countries take roughly half of the workforce population. Globalization of the
workforce and business pattern is believed to accelerate this trend more. In this regard,
the need for identifying the types and characteristics of work-family conflict and
balance within Asian cultural context has been a pressing research issue to understand
the global nature of work and family issues and prescribe appropriate interventions
needed for organizational improvement and effectiveness in the global workplace.
Work-family conflict is a source of stress requiring supportive cultures and
appropriate support services for many employees, regardless of race, gender, or sexual
36-2
orientation (Hornsby & Munn, 2009). According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985),
work-family conflict is “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the
work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (p. 77). Due to its
significant impact on employee work performance and their workplace attitudes and
behaviors, many researchers have investigated various aspects of work-family conflict
issues in modern organizations. Some examples included psychological distress, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and life satisfaction (Frone, Russell,
& Cooper, 1992; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth,
1992; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinowitz, Bedeian,
Burke, & Moffett, 1988).
Literature Review
Work-family Conflict
Traditionally, researchers have measured work-family conflict using different
sub-domains of work-family conflict. For example, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)
identified three forms of work-conflict in: (a) time-based conflict, (b) strain-based
conflict, and (c) behavior-based conflict. Time-based conflict occurs when the amount
of time spent on multiple roles prohibits the individual’s ability to adequately function
in one’s work and/or family role (Bartolome & Evans, 1980). Sources of time conflict
include: the amount of hours spent on the job and work related travel, overtime, and
shiftwork (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). In general,
studies of work-family conflict tend to overlook the difference between preferred and
actual hours of work and empirical studies to identify the relationship between work-
family conflict and hour mismatches are much needed (Barnett, 1998). Regarding
family-related time-based conflict, it is associated with the amount of time spent on
36-2
family matters detracting from the amount of time that could be spent at work
(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).
Strain-based conflict refers to work/family experiences when stressors felt in
one role (e.g., home) inhibit the performance in the other role (e.g., work) (Greenhaus
& Beutell, 1985). Sources of strain-based conflict include fatigue and irritability created
from one role interfering with the other role. The pattern of strain-based conflict can be
explained by the person-environment fit theory. According to this theory, when a
person’s ability does not match the expectations of the role, the lack of fit becomes a
source of stress (Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Several research studies have identified
that work-related strain conflict has been related to various job variables: job ambiguity
and leader support and facilitation (Jones & Butler, 1980; Kopelman, Greenhaus &
Connolly, 1983), stressful events at work, job burnout, and depression in the family role
(Bartolome & Evans, 1980; Maslach & Jackson, 1982). Family-related strain conflict
happens when incongruence between spousal career and family expectations exists
(Beutell & Greenhaus, 1982; Chadwick, Albrecht & Kunz, 1976; Eiswirth-Neems &
Handal, 1978).
Behavior-based conflict occurs when certain types of behavior developed for
one role (e.g. work) are inappropriate or dysfunctional when used for the other role
(e.g., family) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). An
example of behavior-based conflict includes aggressive behaviors that may be required
at work are considered inappropriate at home (Hammer, 2003).
Researchers have noted that work–family conflict is a bi-directional relationship
with work-based sources of conflict influencing the family and family-based sources of
conflict influencing work. Accordingly, many research studies have measured the
duality of work–family conflict considering the directions of effect: work interference
36-2
with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Duxbury, Higgins, &
Mills, 1992; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). When the two directions
(WIF and FIW) and three forms of work-family conflict (time-based, strain-based, and
behavior-based conflict) are combined, six dimensions of work–family conflict are
developed: (a) time-based WIF, (b) time-based FIW, (c) strain-based WIF, (d) strain-
based FIW, (e) behavior-based WIF, and (f) behavior-based FIW (Gutek et al., 1991).
Development of the Work-family Conflict Scale
From an extensive review of existing studies about work-family conflict
Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) identified 25 different scales measured work-
family conflict in various settings. In doing so, they distinguished the scales whether
they contained direction between work and family and found 12 out of the 25 scales
separated the direction of conflict. Also, they found only seven out of the 25 scales did
distinguish between the forms of conflict (i.e., time, strain, behavior) in their scales.
Considering none of these scales measured the six dimensions of work-family conflict,
Carlson et al. conducted a series of studies to develop a reliable and valid scale
measuring work-family conflict in workplace.
