Work-Family Conflict Scale (ISSP)

Abstract

The Work-Family Conflict Scale (ISSP) is a standardized, four-item instrument designed to measure the bidirectional nature of work-family conflict. It captures both Work Interference with Family (WF) and Family Interference with Work (FW). Developed for cross-national research, these items have been consistently utilized since 2002 as part of the Family and Changing Gender Roles module within the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). The scale demonstrates metric invariance across a large number of participating countries, supporting its use in comparative international studies of role incompatibility.

Keywords

work-family conflict, work-life balance, work interference with family, family interference with work, ISSP, gender roles, cross-cultural psychology, role strain, compatibility of family and job

Authors

Bianka Breyer, Dr. Matthias Bluemke

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Work-Family Conflict Scale is to quantify the extent of conflicting demands experienced by individuals balancing professional and familial roles. By measuring conflict as a two-directional process, the scale helps researchers understand whether work pressures impede family life (WF) or whether family responsibilities interfere with job performance (FW).

The scale is integral to the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), specifically within the “Family and Changing Gender Roles” module administered in 2002 and 2012. Its application facilitates the comparison of perceived conflict levels across different demographic groups and nations, enabling analysis of how societal structures, employment rates, and cultural attitudes toward gender roles impact individual well-being and work-life balance.

Construct

The scale measures work-family conflict (WFC), which is defined academically as “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). This incompatibility means that participation in one role (e.g., work) makes fulfilling the duties of the other role (e.g., family) more difficult.

The scale operationalizes this construct through two distinct facets, consistent with established theory:

• Work Interference with Family (WF): Items 1 and 2 measure the negative impact of work demands (such as time spent on the job or fatigue from work) on family obligations.
• Family Interference with Work (FW): Items 3 and 4 measure the negative impact of family responsibilities (such as household chores or childcare) on performance and concentration at work.

Validity

Evidence for criterion validity was established by correlating the WFC scale facets (WF, FW, and the total score) with various relevant variables collected in the ISSP 2012 module, including demographic factors and psychological measures.

Key findings supporting validity across the international sample include:

• Gender: The total WFC score showed a significant positive correlation with gender (indicating higher conflict for women compared to men), consistent with established literature.
• Age: A small negative correlation was found between age and work-family conflict, meaning conflict generally decreases as individuals age.
• Working Hours: Work-to-Family (WF) conflict rose significantly with the amount of weekly working hours, whereas family-to-work (FW) conflict was not significantly affected by working hours.
• Household Hours: Conversely, the amount of hours spent on household work predicted increases in Family-to-Work (FW) conflict.
• Well-being: As expected, higher WFC scores correlated negatively with general health and overall happiness, confirming that interrole conflict is associated with decreased well-being.

Reliability

The reliability of the Work-Family Conflict Scale was assessed separately for the two facets (WF and FW) and for the total scale (WFC) across each participating country using two common metrics: Cronbach’s alpha and Raykov’s rho.

Overall reliability results demonstrated acceptable to strong internal consistency across the diverse international samples:

• Cronbach’s alpha: The values ranged from a low of .50 (FW facet in India) up to .89 (FW facet in Turkey). The average alpha across all countries was .75 for WF, .72 for FW, and .79 for WFC (total scale).
• Raykov’s rho: This measure, which is considered a less biased estimator of scale reliability, ranged from .53 to .96. The average Raykov’s rho across all countries was .80 for WF, .87 for FW, and .87 for WFC (total scale).

Factor Analysis

Dimensionality was investigated using a multi-group Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach based on the pooled ISSP 2012 data from 37 countries. A model consistent with theoretical expectations was tested, featuring two latent variables: Work Interference with Family (WF, loading items 1 and 2) and Family Interference with Work (FW, loading items 3 and 4).

The analysis specifically examined measurement invariance across countries:

• Configural Invariance: The model showed a very good fit, confirming that the basic two-factor structure (WF and FW) is present across all surveyed countries.
• Metric Invariance: This model, constraining factor loadings to be equal across countries, was accepted (ΔRMSEA = .006, ΔCFI = .008). This suggests that the items have equivalent meanings across all participating countries.
• Scalar Invariance: This model, which further constrains item intercepts to be equal, was rejected (ΔRMSEA = .040, ΔCFI = .062). The rejection of scalar invariance indicates that while the factor structure is equivalent (metric invariance holds), item-specific difficulties vary between countries. Therefore, direct comparisons of latent means or manifest scale means across different countries are not recommended without further model adjustments.

Instrument

Test Type: Standardized, multi-item psychological scale for cross-national survey research.

Format: 4-item self-report questionnaire administered primarily via face-to-face interviews.

Response Specifications: 4-point rating scale (inverted for scoring) where 1 = “several times a week,” 2 = “several times a month,” 3 = “once or twice,” and 4 = “never.” A “Don’t know” or similar exclusion category is also offered.

Language Available: Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English (Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, South Africa, United States), Finnish, French (Belgium, Canada, France, Netherlands), German (Austria, Germany, Switzerland), Icelandic, Indian (10 different languages), Hebrew, Hungarian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Philippine (7 languages), Polish, Russian (Latvia, Russia), Slovakian, Slovenian, South African (5 languages), Spanish (Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Spain, Venezuela), Swedish, Taiwanese, Turkish.

Population Group: General population (employed individuals with family responsibilities).

Age Group: Persons aged 15 and over.

Population Details: Data derived from the ISSP 2012 survey, totaling 34,526 respondents (N = 34,526) across 37 countries.

Test Methodology: The scale is typically integrated into the larger ISSP survey module, utilizing systematic sampling procedures and design weights to ensure representativeness within each country.

Keywords

psychological measurement, scale validation, Cronbach’s alpha, Raykov’s rho, criterion validity, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), metric invariance, latent variables

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected] (Bianka Breyer), [email protected] (Dr. Matthias Bluemke)

Correspondence Address: GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Survey Design and Methodology, P.O. Box 12 21 55, 69072 Mannheim, Germany

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale is standardized and utilized within the public domain of the ISSP. The scale items were used in the ISSP Family and Changing Gender Roles module in 2002 and 2012. Permissions and fee details for specific research use may be directed to the corresponding authors or the ISSP organization.

Reference’s

• Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
• Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Work-life balance in Europe. Acta Sociologica, 49(4), 375–383.
• Scholz, E., Jutz, R., Edlund, J., Öun, I., & Braun, M. (2014). ISSP 2012 Family and Changing Gender Roles IV: Variable report. GESIS-Technical Reports.
• Allen, T. D., French, K. A., Dumani, S., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). A cross-national investigation of the work-family interface: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 128–140.
• Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198.
• Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.

The related research data utilized for validation are publicly available via the GESIS data archive:

• International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles III – ISSP 2002, ZA3880: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.11564
• International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles IV – ISSP 2012, ZA5900: http://dx.doi.org/10.4232/1.12022

Items of the Work-Family Conflict Scale (ISSP)

Instruction: How often has each of the following happened to you during the past three months?

Response Categories: 1 = “several times a week”, 2 = “several times a month”, 3 = “once or twice”, 4 = “never”.

Note. WF = work interference with family, FW = family interference with work.