Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Work–Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS): Development and Initial Validation of a Self-report Measure of Work–Family Conflict for Use with Parents

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Child Psychiatry & Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper outlines the development and validation of the Work–Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS) designed to measure work-to-family conflict (WFC) and family-to-work conflict (FWC) for use with parents of young children. An expert informant and consumer feedback approach was utilised to develop and refine 20 items, which were subjected to a rigorous validation process using two separate samples of parents of 2–12 year old children (n = 305 and n = 264). As a result of statistical analyses several items were dropped resulting in a brief 10-item scale comprising two subscales assessing theoretically distinct but related constructs: FWC (five items) and WFC (five items). Analyses revealed both subscales have good internal consistency, construct validity as well as concurrent and predictive validity. The results indicate the WAFCS is a promising brief measure for the assessment of work–family conflict in parents. Benefits of the measure as well as potential uses are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The CFI, RMSEA and SRMR fit indices were all affected by the Satorra–Bentler scaling correction for the Chi square statistic.

  2. For the chi square difference test a constrained model, in which the correlation between the factors is fixed at 1.00 is compared to the original model’s χ 2 where the correlation between the constructs is estimated freely. Significantly lower chi square value of the unconstrained model implies good discriminant validity.

  3. For more information please contact the corresponding author.

References

  1. Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad Manag Rev 10:76–88

    Google Scholar 

  2. Byron K (2005) A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. J Vocat Behav 67:169–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Casper WJ et al (2007) A review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. J Appl Psychol 92:28–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frone MR, Russell M, Cooper ML (1992) Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: testing a model of the work–family interface. J Appl Psychol 77:65–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eby LT et al (2005) Work and family research in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). J Vocat Behav 66:124–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ruppanner L (2013) Conflict between work and family: an investigation of four policy measures. Soc Indic Res 110:327–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nomaguchi KM (2009) Change in work–family conflict among employed parents between 1977 and 1997. J Marriage Fam 71:15–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haslam DM, Sanders MR, Sofronoff K (2013) Reducing work–family conflict in teachers: a randomised controlled trial of workplace triple P. Sch Ment Health 5:70–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartung D, Hahlweg K (2010) Strengthening parent well-being at the work–family interface: a German trial on workplace triple P. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 20:404–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mesmer-Magnus JR, Viswesvaran C (2005) Convergence between measures of work-to-family and family-to-work conflict: a meta-analytic examination. J Vocat Behav 67:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carlson D, Kacmar KM, Williams LJ (2000) Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. J Vocat Behav 56:249–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frone MR, Yardley JK, Markel KS (1997) Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. J Vocat Behav 50:145–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH (1990) How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. Raven Press, New York, pp 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  15. Diefenbach MA, Weinstein ND, O’Reilly J (1993) Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Educ Res 8:181–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cummins RA, Gullone E (2000) Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: the case for subjective quality of life measurement. In: Second international conference on quality of life. National University of Singapore

  17. Matthews RA, Kath LM, Barnes-Farrell JL (2010) A short, valid, predictive measure of work–family conflict: item selection and scale validation. J Occup Health Psychol 15:75–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boyar SL et al (2006) Assessment of the validity of Netemeyer et al’.s (1996) WFC and FWC scales. Int J Confl Manag 17:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McMurrian R (1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol 81:400–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kopelman RE, Greenhaus JH, Connolly TF (1983) A model of work family and interrole conflict: a construct validation study. Organ Behav Hum Perform 32:198–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas LT, Ganstr DC (1995) Impact of family supportive work variables on work–family conflict and strain : a control perspective. J Appl Psychol 80:6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik M, Sturman E (2012) Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to tests and measurement, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haslam DM, Morawska A, Sanders MR (2010). The Work–Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS). Parenting and Family Support Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia

  24. Kline P (1994) An easy guide to factor analysis. Taylor & Francis Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sanders MR, Morawska A (2010) Family Background Questionnaire. Parenting and Family Support Centre, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arnold DS et al (1993) The Parenting Scale: a measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychol Assess 5:137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Locke LM, Prinz RJ (2002) Measurement of parental discipline and nurturance. Clin Psychol Rev 22:895–929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Eyberg SM, Pincus D (1999) Eyberg child behavior inventory and Sutter–Eyberg student behavior inventory—revised: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL

    Google Scholar 

  29. Webster-Stratton C, Hammond M (1997) Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: a comparison of child and parent training interventions. J Consult Clin Psychol 65:93–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sanders MR, Woolley ML (2005) The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and parenting practices: implications for parent training. Child Care Health Dev 31(1):65–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muthèn LK, Muthèn BO (1998–20112) Mplus user’s guide. Author, Los Angeles, CA

  32. Stevens J (2002) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  33. Satorra A, Bentler PM (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Eye AV, Clogg CC (eds) Latent variables analysis: applications for developmental research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 399–419

    Google Scholar 

  34. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1989) Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance-structures. Multivar Behav Res 24:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6:1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. In: Methodology in the social sciences, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York, xvi, 427 p

  37. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schreiber JB et al (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99:323–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gerbing DW, Anderson JC (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J Mark Res 25(2):186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics Applied probability and statistics. Wiley, New York, xiv, 514 p

  43. Morawska A, Sanders MR (2007) Concurrent predictors of dysfunctional parenting and maternal confidence: implications for parenting interventions. Child Care Health Dev 33:757–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cinamon RG, Weisel A, Tzuk K (2007) Work–family conflict within the family. Crossover effects, perceived parent-child interaction quality, parental self-efficacy, and life role attributions. J Career Dev 34:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shrout PE, Bolger N (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 7:422–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheng Y, Yuan K-H, Liu C (2012) Comparison of reliability measures under factor analysis and item response theory. Educ Psychol Meas 72:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74:107–120

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hancock GR, Mueller RO (2001) Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In: Cudeck R, Toit SD, Sörbom D (eds) Factor analysis and structural equation modeling: a Festschrift honoring Karl G. Jöreskog. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL

  49. Enders CK (2010) Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Little TD et al (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 9:151–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaplan D (1994) Estimator conditioning diagnostics for covariance structure models. Sociol Methods Res 23:200–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, Australia

    Divna Haslam, Ania Filus, Alina Morawska, Matthew R. Sanders & Renee Fletcher

Authors
  1. Divna Haslam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ania Filus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alina Morawska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew R. Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Renee Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Divna Haslam.

Appendix: Items Included in the Final Work and Family Conflict Scale

Appendix: Items Included in the Final Work and Family Conflict Scale

For the following scale please rate how much you agree with the following statements by circling the appropriate number.

  

Very strongly disagree

  

Very strongly agree

1

My work me spending sufficient quality time with my family

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2

There is no time left at the end of the day to do the things I’d like at home (e.g., chores and leisure activities)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3

My family misses out because of my work commitments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4

My work has a negative impact on my family life

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5

Working often makes me irritable or short tempered at home

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

My work performance suffers because of my personal and family commitments

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

Family related concerns or responsibilities often distract me at work

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

If I did not have a family I’d be a better employee

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

My family has a negative impact on my day to day work duties

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

10

It is difficult to concentrate at work because I am so exhausted by family responsibilities

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haslam, D., Filus, A., Morawska, A. et al. The Work–Family Conflict Scale (WAFCS): Development and Initial Validation of a Self-report Measure of Work–Family Conflict for Use with Parents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 46, 346–357 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0476-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-014-0476-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation