Tapping the Employee Perspective on the Improvement of Sustainable Employability (SE): Validation of the MAastricht Instrument for SE (MAISE-NL)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Construct of SE
1.2. Interventions for SE
1.3. Need for an Employee Perspective on SE and Pointers for Intervention Development
1.4. Measuring SE
1.5. Aim of this Study and Research Questions
- How (i.e., by means of which scales) can SE, factors affecting SE, division of responsibility for SE, and responsibility for factors affecting SE be measured from an employees’ perspective?
- What are the reliability and validity of these scales?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Development of the MAastricht Instrument for Sustainable Employability
- The meaning of SE according to the employee (10 items). The set starts with “Sustainable employability has the following meaning to me:”. An example item is “The capacity to do my job efficiently”. The response scale ranges from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”.
- The level of SE of the employees themselves (10 items). This set starts with “To what extent do the following statements apply to you?”. An example item is “I am efficient at my job”. The response scale ranges from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”.
- Factors affecting SE of the employee (18 items). This set starts with “Indicate to which extent you believe the following changes could affect your sustainable employability:”. An example item is: “Improvement of working conditions”. The response scale ranges from 1 “Not at all” to 5 “A huge amount”.
- Responsibility for SE (1 item, “With whom does the responsibility for sustainable employability lie according to you?”. The response scale ranges from 1 “Only with the employer” to 5 “Only with the employee”.
- Responsibility for factors affecting SE (18 items). This set starts with “Indicate where you feel the responsibility lies for implementing the changes below that would improve your sustainable employability”. These factors are similar to those in area 3. An example item is “Expansion of education/development possibilities”. The response scale ranges from 1 “Only with the employer” to 5 “Only with the employee”.
2.2. Population, Design and Procedure
2.3. Ethical Issues
2.4. Measures
Proxies
2.5. Data Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Principal Component Analyses and Confirmatory Factor Analyses
3.2. Levels of SE
3.3. Sensitivity Analyses
3.4. Criterion Validity
4. Discussion
4.1. Recommendations for Future Use of the MAISE
4.2. Study Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fleuren, B.P.; de Grip, A.; Jansen, N.W.; Kant, I.; Zijlstra, F.R. Critical reflections on the currently leading definition of sustainable employability. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van der Klink, J.J.; Bültmann, U.; Burdorf, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Zijlstra, F.R.; Abma, F.I.; Brouwer, S.; Van der Wilt, G.J. Sustainable employability—Definition, conceptualization, and implications: A perspective based on the capability approach. Discussion paper. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hillage, J.; Pollard, E. Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis. Research Brief 85; Department for Education and Employment: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Lo Presti, A.; Pluviano, S. Looking for a route in turbulent waters: Employability as a compass for career success. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2016, 6, 192–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, A.K. Equality of what? In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values; McMurrin, S., Ed.; University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1980; pp. 195–220. [Google Scholar]
- Hazelzet, E.; Picco, E.; Houkes, I.; Bosma, H.; de Rijk, A. Effectiveness of interventions to promote sustainable employability: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 6, 1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van der Klink, J.J.L.; Burdorf, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Van der Wilt, G.J.; Zijlstra, F.R.H.; Brouwer, S.; Bültmann, U. Duurzaam Inzetbaar: Werk als Waarde; Report ZonMw; ZonMw: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- Brouwers, L.A.; Engels, J.A.; Heerkens, Y.F.; van der Beek, A.J. Development of a Vitality Scan related to workers’ sustainable employability: A study assessing its internal consistency and construct validity. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hallberg, U.E.; Schaufeli, W.B. “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? Eur. Psychol. 2006, 11, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, M.J.; Woehr, D.J.; Hudspeth, N. The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 60, 451–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koolhaas, W.; Brouwer, S.; Groothoff, J.W.; van der Klink, J.J. Enhancing a sustainable healthy working life: Design of a clustered randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2010, 6, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Koolhaas, W.; Groothoff, J.W.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Klink, J.J.; Brouwer, S. Effectiveness of a problem-solving based intervention to prolong the working life of ageing workers. BMC Public Health 2015, 1, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- van Vuuren, T.; van Dam, K. Duurzame inzetbaarheid door vitaliseren: Het belang van ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden en uitdagend werk. In Een Leven Lang Inzetbaar? Duurzame Inzetbaarheid Op Het Werk: Interventies, Best Practices En Integrale Benaderingen; de Lange, A.H., Van der Heijden, B.I., Eds.; Vakmedianet: Alphen aan de Rijn, The Netherlands, 2013. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- Horstman, K. Dikke Kinderen, Uitgebluste Werknemers En Vreemde Virussen: Filosofie Van De Publieke Gezondheidszorg in De 21e Eeuw; Inaugural Lecture; Maastricht University: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2010. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- Houkes, I.; Rijk, A.E.; de Rooijackers, B.; Mulder, M.; Koster, A.; Horstman, K. Naar Een Sociale Ecologie Van Duurzame Inzetbaarheid; Research report; Maastricht University: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2015. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- Peters, V.; Engels, J.A.; de Rijk, A.E.; Nijhuis, F.J.N. Sustainable employability in shiftwork: Related to types of work schedule rather than age. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2015, 88, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nauta, A.; van de Ven, C.; Halewijn, I. Kwaliteit Van Human Resource Management. Op Weg Naar Excellerende Werknemers; INK: Zaltbommel, The Netherlands, 2003. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- van Vuuren, T. Vitaliteitsmanagement: Je Hoeft Niet ziek Te Zijn Om Beter Te Worden; Inaugural Lecture; Open University: Heerlen, The Netherlands, 2011. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- von Bonsdorff, M.E.; Huuhtanen, P.; Tuomi, K.; Seitsamo, J. Predictors of employees’ early retirement intentions: An 11-year longitudinal study. Occup. Med. 2010, 60, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abma, F.I.; Brouwer, S.; de Vries, H.J.; Arends, I.; Robroek, S.J.W.; Cuijpers, M.P.J.; van der Wilt, G.J.; Bültmann, U.; van der Klink, J.J.L. The capability set for work: Development and validation of a new questionnaire. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blatter, B.; Dorenbosch, L.; Keijzer, L. Duurzame Inzetbaarheid in Perspectief. Inzichten En Oplossingen Op Sector, Organisatie En Individueel Niveau; TNO: Hoofddorp, The Netherlands, 2014. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- van Vuuren, T.; Ybema, J.F.; Neessen, P.; Marcelissen, F.; van Dam, K. Vitale, Gezonde En Duurzaam Inzetbare Werknemers in Limburgse Organisaties; Open University: Heerlen, The Netherlands, 2014. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- OCI. OCI the Vital Company. Eindrapport Werkgroep Vitality; OCI Nitrogen: Geleen, The Netherlands, 2011. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- van der Neut, I.; Kool, Q. Duurzame Inzetbaarheid Van (Oudere) Werknemers Bij De Radboud Universiteit; IVA: Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2006. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- Lerner, D.; Amick, B.C.; Rogers, W.H.; Malspeis, S.; Bungay, K.; Cynn, D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med. Care 2001, 39, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. UWES—Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test Manual; Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands. Available online: http://www.schaufeli.com (accessed on 18 April 2011).
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten. Gedrag Organ. 2004, 17, 89–112. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar]
- The Jamovi Project. Jamovi (Version 0.9.5.12) [Computer Software]. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 1 January 2019).
- Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Horstman, K. De moraal van vitaal en bevlogen. TBV 2011, 19, 24–27. (In Dutch) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassier, J.B. Identifying local obstacles and facilitators of implementation. In Handbook of Work Disability. Prevention and Management; Anema, H., Loisel, P., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 441–459. [Google Scholar]
- Eldredge, L.K.B.; Markham, C.M.; Ruiter, R.A.; Fernández, M.E.; Kok, G.; Parcel, G.S. Planning Health Promotion Programs. An Intervention Mapping Approach, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Truxillo, D.M.; Cadiz, D.M.; Rineer, J.R. Designing jobs for an aging workforce: An opportunity for occupational health. In Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice, 1st ed.; Houdmont, J., Leka, S., Sinclair, R.R., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 109–125. [Google Scholar]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | Total Sample | Industry | University | Homecare |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age (mean) | 48.1 | 49.2 | 40.1 | 51.2 |
Gender (%) | ||||
- men | 38.7 | 87.3 | 20.8 | 4.4 |
- women | 61.3 | 12.7 | 79.2 | 95.6 |
Educational level (%) | ||||
- primary education | 3.6 | 0.5 | 0 | 8.3 |
- secondary education | 31.5 | 17.1 | 10.4 | 55.9 |
- medium professional education, lower levels | 9.3 | 12.2 | 0.8 | 11.4 |
- medium professional education, higher levels | 23.3 | 42.9 | 5.6 | 15.3 |
- higher professional education and university | 32.4 | 27.3 | 83.2 | 9.2 |
Sustainable employability has the following meaning to me: | |||
---|---|---|---|
# | Item | Fit and Useful | Productive |
1 | I can do my job without too much stress | 0.721 | −0.107 |
2 | I have the right knowledge to perform my job well | 0.657 | 0.091 |
3 | I enjoy my job | 0.827 | −0.085 |
4 | I do not develop physical health issues as a result of my job | 0.593 | 0.175 |
5 | The capacity to do my job efficiently | 0.537 | 0.314 |
6 | The feeling of performing useful activities | 0.727 | 0.009 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale 1a fit and useful | 0.80 | ||
7 | Being able to do my work until I retire | 0.134 | 0.599 |
8 | Try to keep my absenteeism limited | −0.194 | 0.898 |
9 | I can make money | 0.043 | 0.534 |
10 | I am productive while working | 0.204 | 0.607 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale 1b productive | 0.65 | ||
2 | To what extent do the following statements apply to you? | ||
# | Item | Performance | Health issues |
2 | I have the required knowledge to perform my job well | 0.783 | −0.153 |
3 | I enjoy my job | ||
5 | I am efficient at my job | 0.851 | −0.061 |
6 | I feel that my job activities are useful | 0.772 | 0.059 |
10 | I am productive while working | 0.785 | 0.077 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale 2a performance (2–5–6–10) | 0.81 | ||
1 | My job is stressful | −0.106 | 0.638 |
4 | I have work-related physical health issues | −0.064 | 0.829 |
7 | I feel that I will be able to do my job until I retire | 0.283 | 0.524 |
8 | I am rarely absent from work due to sickness | 0.281 | 0.244 |
9 | It is easy for me to make money | ||
Cronbach’s alpha scale 2b health issues (1–4–7) | 0.46 | ||
Cronbach’s alpha scale 2b health issues (1–4–7–8) | 0.45 |
Chi-2 (df) | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Meaning of SE (2 factors) | 91.8 (33) | 0.966 | 0.954 | 0.034 | 0.054 |
2 | Level of SE (2 factors) | 70.87 (17) | 0.949 | 0.916 | 0.046 | 0.073 |
3 | Factors affecting SE (3 factors) | 886 (128) | 0.873 | 0.848 | 0.118 | 0.102 |
3 | Factors affecting SE—adjusted (3 factors) | 300 (61) | 0.939 | 0.922 | 0.048 | 0.083 |
4 | Responsibility for factors affecting SE (5 factors) | 364 (122) | 0.927 | 0.909 | 0.050 | 0.056 |
3 Indicate to what extent you believe the following changes could contribute to YOUR sustainable employability: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
# | Item | Work Organization | Lifestyle and Balance | Adapted Job |
1 | Move more | 0.095 | 0.727 | 0.073 |
2 | Reach a healthier body weight | 0.014 | 0.920 | −0.117 |
3 | Start eating more healthy | −0.020 | 0.914 | −0.024 |
4 | Find a better balance between my job and private life | −0.001 | 0.469 | 0.488 |
5 | Learn to deal with stress better | 0.220 | 0.425 | 0.317 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale lifestyle and balance | 0.85 | |||
Cronbach’s alpha scale lifestyle and balance—adjusted | 0.90 | |||
6 | Decrease in job pressure | 0.189 | 0.331 | 0.398 |
7 | Introduce more flexible working hours | 0.131 | 0.081 | 0.695 |
8 | More attention paid to career paths | 0.394 | −0.056 | 0.538 |
9 | Reducing weekly working hours | −0.175 | 0.044 | 0.862 |
10 | Change of job tasks/function/activities | −401 | −0.177 | 0.573 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale adapted job | 0.81 | |||
11 | Atmosphere improvement within my department/team | 0.630 | 0.031 | 0.047 |
12 | Improvement of working conditions | 0.612 | 0.053 | 0.147 |
13 | Expansion of education/development possibilities | 0.665 | 0.025 | 0.091 |
14 | More variation in job activities | 0.849 | 0.003 | −0.037 |
15 | More challenging job activities | 0.884 | −0.046 | −0.057 |
16 | To receive more appreciation for the job that I do | 0.756 | 0.081 | −0.131 |
17 | The chance to apply my knowledge/skillset to my job better | 0.802 | 0.044 | 0.044 |
18 | Obtain more responsibility within my job | 0.833 | 0.004 | −0.036 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale work organization | 0.90 | |||
Cronbach’s alpha scale work organization—adjusted | 0.87 |
5 | Indicate where you feel the responsibility lies for implementing the changes below that would improve YOUR sustainable employability: | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# | Item | Work Content | Lifestyle | Adapted Job | Work Context | Balance |
1 | Move more | −0.071 | 0.812 | 0.016 | 0.040 | 0.089 |
2 | Reach a healthier body weight | 0.011 | 0.931 | −0.011 | −0.057 | 0.033 |
3 | Start eating more healthy | −0.029 | 0.931 | −0.011 | −0.057 | −0.033 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale responsibility for lifestyle | 0.88 | |||||
4 | Find a better balance between my job and private life | 0.037 | 0.150 | 0.149 | 0.045 | 0.686 |
5 | Learn to deal with stress better | 0.121 | 0.171 | 0.047 | 0.036 | 0.703 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale responsibility for balance | 0.60 | |||||
7 | Introduce more flexible working hours | −0.160 | −0.057 | 0.634 | 0.293 | 0.119 |
8 | More attention paid to career paths | 0.066 | 0.010 | 0.659 | 0.012 | 0.055 |
9 | Reducing weekly working hours | −0.133 | 0.061 | 0.817 | −0.0090 | 0.041 |
10 | Change of job tasks/function/activities | 0.352 | -0.031 | 0.692 | −0.137 | −0.036 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale responsibility for adapted job | 0.71 | |||||
6 | Decrease in job pressure | −0.022 | −0.152 | 0.201 | 0.594 | 0.362 |
