Quality of Work Life (QoWL) has been defined as the quality of the relationship between workers and the work environment, considering some human, technical, and economic factors [
1]. It has been stated that this is due to the level of satisfaction of a person in their workplace, harmoniously aligned with their purpose and that of the organization, and this, in turn, with the task role that each worker performs from their place [
2,
3,
4]. One of the purposes that initiates the greatest interest in this topic focuses on promoting positive organizational behavior that motivates workers to fulfill sustainable functions, strengthening the company’s commitment to making decisions that reflect a commitment to the well-being and diligent care for its employees by providing an optimal and favorable work environment. Although the quality of work life is a multidimensional concept [
1,
5,
6] that has generated discrepancies among various academics, the basic idea of this model is based on the theory of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [
7].
According to Maslow [
6], people feel dominated by the impulses of their unsatisfied internal needs, which determine and guide their behavior and are detailed quite well in the hierarchy of human needs. Maslow [
7] contributed to a psychology of the workers’ personality, emphasizing only the internal needs of humans, considering the situation in which they act. To administer the hierarchy, it is useful to know the perception of the subordinates to form a policy that satisfies the needs of the individuals of some organization, company, and state structures. Several investigations did not scientifically confirm Maslow’s theory; some even invalidated it [
12,
13]. However, this theory offers a guiding scheme to answer a worker’s perception of the quality of life in their work environment since it is sufficiently well structured and is currently widely used by Human Talent Management departments in companies, educational institutions, and all kinds of workplaces.
In 1930, the concept of Quality of Work Life was introduced for the first time, and then Richard E. Walton in 1973 gave a greater description to this topic [
14]. After some time, several researchers began to show their interest in individual priorities in the workplace, and other pioneers emerged, such as Hackman and Oldham in 1975 [
15], Westley in 1979 [
15], Nadler and Lawler in 1983 [
16] and Werther and Davis in 1983 [
17]. However, Walton’s model has stood out from the others for its greater consistency based on eight sub-divisions, arguing that there are several working conditions that involve the organization’s performance [
18]. In the 1970s, the pioneer of QWL began to consider that the industrial community had neglected environmental and labor principles, focusing primarily on economic development and technological evolution of the time, leaving a strong need to be addressed. Walton and other researchers argued that the study of QWL, in fact, was a necessary complement to the improvement of Total Quality (TQ) [
19].
Considering QoWL’s role, various research studies have analyzed its importance in educational environments. Because teaching tasks demand certain activities that occupy a large part of the time, the relationship between ergonomics in the workplace and QoWL has been investigated [
20], as well as QoWL and welfare services to retain valuable teachers using these benefits as a reward the institution offers [
21]. Likewise, it has been shown that job stability, salary, participatory management, rewards, and recognition play a vital role in improving the perception of QoWL [
22]. On the other hand, it has been shown that the greater the integration between the teacher’s life project and the institution, the greater the QoWL. Furthermore, the same study reveals that adopting promotion and support policies for teacher retention favors the reduction of diseases [
23,
24].
Some studies, for example, have shown a strong link between QoWL and burnout [
25], stress management [
26], well-being and resignation risks [
27], the organizational climate [
28,
29], creativity of teachers [
28], and the integration of the teacher’s life project in the institution, even if they are in unfavorable working conditions [
23]. Furthermore, it was evidenced that organizational health and employment status can modify the impact of QoWL [
30]. It can be mentioned that the high perception of teachers’ QoWL is directly affected and integrated by the level of psychological well-being, considering happiness and sufficient job satisfaction as inclusive elements in the teaching profession [
31]. It also has a strong relationship with motivation, productivity, and balance between work and non-work life [
5].
Furthermore, QoWL is closely related to social sustainability in several aspects. Both elements focus on promoting assertive spaces that foster high-performance entities, the long-term well-being of people, equality and diversity, the impact on the most influential community, talent retention and corporate social responsibility. In the same way, QoWL is related to the Sustainable Development Goals (OSD) established by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 since the promotion of a better and more equitable QoWL is essential to approaching a more just, equal, healthy and sustainable world.
The benefits of QoWL are closely linked to both employees and employers, who are involved in learning more and more about the factors that positively or negatively influence the working life of workers [
32,
33,
34,
35]. At the same time, all employees are sensitive to the changes and improvements the entity can promote in the work environment [
36]. It is interesting to note the results of multiple investigations where it has been possible to demonstrate how this framework has gained popularity in research and politics. Renowned scientists have studied the predictive agents of QoWL [
37,
38,
39,
40], both in national and international contexts [
1]. Faced with this, it awakens the need to know the world’s interest in learning this construct’s behavior. In response, it has been found that the ten countries that conduct the most QoWL research are India, the United States, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Brazil. Therefore, it is evident that there is a need to make more significant efforts for its study and implementation in South America.
