SynthesisScientific reports2024
A meta-analytic evaluation of the reliability of work-family and family-work conflict scales.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting burnout in radiology nurses: an interpretable machine learning model developed and externally validated in a multi-center study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A mediating effect of sense of coherence on the association between work-family conflict and workplace ostracism among medical staff.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In occupational psychology, measuring the interplay between work and family roles is crucial. The Work-family conflict (WFC) and Family-Work Conflict (FWC) scales are indispensable tools in this endeavour. However, their reliability across diverse geographical locations and work settings, particularly during the global pandemic, requires thorough examination. This meta-analysis evaluates the reliability generalisation of WFC and FWC scales across different studies. Registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024509030), we systematically searched four major databases: EBSCOhost, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, yielding 506 potential studies. After deduplication and screening, 44 studies published between 2000 and 2024 were selected. These studies analysed reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) and the impact of geographical location, work setting, and events like the COVID-19 pandemic on scale reliability. The analysis showed high reliability for both scales, with a pooled Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 (95% CI [0.87, 0.95]) indicating strong internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was also high, with a pooled estimate of 0.89 (95% CI: [0.84, 0.93]). Subgroup analyses revealed minimal variability in reliability across sectors, regions, and the pandemic period, with no heterogeneity (I
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.