11 | Atmosphere improvement within my department/team | 0.167 | 0.131 | −0.147 | 0.433 | 0.089 |
12 | Improvement of working conditions | −0.080 | −0.041 | 0.034 | 0.814 | 0.043 |
13 | Expansion of education/development possibilities | 0.048 | 0.117 | 0.219 | 0.548 | −0.409 |
14 | More variation in job activities | 0.431 | 0.048 | 0.280 | 0.314 | −0.164 |
15 | More challenging job activities | 0.494 | 0.114 | 0.216 | 0.290 | −0.236 |
16 | To receive more appreciation for the job that I do | 0.120 | −0.067 | −0.075 | 0.613 | −0.090 |
17 | The chance to apply my knowledge/skillset to my job better | 0.798 | −0.026 | −0.061 | 0.030 | 0.054 |
18 | Obtain more responsibility within my job | 0.850 | −0.047 | −0.004 | −0.033 | 0.131 |
Cronbach’s alpha scale responsibility for work content (items 14–15–17–18) | 0.76 | |||||
Cronbach’s alpha scale responsibility for work context (items 6–11–12–13–16) | 0.66 |
Scale (range 1–5) | # | M (range) | SD | 25th perc. | 75th perc. | M (range) | SD | M (range) | SD | M (range) | SD | M (range) | SD | M (range) | SD | M (range) | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total sample (n = 601) | <45 (n = 359) | ≥45 (n = 177) | Men (n = 202) | Women (n = 339) | Lower/middle ed. (n = 365) | Higher ed. (n = 179) | |||||||||||
1. Meaning of SE | |||||||||||||||||
1a. Fit and useful | 6 | 4.16 (1–5) | 0.48 | 4.00 | 4.40 | 4.15 (1–5) | 0.49 | 4.19 (2.83–5) | 0.44 | 4.23 (2.67–5) | 0.43 | 4.12 (1–5) | 0.49 | 4.12 (1–5) | 0.48 | 4.25 (3–5) | 0.42 |
1b. Productive | 4 | 4.01 (1.5–5) | 0.53 | 3.75 | 4.50 | 4.08 (1.5-5) | 0.52 | 4.13 (2.75–5) | 0.50 | 4.21 (2.5–5) | 0.52 | 4.02 (1.5–5) | 0.51 | 4.07 (1.5–5) | 0.54 | 4.16 (3–5) | 0.47 |
2. Level of SE | |||||||||||||||||
2a. Performance | 4 | 4.11 (1–5) | 0.49 | 4.00 | 4.25 | 4.07 (1–5) | 0.49 | 4.21 (2.5–5) | 0.49 | 4.06 (2.5–5) | 0.41 | 4.14 (1–5) | 0.54 | 4.15 (1–5) | 0.48 | 4.04 (2.5–5) | 0.52 |
2b. Health issues | 4 | 3.69 (1.75–5) | 0.57 | 3.25 | 4.00 | 3.71 (1.75–5) | 0.57 | 3.71 (2.25–5) | 0.57 | 3.84 (2.25–5) | 0.53 | 3.62 (1.75–5) | 0.58 | 3.65 (1.75–5) | 0.56 | 3.81 (1.75–5) | 0.58 |
3. Factors affecting SE | |||||||||||||||||
3a. Work organization | 2 | 3.06 (1–5) | 0.85 | 2.50 | 3.67 | 3.11 (1–5) | 0.82 | 2.94 (1–4.67) | 0.85 | 2.86 (1–5) | 0.87 | 3.18 (1–5) | 0.79 | 3.02 (1–5) | 0.81 | 3.15 (1–5) | 0.89 |
3b. Lifestyle and balance | 5 | 2.91 (1–5) | 1.09 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 2.95 (1–5) | 1.08 | 2.86 (1–5) | 1.08 | 3.09 (1–5) | 1.01 | 2.82 (1–5) | 1.11 | 2.94 (1–5) | 1.09 | 2.88 (1–5) | 1.07 |
3c. Adapted job | 6 | 2.85 (1–5) | 0.84 | 2.20 | 3.40 | 2.91 (1–5) | 0.79 | 2.74 (1–5) | 0.88 | 2.88 (1–5) | 0.82 | 2.86 (1–5) | 0.84 | 2.79 (1–5) | 0.84 | 3.02 (1–5) | 0.80 |
4. Responsibility for employee SE | |||||||||||||||||
Who is responsible for employee SE | 1 | 2.86 (1–4) | 0.47 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.90 (1–4) | 0.42 | 2.81 (1–4) | 0.55 | 3.00 (2–4) | 0.30 | 2.78 (1–4) | 0.53 | 2.81 (1–4) | 0.52 | 2.99 (2–4) | 0.32 |
5. Responsibility for factors affecting SE | |||||||||||||||||
5a. Life style | 3 | 4.13 (1–5) | 0.68 | 3.67 | 4.67 | 4.16 (2–5) | 0.66 | 4.10 (1–5) | 0.70 | 4.23 (1–5) | 0.64 | 4.08 (2–5) | 0.69 | 4.09 (2–5) | 0.96 | 4.23 (1–5) | 0.63 |
5b. Balance | 2 | 3.50 (1–5) | 0.63 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 3.47 (1–5) | 0.63 | 3.51 (2–5) | 0.64 | 3.41 (2–5) | 0.60 | 3.56 (1–5) | 0.65 | 3.56 (1–5) | 0.68 | 3.39 (2–5) | 0.53 |
