Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39981358›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2025

Measuring enablers and indicators of employee engagement: Internal validity of the Flow@Work engagement survey.

Melinde Coetzee, Dieter Veldsman, Ingrid L Potgieter, Nadia Ferreira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Melinde CoetzeeDepartment of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, South Africa.
Dieter VeldsmanAcademy to Innovate HR, Netherlands.
Ingrid L PotgieterDepartment of Human Resource Management, University of South Africa, South Africa.
Nadia FerreiraDepartment of Human Resource Management, University of South Africa, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Employee engagement remains a growing interest in the academic research literature and especially in the practitioner-industry mainstream literature and practice. Despite the increase in literature on constructs of and associations between enablers and indicators of employee engagement, the empirical examination of employee engagement measures offered by the mainstream practitioner-industry market has received little attention. The study redresses this shortcoming by examining the internal construct validity and reliability of the Flow@Work Engagement Survey (FWES) as applied to a global aggregated cross-sectional data set of (N = 39 310) clients. We further employed structural equation modelling and relative weight analysis to assess the extent to which the proposed FWES engagement enabling working conditions functioned as predictors of the measure's employee engagement indicators on a randomly selected data subset of (n = 3000) clients. The study established the internal convergent and discriminant validity and reliability of the FWES. The findings contributed new insights to the engagement research literature by revealing the nature and relative importance of different engagement enablers in predicting employee willingness and commitment as indicators of organisational employee engagement. Practically, the study uncovers opportunities for future engagement research and well-informed employee engagement measurement and intervention planning in industry.

Indexed as

Employee engagementEngagement enablersEngagement indicatorsFlow@Work engagement surveyJob engagementOrganisational engagementSelf-determinationWork engagement

Identifiers

PMID39981358
PMCPMC11840192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.