In developing the scale, Carson et al. (2000) generated scale items from
numerous existing measures that included: Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981), Burley
(1989), Duxbury et al. (1992), Frone et al. (1992), Gutek et al. (1991), Kopelman et al.
(1983), Pleck (1978), and Stephens and Sommer (1996). Initially, the researchers
developed 31 items using a content adequacy test following the guidelines by
Schriesheim et al. (1993) (Study 1). From an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
applying an oblique rotation to identify three factors for the scale (the eigen values for
the three factors were 5.8, 2.8, and 1.7 respectively), they retained 20 items for the
work-family conflict scale. In Study 2, they augmented the scale items by adding 34
36-2
new items so each dimension could contain a set of representative items for the scale.
Using categorization and rating procedure, the researchers came up with 30 items for
the scale to be tested for final validation.
In Study 3, the 30 item scale was tested from a group of 228 graduates of
Executive MBA program at a large western university and utilized a structural equation
modeling (SEM) to isolate items that performed well across a number of different
criteria (i.e., factor loadings less than .50, modification indices to check association
with other factors, correlated measurement error either within factors, across factors, or
both). From their rigorous statistical procedure, they retained the final 18 items (five
were from existing scales and 13 items were new). Another part of Study 3 was also
designed to assess dimensionality, reliability, and discriminant validity of the scale by
including several antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict during data
collection. The antecedents included role conflict, role ambiguity, and social support
from both domains of work and family, as well as, work involvement. The
consequences, including job satisfaction, family satisfaction, life satisfaction, and
organizational commitment, were all found to be significantly related to the work–
family conflict scale. The final version of work-family conflict scale included 18 items
as shown in the Appendix.
Problem Statement and Research Question
While an abundance of studies related to work-family conflict have been found
in the literature within the U.S. and some European countries, relatively few research
studies have been found involving Asian samples. Similar to Western countries, work-
family balance issues have been a critical workplace issue for Asian countries. For
example, many for-profit organizations in South Korea reported their employees have
been suffering from job stress that was caused by work-family conflict, which also
36-2
severely impacted their workplace productivity and performance in general (Choi, Jung,
& Cho, 2007). Similar cases were also found from other Asian countries (Sakamoto &
Spinks, 2008). Investigating work-family conflict issues in Asian countries has been a
pressing research issue among organizational researchers first to identify what
antecedent types and characteristics of such conflict exist within Asian cultural context
and second to understand the global nature of work and family issues by comparing
cross national findings about work-family conflict between the East and the West.
Eventually, such findings will help practitioners prescribe appropriate interventions
needed for organizational improvement and effectiveness within global work and
business environment.
The purpose of our research is to translate and establish the construct validity of
a Korean version of the work-family conflict scale (i.e., Carlson et al., 2000) for use in
Korea. Consequently, our research question is: Will construct validation of a Korean
version of the work-family conflict by Carlson et al. (2000) result in an interpretable
factor structure consistent with the original English version? (Are the six dimensions of
work–family conflict scale valid for use in Korean organizations?)
Methodology
Sample
This sample consisted of 106 graduate students from three academic institutions
and 319 full time workers from three corporations in Seoul, South Korea. In selecting
the sample, we used a purposeful sampling method to include workers both from
academic institutions and private sector organizations. Graduate students in the sample
were included because they had fulltime jobs while studying in the various graduate
programs at the three institutions. Among the 425, 92 respondents (21.9%) of the
sample were the age of twenty-seven and below, 229 were (54.5%) between the ages of
36-2
28 and 36, and 99 (23.5%) were 37 and above. The sample was 48.2% male (197) and
46% of the sample was married. 277 respondents (65.2%) of the sample were without
children. All participants voluntarily and anonymously completed the Korean language
version of the 18-item work-family conflict measure.
Measure
In work-family conflict research we found that there have been many scales
measuring conflict in the literature (e.g., Bedeian, Burke & Moffett, 1998; Cooke &
Rousseau, 1984; Frone, et al., 1992; Gutek, Searle & Klepa, 1991; Kopelman, et al.,
1983; MacDermid, 2000; Parasuraman, et al., 1989; Rice, Frone & McFarlin, 1992). In
selecting our instrument for the research, however, we considered the following criteria
for selection: little variability in psychometric properties, shorter scale to reduce
burdens of the respondents, addressing the bi-directional (family to work and work to
family) nature of conflict, demonstrating adequate psychometric properties, and
addressing all three components of conflict (time, strain, and behavior). From our
review of many conflict scales using this selection criteria, the Carlson, et al. (2000)
scale was considered most appropriate as it taps bi-directionality in all three
components of conflict and contains psychometrically sound properties of work-family
conflict.
The English version of the work-family conflict (WFC) is a self-report measure
composed of 18 items assessing the six conceptually and empirically distinct
dimensions (see Table 1). Each of the six dimensions is assessed with three items.
Responses to all items are made on 5-point Likert-type scales (1= strongly disagree to 5
= strongly agree).
Forward and backward translation. In pursuing our research purpose, validating
linguistic equivalence between the different language versions of a cross-cultural
36-2
measure was the first and important task to be completed. Linguistic equivalence refers
to the extent to which matching items on two versions of instrument have the same
meaning, nuance, and connotation (Chen & Bates, 2005). In order to establish the
linguistic equivalence between the English and Korean version of the WFC, we have
utilized a forward-then-back translation procedure adopted by Hui and Triandis (1985).
First, a team composed of two graduate students and two university professors
proficient in English, but whose mother tongue were Korean, independently translated
into Korean each of the items of the WFC instrument. The four translators were asked
to use wording and grammar that could be understood by any adolescent in Korea. Once
the four versions were gathered and compared, a consolidated version was developed.
The consolidated version was then back translated into English by two fully bilingual
graduate students. Any discrepancy between the original version in English and the
back translated version was analyzed and corrected. Finally, a group of six graduate
students was asked to classify each of the items according to the theoretical content of
each of the six dimensions measured by the WFC. This task was successfully completed.
Data Collection
The Korean version of WFC was administered to employees in three Korean
organizations and three academic institutions during the summer of 2008. One of the
researchers visited and contacted coordinators in the organizations and institutions in
Korea to collect the research data. Survey instruments were distributed to the sample
during lecture, training sessions, or daily employee meetings of each organization.
Among the total 425 completed, 106 were collected from three academic institutions in
Seoul area, 127 were from a company selling educational programs for Korean
corporations, 107 from a pharmaceutical company, and 85 from a training center of a
Korean conglomerate.
36-2
Data analysis
Mirroring the statistical technique used by Carlson, et al. (2000), confirmatory
factor analysis was performed using AMOS 16.0 to analyze four separate models: (1)
the six-factor model proposed by Carlson, et al.; (2) a three-factor model representing
the Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) three types of conflict (i.e., time, strain and
behavior); (3) a two-factor model representing the directionality of conflict (i.e., family-
to-work and work-to-family) (Duxbury, et al., 1992; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek, et al.,
1991); and (4) a single-factor model representing conflict as a general construct. Items
were forced to load on a specified factor and the factors were allowed to correlate
(Byrne, 2001).
Results
Dimensionality
Table 1 presents the Χ2, comparative fit statistic (CFI), and root-mean-square
error of approximation for each of the four models. Despite having a p-value above the
traditionally acceptable .05 value, the remaining indices for the six-factor model were
far superior than the other models. Further examination of the six-factor model
indicated that factor loadings were all significant at a p<.001 level. The standardized
factor loadings for each of the 18 items appear in table 2.
Internal Consistency
The internal consistency of each of the six dimensions was estimated with the
coefficient alpha. The reliabilities for each of the six factors exceeds Nunnally’s (1978)
conventional .70 level of acceptance: (1) time-based WIF = .89; (2) time-based FIW
= .94; (3) strain-based WIF = .93; (4) strain-based FIW = .92; (5) behavior-based WIF
=.94; and (6) behavior-based FIW = .93.
36-2
Table 1
Estimates of Fit Indices
Model X2 df p Comparative
fit index
Root mean square error of approximation
Six-factor model 144.47 120 .06 .996 .022
Three-factor model 2390.94 132 .00 .631 .201
Two-factor model 2987.20 134 .00 .534 .224
One-factor model 4020.37 135 .00 .365 .261
Note. N = 425
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity was assessed by examining factor correlations obtained
from the confirmatory factor analysis. Shown in table 3, the correlations of the six
factors ranged from .08 to .66, with only two correlations above .60. Therefore,
discriminant validity is demonstrated.