1.1. The Quality of Work Life Scales (QoWL)
The importance of having valid instruments that can measure the QoWL perceived by workers in various business contexts is evident [
2,
45,
46,
47].
Walton suggests that workers are affected in their work life by dissatisfaction issues [
14]. During his study, he identified that work–life responsibility can be managed from eight categories, which together form a comprehensive framework for assessing and improving an organization’s quality of work life. Consideration of these dimensions can help companies create a more satisfying and productive work environment for their employees. These dimensions or categories are human capabilities (CAP), opportunities for growth and security (OOP), adequate and fair remuneration (REM), respect for the law (RFL), social integration within the organization (SIG), social relevance of working life (SRV), safe and healthy working conditions (WKC) and work influence (WIF).
Adequate and fair remuneration (REM): It refers to the perception of receiving fair and equitable remuneration for the work performed. This includes salary, benefits, and fringe benefits [
14]. Salary can decipher whether fairness in pay is being realized [
19]. Studies have claimed that salary and benefits could be considered major contributors to satisfaction with quality of life at work [
1]. Meanwhile, Tasdemir and Burcu [
45] stated that an equitable salary is an excellent indicator for evaluating the quality of work life.
Safe and healthy working conditions (WKC): This involves having a work environment that minimizes risks to the health and safety of employees. It includes accident prevention and health promotion in the workplace [
14]. Satisfying lower-order needs is a motivational driver that also helps to strengthen other important areas in the life of any worker [
6]. Every employee expects the entity for which he or she works to take initiatives that focus on his or her well-being; these are truly beneficial to the employer because they have the power to help, strengthen, and nurture the workforce and make it more motivated, reliable, and satisfied [
48].
Opportunities for growth and security (OOP): Employees value opportunities for personal and professional growth, such as training, skills development, promotion possibilities, conditions that provide job stability, and the creation of opportunities to use their new skills, abilities, and competencies [
14,
46]. Fernandes et al. [
19] classified this dimension into career possibilities, salary advancement prospects, personal growth, and job security. The application of these factors ensures favorable working conditions for employees [
33].
Human capabilities (CAP): The workplace should become a circle where the employee can develop their human capabilities in complete freedom [
2]. To achieve this purpose, self-control has become an indispensable element in this process [
14,
19]. This allows employees to play an important role in the development of their skills, their performance, and their autonomy, allowing their talents to be implemented in well-designed strategies [
24].
Social integration within the organization (SIG): This element refers to the way in which individuals relate and collaborate within a work environment. It involves the creation of a work environment in which employees feel part of a cohesive team and where their differences and differences are valued and respected by their leaders and co-workers. Social integration in the organization seeks to promote collaboration, effective communication, and a sense of belonging in the workplace [
14,
19,
22].
Social relevance of working life (SRV): It is understood as the employee’s perception of the importance of the roles and tasks performed in work environments [
14,
19]. As long as a company promotes and carries out activities that reveal a socially responsible attitude, the employee will feel proud, predisposed, committed, and identified with the institution [
32]. Abebe and Assemie [
29] indicated a positive relationship with growth and development, job benefits, organizational commitment, and social relevance in working life.
Respect for the law (RFL): This element is fundamental to maintaining a fair, safe, and ethical work environment. It consists of complying with all laws, regulations, and standards applicable to the company and the industry in which it operates [
14]. There are some key areas in which respect for the law is fundamental: compliance with labor laws, occupational health and safety, compliance with tax and accounting regulations, data protection and privacy, compliance with environmental regulations, and compliance with cybersecurity regulations. Compliance with the law in the workplace is important to maintain the integrity of the company, avoid legal sanctions and protect the rights of employees and other stakeholders. Employers and employees have a responsibility to know and comply with the relevant laws and regulations in their area of work [
37,
49].
Work influence (WIF): Employee-perceived satisfaction in the workplace extends to the non-work environment and creates positive or negative influences on the overall life of workers [
1]. It also refers to a person’s ability to affect or direct opinions, decisions, or actions in a work environment. It is an important skill in the business world and can be exercised in a variety of ways. It involves the ethical and constructive use of influence to achieve shared goals and mutual benefits in the work environment, and is characterized by leadership, effective communication, knowledge and experience, conflict resolution skills, charisma, persuasion, and negotiation [
14,
29].
