Work-Life Balance Scale

Abstract

The Work-Life Balance Scale (WLB Scale) is a 15-item psychometric instrument developed and adapted by Hayman (2005) from an earlier 19-item version created by Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003). This scale is designed to systematically capture employee perceptions regarding the dynamic interplay between their professional and personal spheres. It measures Work-Life Balance across three core dimensions: Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL), Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW), and Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE). The instrument utilizes a 5-point Likert scale and was rigorously validated, including the use of the back translation method to ensure reliability when administered in bilingual settings, such as the initial research context in Oman.

Keywords

Work-Life Balance, WLB, Work Interference with Personal Life, Personal Life Interference with Work, Work Personal Life Enhancement, psychometrics, organizational psychology, job satisfaction, employee well-being, Likert scale.

Authors

Hayman (2005), Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the WLB Scale is to quantitatively assess the perceived level of balance, conflict, and positive enhancement employees experience between their work and personal lives within an organizational context. The original research by Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003) sought to examine the relationship between these beliefs and critical organizational outcomes, including job stress, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit.

By distilling the complex concept of WLB into three distinct, measurable components, the instrument provides researchers and organizational development specialists with a clear tool to identify specific areas of strain (WIPL and PLIW) or support (WPLE). The 15-item adaptation by Hayman (2005) aimed to create a robust and efficient measure suitable for use in diverse professional populations.

Construct

The WLB Scale is founded upon a conceptualization of Work-Life Balance (WLB) that encompasses both negative interference and positive enhancement across domains. The scale measures three distinct latent variables:

• Construct 1: Work Interference with Personal Life (WIPL)

  This construct measures the negative impact of work-related factors on an individual’s personal life. It includes items reflecting how job demands cause personal life to suffer, lead to the neglect of personal needs, or result in missed non-work activities. It is measured by seven items.

• Construct 2: Personal Life Interference with Work (PLIW)

  This construct measures the reverse conflict, assessing the extent to which personal life demands or issues negatively interfere with or impact work performance and effectiveness. Items focus on personal life draining energy for work, resulting in fatigue, or causing work to suffer. It is measured by four items.

• Construct 3: Work Personal Life Enhancement (WPLE)

  This construct captures the positive spillover or reciprocal enhancement between the two domains. It measures how work provides support or energy for personal activities, and how personal life contributes to improved mood and energy at work. It is measured by four items.

Validity

Validity was systematically addressed throughout the scale development process. Content validity was ensured through an extensive review of existing literature and rigorous critique by a panel of academics and researchers, including both domain experts and research methodology specialists (Stage 2 of development). These experts helped finalize the constructs and refine the items to ensure they were specific and objective, thus preventing ambiguity that could lead to measurement error (Fairbrother and Warn, 2003).

Furthermore, the measurement model was subject to analysis to demonstrate that the scales exhibited validity, alongside reliability and one-dimensionality, as required for robust empirical measurement (Green et al., 2006). This involved ensuring that the observed indicators served effectively as measurement instruments for the latent variables.

Reliability

Scale reliability was assessed during the measurement analysis performed on the WIPL, PLIW, and WPLE sub-scales. Ensuring internal consistency and stability was critical for confirming the suitability of the instrument for future research across different populations.

A significant measure taken to enhance cross-cultural reliability was the use of the back translation method (Green and White, 1976; Brislin, 1976). Since the data collection was conducted in Oman, the questionnaire was translated into Arabic and then translated back to English by independent bilingual experts. This process was vital to minimize linguistic discrepancies and increase the reliability of the research instrument for Arabic-speaking respondents, ensuring accurate results regardless of the language choice.

Factor Analysis

To confirm the underlying structure and assess the one-dimensionality of the three core scales (WIPL, PLIW, and WPLE), both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed. This dual approach to measurement analysis provided confidence that the observed items accurately and effectively measured the intended latent constructs.

The specification of the measurement model involved assigning the questionnaire items (indicators) to their respective constructs (latent variables), a crucial step in ensuring that the final instrument met psychometric standards for empirical use (Garver and Mentzer, 1999).

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Scale / Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: 15 items, administered using a 5-point Likert scale anchored by the end points 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Language Available: English, Arabic (administered as a bilingual questionnaire).

Population Group: Employees/Professionals in organizational settings.

Age Group: Not specified; assumed adult working population.

Population Details: The validation study focused specifically on teachers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Oman, necessitating the development of a bilingual instrument to accommodate respondents more conversant in Arabic.

Test Methodology: Quantitative survey methodology involving three developmental stages: literature review and adaptation, expert critique and modification, and rigorous translation/back translation, followed by psychometric validation using EFA and CFA.

Keywords

WIPL, PLIW, WPLE, Higher Education, Oman, psychometrics, factor analysis, scale development, organizational behavior, cross-cultural research.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2005 (Hayman’s adaptation); 2003 (Fisher-McAuley et al. original).

Permissions & Fee: Information on commercial licensing or permissions fees is not provided in the source content.

Reference’s

Abu-Shanab, E. (2011). (Cited regarding backward translation).

Arthur, W. B., & Boyles, P. (2007). (Cited regarding questionnaire item design).

Berkanovic, E. (1980). (Cited regarding bilingual interviewing).

Boyar, S. L. et al. (2003). (Cited regarding 5-point Likert scale use).

Brislin, R. W. (1976). (Cited regarding backward translation).

Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). (Cited regarding 5-point Likert scale and questionnaire ambiguity).

Fisher-McAuley, G., Stanton, J., Farr, V., & Ardern, K. (2003). Development of a psychometric instrument to measure work life balance. Proceedings of the 5th Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference, Melbourne.

Forsyth, S., & Polzer-Debruyne, A. (2007). (Cited regarding 5-point Likert scale use).

Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). (Cited regarding measurement model specification).

Green, D., & White, A. (1976). (Cited regarding back translation method).

Green, S. B. et al. (2006). (Cited regarding scale requirements: one-dimensionality, reliability, validity).

Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric development of a work-life balance scale. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, Harrogate, UK.

Silva, C., & Scheines, R. (2005). (Cited regarding measurement model definition).

Su, C. J., & Parham, J. D. (2002). (Cited regarding backward translation).

Items of the Work-Life Balance Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.