Factor Structure Tests
The final test of this construct validation study is the factor structure test to
ensure the six-factor model is invariant across gender. This test was performed using the
multiple group measurement procedure in AMOS which allows for factor loadings,
factor correlations and error variances to held invariant individually and in different
combinations, thereby allowing rigorous assessment of the measurement properties of
the models (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001; Marsh, 1995).
Four, two-group versions of the six-factor model were estimated for comparison
purposes. The first version, known as the baseline, utilized no constraints (i.e., all
aspects of the model were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset). In the second
36-2
Table 2
Completely Standardized Path Loadings of the Six-Factor Model
Factor Item Path Weight Time-Based WIF Item #1 .899 Time-Based WIF Item #2 .905 Time-Based WIF Item #3 .876 Time-Based FIW Item #4 .856 Time-Based FIW Item #5 .910 Time-Based FIW Item #6 .897 Strain-Based WIF Item #7 .877 Strain-Based WIF Item #8 .967 Strain-Based WIF Item #9 .745 Strain-Based FIW Item #10 .913 Strain-Based FIW Item #11 .943 Strain-Based FIW Item #12 .892
Behavior-Based WIF Item #13 .766 Behavior-Based WIF Item #14 .865 Behavior-Based WIF Item #15 .816 Behavior-Based FIW Item #16 .940 Behavior-Based FIW Item #17 .907 Behavior-Based FIW Item #18 .837
Note. N = 425
Table 3
Discriminant Validity of the Six-Factor Model: Phi Matrix from CFA Analysis
Dimension of Conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Time-based WIF --- 2. Time-based FIW .31 --- 3. Strain-based WIF .61 .22 --- 4. Strain-based FIW .09 .53 .18 --- 5. Behavior-based WIF .32 .40 .39 .45 --- 6. Behavior-based FIW .14 .39 .19 .45 .66 ---
36-2
version, the factor loadings were held invariant, while the factor correlations and error
variances were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset. In the third version, the
factor loadings and factor correlations were held invariant, and only the error variances
were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset. In the final version, the most rigorous
of the tests, all aspects of the model were held invariant across the datasets.
As shown in table 4, the results suggest that the gender-divided data sets map
well to the six-factor model with respect to the model fit. Model fit results were
relatively consistent across the four tested versions. These results suggest stability
regardless of gender of respondent.
Table 4
Factor Structure Tests
Model X2 df p Comparative
fit index
Root mean square error of approximation
No constrains (baseline model) 333.56 240 .00 .98 .03
Factor loadings invariant 379.49 264 .00 .98 .03
Factor loadings & factor correlations
invariant 417.64 279 .00 .98 .03
Factor loadings, factor correlations & error variances
invariant
445.83 297 .00 .98 .03
Note. N = 425
Discussion and Conclusions
Carlson et al. (2000) facilitated the research on work-family conflict by
developing a comprehensive and empirically supported multidimensional measure of
the work-family conflict construct. Our goal in the present paper was to extend this
work by developing and evaluating a Korean version of the WFC measure. In addition,
36-2
we sought to apply a detailed confirmatory factor analytic approach to the assessment of
the measurement equivalence of the WFC measure between the Korean and English
versions. In order to address our future research needs we thoroughly reviewed the
existing literature regarding work-family conflict studies in the U.S. and illustrated the
detailed process to develop the WFC scale along with its statistical analysis procedure
to finalize the 18-item measure. From our review of the literature, we concluded that the
WFC is one of the most statistically sound and valid measures used for work-family
conflict studies in the U.S.
From our initial analysis, the study results indicated that the dimensionality,
internal consistency, discriminant validity, and factor structure results were all
acceptable for the Korean version of the WFC measure as the Korean version contains
psychometric properties similar to the original English version of the WFC. In essence,
we found that the Korean language version of the WFC measures the same set of six
work-family conflicts dimensions originally proposed by Carlson et al. (2000). This
implies this study adds further proofs to the validity and reliability of the original
English version of the WFC through cross-cultural validation. This study also provides
researchers of cross-cultural studies with wider opportunities to use the WFC measure
in their studies beyond the U.S. territory.