5c. Adapted job | 4 | 2.79 (1–5) | 0.56 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.72 (1–4.5) | 0.51 | 2.91 (1–5) | 0.64 | 2.68 (1–4.5) | 0.52 | 2.86 (1–5) | 0.57 | 2.81 (1–5) | 0.60 | 2.75 (1–4.5) | 0.45 |
5d. Work content | 4 | 2.81 (1–5) | 0.55 | 2.50 | 3.00 | 2.82 (1–5) | 0.52 | 2.81 (1–5) | 0.60 | 2.76 (1–5) | 0.53 | 2.84 (1–5) | 0.55 | 2.79 (1–5) | 0.59 | 2.85 (1.5–4.5) | 0.43 |
5e. Work context | 5 | 2.55 (1–4.6) | 0.46 | 2.20 | 2.80 | 2.52 (1–4.6) | 0.46 | 2.60 (1.2–4) | 0.45 | 2.54 (1–3.8) | 0.47 | 2.56 (1–4.6) | 0.46 | 2.55 (1–4.6) | 0.48 | 2.54 (1.2–3.6) | 0.41 |
# | Variable a | 1a | 1b | 2a | 2b | 3a | 3b | 3c | 4 | 5a | 5b | 5c | 5d | 5e | 6 | 7 | 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MAISE scales | |||||||||||||||||
1a | Useful | -- | |||||||||||||||
1b | Prod. | 0.62 ** | -- | ||||||||||||||
2a | Perf. | 0.43 ** | 0.34 ** | -- | |||||||||||||
2b | Health | 0.33 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.32 ** | -- | ||||||||||||
3a | Work org. | 0.04 | 0.06 | −0.02 | −0.17 ** | -- | |||||||||||
3b | Lifestyle | −0.00 | 0.12 ** | −0.02 | −0.02 | 0.34 ** | -- | ||||||||||
3c | Adapted | 0.05 | 0.04 | −0.10 * | −0.22 ** | 0.64 ** | 0.38 ** | -- | |||||||||
4 | Resp. SE | 0.05 | 0.00 | −0.13 ** | 0.06 | −0.02 | 0.12 ** | 0.01 | -- | ||||||||
5a | Life.-res. | 0.10 * | 0.10 * | −0.04 | 0.06 | −0.05 | −0.09 * | −0.08 | 0.16 ** | -- | |||||||
5b | Bal.-res. | −0.00 | 0.02 | 0.10* | 0.03 | −0.06 | −0.06 | −0.16 ** | −0.02 | 0.38 ** | -- | ||||||
5c | Adap.-res. | −0.05 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | −0.06 | −0.06 | −0.24 ** | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.24 ** | -- | |||||
5d | Content-res. | −0.11 ** | −0.13 ** | −0.05 | −0.02 | −0.10 * | −0.01 | −0.13 ** | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.12 ** | 0.32 ** | -- | ||||
5e | Context-res. | −0.12 ** | −0.08 | −0.06 | 0.07 | −0.11 * | −0.03 | −0.11 * | 0.09* | −0.00 | 0.12 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.53 ** | -- | |||
Health Proxies | |||||||||||||||||
6 | Vit. | 0.19 ** | 0.13 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.33 ** | −0.02 | −0.02 | −0.18 ** | −0.08 * | −0.01 | 0.08 | 0.14 ** | 0.05 | 0.01 | -- | ||
7 | Health | 0.25 ** | 0.19* | 0.20 * | 0.52 ** | −0.11 | −0.10 | −0.14 | −0.01 | −0.08 | −0.11 | −0.05 | 0.14 | −0.03 | 0.36 ** | -- | |
8 | SRH | 0.24 ** | 0.11 * | 0.18 ** | 0.41 ** | −0.05 | −0.21 ** | −0.05 | −0.06 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.34 ** | 0.95 ** | -- |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Houkes, I.; Miglioretti, M.; Picco, E.; De Rijk, A.E. Tapping the Employee Perspective on the Improvement of Sustainable Employability (SE): Validation of the MAastricht Instrument for SE (MAISE-NL). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072211
Houkes I, Miglioretti M, Picco E, De Rijk AE. Tapping the Employee Perspective on the Improvement of Sustainable Employability (SE): Validation of the MAastricht Instrument for SE (MAISE-NL). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(7):2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072211
Chicago/Turabian StyleHoukes, Inge, Massimo Miglioretti, Eleonora Picco, and Angelique Eveline De Rijk. 2020. "Tapping the Employee Perspective on the Improvement of Sustainable Employability (SE): Validation of the MAastricht Instrument for SE (MAISE-NL)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 7: 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072211