These instruments should be valid to be applied to different realities, considering that scientific evidence affirms that QoWL is economically beneficial for companies in their attempt to address a balance between work and personal life. This construct remains heavily researched [
28,
31] in various places worldwide, and when considering its significant organizational and academic contribution, the effect it can generate in the community is valued. Although its definition may differ from the proposal of previous studies and their measurement scales, QoWL is usually associated with job satisfaction, happiness, and well-being of the worker [
6]. Below is a review of the measurement scales published in high-impact journals:
The Quality of Work Life Scale (QWL) designed by Sirgy et al. [
50] has 16 items, which were evaluated using a Likert-type scale of five points (between “totally disagree” and “totally agree”). It was designed in the USA in 2001 and validated in India in 2016. The scale has three factors, which are: Factor 1, QWL with Health and Safety (QWLHS); Factor 2, QWL with Family and Pay (QWLP); and Factor 3, QWL with Knowledge (QWLK), given that each item is measured by the degree of satisfaction achieved when working in any institution. Cronbach’s Alpha was valued at 0.73, 0.62, and 0.87 for each factor, respectively [
48].
The Questionnaire Quality of Work Life (QoWL) designed by Subbarayalu and Al Kuwaiti [
5] presents 23 items answered using a typical Likert scale of five points (between “totally disagree” and “totally agree”). It was built in 2017 and consists of five dimensions: (i) working conditions, (ii) psychosocial factors at the workplace, (iii) opportunities for training and development, (iv) compensation and rewards, and (v) job satisfaction and job security. The scale was tested and reviewed through a Six Sigma analytical tool. Reliability tests also showed that the overall Alpha coefficient value was 0.93 for internal consistency. When testing the questionnaire using factor analysis with the varimax rotation method, the total variance explained the sum of the squared loadings as 60.31 percent.
The Quality of Work Life (QWL), designed by Beloor et al. [
51] in 2019 in India, has 27 items. This scale was oriented to the textile sector and has six dimensions: (1) compensation, (2) work environment, (3) relationship and cooperation, (4) job security, (5) facilities, and (6) training and development. The instrument has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.875. The quantifier method is the Likert-type scale with five points ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The instrument obtained a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.875.
The Quality of Work Life (TQWL-42) designed by Pedroso et al. [
52] scale was Validated in 2014 in Brazil; it had 143 participants. The instrument was measured with a Likert-type scale of five points (where 1 is “totally dissatisfied” and 5 is “totally satisfied”). The scale presents five dimensions: (1) biological-physical, (2) psychological-behavioral, (3) sociological-relational, (4) economic-political, and (5) environmental and organizational. Likewise, the scale is made up of 42 items, and in the CFA, it obtained a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.85.
The Quality of Life in Work scale was designed by Marín et al. [
53] in 2013 in Brazil. It had the participation of 248 workers. The instrument was measured with a Likert-type scale of five points (where 1 is “totally disagree” and 5 is “totally agree”). The scale was initially constructed following Walton’s eight factors; however, when analyzing the factor loadings of the items, only four dimensions were established, with 35 items of the 52 initially proposed. The dimensions are (1) integration, respect, and autonomy; (2) fair and adequate compensation; (3) possibilities for leisure and social life; and (4) encouragement and support. The scale obtained a Cronbach’s Alpha between 0.76 and 0.89.
The Quality of Work Life Scale (QWLS) was validated by Sinval et al. [
6] in 2020 in Brazil and Portugal with a sample of 1163 multi-occupational workers. It is a 16-item self-report instrument with a Likert scale-type rating of seven points (where 1 is “very false” and 7 is “very true”). It is made up of seven factors: (1) health and safety needs, (2) economic and family needs, (3) social needs, (4) esteem needs, (5) updating needs, (6) knowledge needs and (7) aesthetic needs. For internal consistency estimates, ordinal alpha and ordinal omega were used. The results demonstrated the validity and reliability of the QWLS in both countries.
According to the background research already mentioned, there has been significant interest in developing scales to measure the Quality of Work Life construct. Previous research has seen the construct applied to the textile sector [
51], economically active participants [
6], higher education teachers [
5], public sector managers [
48], and mid-level employees in the organizational hierarchy [
13]. However, existing studies on QoWL have come from countries such as India, the United States, Portugal, Brazil, China, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates. While in Peru, there is no Spanish version in the scientific literature with evidence of the validity and reliability of a QoWL scale. To fill this gap, it is necessary to carry out a study to adapt a QoWL scale for Peruvian teachers of Regular Basic Education (RBE). In this sense, validation with a 32-item QoWL scale was considered appropriate [
54].