Many cross-cultural research studies have utilized direct translation methods in
translating instruments from one language version to another which caused a series of
problems to use the translated version in foreign contexts (Kinzie & Manson, 1987). For
example, Cheung and Rensvold (1999) identified two types of measurement invariance:
conceptual and psychometric invariance. Among these two types of measurement
invariance, conceptual invariance refers whether measures are conceptually equivalent
across cultures and satisfying this condition becomes primary prerequisite for using an
36-2
instrument in different cultures. In developing a foreign language version of an
instrument, therefore, it is critical to use proper procedure to translate one version to
another. This study took a more rigorous translation process by using the forward-
backward translation approach with subjective and objective evaluations of the
translation. The rigorous translation process was believed to enhance the quality of this
research and reduced the biases that likely would have occurred in the translation
process.
As one of the most westernized countries in Asia, South Korea has grown with
an incredible record of economic development since the early 1960s (Scarborough,
1998). Due to the rapid modernization of the society, South Korea has experienced
major social changes moving from the traditional Confucianism and Buddhism
dominant culture to the modern and westernized culture. We believe that the
development of a Korean language version of the WFC would provide an initial
environment to conduct cross-cultural analyses of the work-family conflicts issues. Our
next task is then utilizing the Korean version of the WFC for future studies. One area of
possibility is examining the influence of work-family conflicts on various workplace
issues including work performance, employee morale, motivation, and work stress
within Korean context. Another potential study is combining the WFC with other work-
family related constructs. For example, other than work-family conflicts, work-family
enrichment is another measure commonly used for organizational studies and can be
used to connect both measures to wholly examine work-family issues within the
workplace. Testing the reciprocal relationships and influences of the two measures on
other workplace variables would deserve a handful effort of research for future studies.
Also, within cross cultural domains, comparison of the WFC between different
36-2
countries will be a worthwhile study to identify differences and similarities in work-
family conflict issues between different cultures.
Implications for the field of HRD
While work-family conflict has been a frequently studied research topic within
U.S. organizational and management studies, it is a relatively new study area within the
HRD field (Morris & Madsen, 2007). Since balanced work-family relationship for
individual employees is considered instrumental in workplace performance as well as
workplace well-being for organizational members, identifying the types and
characteristics of work-family related issues is central to HRD research. For
practitioners, the WFC can be used to guide the efforts for their HRD function in
diagnosing work-family related problems and issues and prescribe appropriate training
or organizational interventions to address such workplace issues detrimental to
organizational health.
Also, due to the new era of globalization, multinational organizations have
encountered various workplace issues hindering their pursuit of organizational goals
and work-family conflict issue is one of them. Identifying what aspects of work-family
conflicts are interfering with other organizational and culture specific variables becomes
one critical task that HRD professionals need to know to address diverse work and
human needs of their employees domestically and internationally.
References
Ayree, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-
family interface. Journal of Management, 25(4), 491-511.
doi:10.1177/014920639902500402
Ayree, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and
well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors
36-2
among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2),
259-278.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
doi:10.1177/009207038801600107
Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualzation of the work/family
literature. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 14, 125-182.
Bartolome, F., & Evans, P. A. (1980). Must success cost so much? Harvard Business
Review, 58, 137-148.
Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work–family
conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,
14(3), 475–491. doi:10.1177/014920638801400310
Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1982). Interrole conflict among married women: The
influence of husband and wife characteristics on conflict and coping behavior.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 99-110. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(82)90055-
0
Bohen, H. C., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible
work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
Bollen, K. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Burley, K. (1989). Work–family conflict and marital adjustment in dual career couples:
A comparison of three time models. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),
Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
36-2
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial
validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713
Chadwick, B. A., Albrecht, S. L., & Kunz, P. R. (1976). Marital and family role
satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 431–440.
Chen, H., & Bates, R. A. (2005). Instrument translation and development strategies for
cross-cultural studies. In M. L. Morris & F. Nafuko (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2005 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference. (pp. 693-
700). Estes Park, Colorado: Academy of HRD.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A
reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-
27. doi:10.1177/014920639902500101
Choi, S., Jung, W., & Cho, E. S. (2007). Work and family conflict in Korea: A
longitudinal study on married women’s discontinuity of employment. Paper
presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,
New York.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-
role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252–260.
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Mills, S. (1992). After-hours telecommuting and
work–family conflict: A comparative analysis. Information Systems Research, 3,
173–190.
Eiswirth-Neems, N., & Handal, P. (1978). Spouses' attitudes toward maternal
occupational status and effects on family climate. Journal of Community
Psychology, 6, 168-172. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(197804)6:2<168::AID-
JCOP2290060211>3.0.CO;2-9
36-2
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of
work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65–75. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65
Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A., & Gilley, A.M. (2002). Principles of human resource
development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role-explanations for
work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560
Hammer, L. B. (2003). Work–family enrichment: An expansion of the work–family
paradigm. In L. B. Hammer, Symposium of 18th Annual Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology Conference. Orlando, FL.
Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work–family conflict in the
dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
51, 51–75. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90004-Q
Hornsby, E. E., & Munn, S. L. (2009). University work-life benefits and same-sex
couples. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 67-81.
doi:10.1177/1523422308329199
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A
review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16,
131-152. doi:10.1177/0022002185016002001
Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). Influences of cognitive complexity on the
dimensions underlying perceptions of the work environment. Motivation and
Emotion, 4, 1–19.
36-2
Kinzie, J. D., & Manson, S. M. (1987). Self-rating scales in cross-cultural psychiatry.
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 38(2), 190-196.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,
and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 32, 198–215. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2
MacDermid, S. M. (2000). The measurement of work/life tension: Recommendations of
a virtual think tank. Boston: Sloan Work Family Network.
Marsh, H. W. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A
multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5–34.
Maslach C., & Jackson S. E. (1982). Burnout in health care professions: A social
psychological analysis. In G. Sanders & J. Suls (Eds.), Social psychology of
health and illness (pp. 227-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1995). Work-family conflict and the stress-
buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese
married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47. 78-92.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.1995.1034
Morris, M. L. (2008). Combating workplace stressors: Using work-life initiatives as an
OD intervention (Editorial). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2),
95-105.
Morris, M. L., & Madsen, S. R. (2007). Advancing work-life integration in individuals,
organizations, and communities. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
9(4), 1-6. doi: 10.1177/1523422307305486
Nelson, D., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more
positive approach, In J. Quick and L. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational
36-2
Health Psychology (pp. 97-119). Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Ng, C. W., Fosh, P., & Naylor, D. (2002). Work-family conflict for employees in an
East Asian Airline: Impact on career and relationship to gender. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 23(1), 67-105.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job
activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 272–279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.272
Parasuramanm, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). Integrating work and family: Challenges
and choices for a changing world. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in
work–family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312.
doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K.
W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between
wives’ employment and husbands’ well-being. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 185–201.
Pleck, J. H. (1978). Work–family conflict: A national assessment. Presented at the
Annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Boston, MA.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.
Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-32.
Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work–nonwork conflict and the
perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155–168.
36-2
Sakamoto, Y., & Spinks, W. (2008). The impact of home-based telework on work-
family conflict in the childcare stage. The Journal of eWorking. 2(2), 144-158.
Scarborough, J. (1998). The origins of cultural differences and their impact on
management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J.
(1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments
and quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of
paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417.
doi:10.1177/014920639301900208
Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475–486.
doi:10.1177/0013164496056003009
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2004). 2004 Yearbook of immigration
statistics. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/Yearbook2004.pdf
36-2
Appendix
Work-family Conflict Scale Items
Time-based work interference with family
1. My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like.
2. The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in
household responsibilities and activities.
3. I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work
responsibilities.
Time-based family interference with work
4. The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work
responsibilities.
5. The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities
at work that could be helpful to my career.
6. I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family
responsibilities.
Strain-based work interference with family
7. When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family
activities/responsibilities.
8. I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents
me from contributing to my family.
9. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too
stressed to do the things I enjoy.
Strain-based family interference with work
10. Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work.
11. Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time
concentrating on my work.
12. Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job.
Behavior-based work interference with family
13. The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving
problems at home.
14. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be
counterproductive at home.
36-2
15. The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a
better parent and spouse.
Behavior-based family interference with work
16. The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work.
17. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be
counterproductive at work.
18. The problem-solving behavior that works for me at home does not seem to be as
useful at work.