Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional

Measure of WorkFamily Conflict

Dawn S. Carlson
Department of Management, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University
K. Michele Kacmar
Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University
and
Larry J. Williams
Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonealth University
This manuscript reports on three studies that utilized five different samples ! 5 !"!!#
to construct and validate a multidimensional measure of wor$%family conflict. The si&
dimensions of conflict measured include the com'ination of three forms of wor$%family
conflict time( strain( and 'ehavior# and two directions of wor$%family conflict wor$
interference with family and family interference with wor$#. The three studies assessed the
content ade)uacy( dimensionality( relia'ility( factor structure invariance( and construct
validity of the scale. The desi*n of the final scale provides future researchers the fle&i'ility
to measure any of the si& dimensions of wor$%family conflict individually. + ",,,
-cademic .ress
Wor$%family conflict is a source of stress that many individuals e&perience.
Wor$%family conflict has 'een defined as /a form of interrole conflict in which
the role pressures from the wor$ and family domains are mutually incompati'le
is some respect0 1reenhaus 2 3eutell( !456( p. 77#. 8esearch on wor$%family
conflict has found that this varia'le influences a num'er of outcomes includin*
psycholo*ical distress( 9o' satisfaction( or*anization commitment( turnover( and
life satisfaction :rone( 8ussell( 2 Cooper( !44"; <i**ins( Du&'ury( 2 =rvin*(
!44"; >?Driscoll( =l*en( 2 <ildreth( !44"; .arasuraman( 1reenhaus( 8a'inowitz(
The authors than$ Michael 8. :rone for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript.
-ddress correspondence and reprint re)uests to Dawn S. Carlson( Department of Mana*ement(
3aylor @niversity( ..>. 3o& 45,,A( Waco( TB 7A745%5,,A.
Journal of Cocational 3ehavior 56, "D4%"7A ",,,#
doiE!,.!,,AF9v'e.!444.!7!G( availa'le online at httpEFFwww.ideali'rary.com on
"D4
,,,!H574!F,, IG6.,,
Copyri*ht + ",,, 'y -cademic .ress
-ll ri*hts of reproduction in any form reserved.
3edeian( 2 Mossholder( !454#. Thus( wor$%family conflict has 'ecome a much
investi*ated topic in today?s or*anizational 'ehavior research.
8esearchers have measured wor$%family conflict in many ways. Traditionally(
researchers have measured wor$%family conflict unidirectionally. That is( they
studied the conflict that occurred when wor$ interfered with family 1reenhaus
2 3eutell( !456#. More recently researchers have 'e*un to reco*nize the duality
of wor$%family conflict 'y considerin* 'oth directions" wor$ interference with
family and family interference with wor$ e.*.( Du&'ury( <i**ins( 2 Mills( !44";
:rone et al.( !44"; 1ute$( Searle( 2 Klepa( !44!#. To fully understand the
wor$%family interface( 'oth directions of wor$%family conflict W=: and :=W#
must 'e considered :rone et al.( !44"; 1reenhaus 2 3eutell( !456#.
8esearchers also have 'e*un to consider the different forms of wor$%family
conflict Jetemeyer( 3oles 2 McMurrian( !44A; Stephens 2 Sommer( !44G#.
Consistent with 1reenhaus and 3eutell?s !456# definition( three forms of wor$%
family conflict have 'een identified in the literatureE a# timeH'ased conflict( '#
strainH'ased conflict( and c# #ehaviorH'ased conflict. TimeH'ased conflict may
occur when time devoted to one role ma$es it difficult to participate in another
role( strainH'ased conflict su**ests that strain e&perienced in one role intrudes
into and interferes with participation in another role( and 'ehaviorH'ased conflict
occurs when specific 'ehaviors re)uired in one role are incompati'le with
'ehavioral e&pectation in another role 1reenhaus 2 3eutell( !456#. =n !44!(
1ute$ et al. ar*ued that each of these three forms of wor$%family conflict has two
directions" a# conflict due to wor$ interferin* with family W=:# and '# conflict
due to family interferin* with wor$ :=W#. When these three forms and two
directions are com'ined si& dimensions of wor$%family conflict resultE !#
timeH'ased W=:( "# timeH'ased :=W( G# strainH'ased W=:( D# strainH'ased
:=W( 6# 'ehaviorH'ased W=:( and A# 'ehaviorH'ased :=W.
While there is some a*reement in terms of the forms and directions of
wor$%family conflict( researchers use a wide variety of scales to measure it.
8ecently( Jetemeyer et al. !44A# constructed and validated a !,Hitem measure
that included items for 'oth directions of wor$%family conflict W=: and :=W#.
<owever( the authors did not consider all three of the forms of wor$%family
conflict. 8e*ardin* their measure they stated it is /not as useful as scales that use
a multidimensional approach to the measurement of W:C and :WC0 p. D,5#.
-nother scale recently developed included items from each of the three forms of
wor$%family conflict Stephens 2 Sommer( !44A#. <owever( it considers these
forms from only one direction W=:#. -s a result( these authors ac$nowled*e that
/further study is necessary to ade)uately measure family to wor$ conflict0 p.
D56#.
=n a recent metaHanalysis of wor$%family conflict the authors su**ested that
differences in research results were often due to difference in measures Kosse$
2 >ze$i( !445#. They ar*ue that researchers should strive for /*reater consistency
and construct development of measures0 and that the measures needed to
distin*uish more clearly 'etween nature and direction of conflict. <ence( there
"6, C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
still remains a need for a wor$%family conflict measure that incorporates all si&
dimensions of wor$%family conflict.
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale that captures all
si& uni)ue dimensions of wor$%family conflict. To do this( scale development
procedures which are descri'ed in the psychometric literature were followed i.e.(
3a*ozzi 2 Ki( !455; Cortina( !44G; DeCillis( !44!; Schriesheim( .owers(
Scandura( 1ardiner( 2 Lan$au( !44G#. =n all( three studies were conducted to
develop and initially validate the final scale. >ur *oal was to produce a comprehensive(
yet versatile( measure of wor$%family conflict that can 'e used to
advance understandin* of this comple& phenomenon.
SIX-DIMENSION! "E#S"EC$IVE OF WO#%FMI!& CONF!IC$
-s can 'e seen in :i*. !( the com'ination of the forms and directions of
conflict result in si& uni)ue dimensions of wor$%family conflict. L&aminin*
wor$%family conflict from this perspective raises )uestions a'out the de*ree to
which the si& dimensions have 'een incorporated in prior measures and research.
:or 'ac$*round purposes and as a startin* point( an investi*ation of which forms
and directions of wor$%family conflict have 'een measured in past research was
conducted. -n -3=F=J:>8M search of seven top 9ournals $nown to pu'lish
wor$%family conflict articles $cademy of Management %ournal, Human &elations,
%ournal of $pplied 'sychology, %ournal of Management, %ournal of (rgani)ational
Behavior, %ournal of Vocational Behavior, and (rgani)ational
Behavior and Human Decision 'rocesses# was conducted. The years included in
this search were !45A%!44A. The studies and scales from articles prior to !45A
are reviewed in 1reenhaus and 3eutell !456#. - total of "6 articles were located.
Ta'le ! provides a listin* of the authors( the nature of wor$%family conflict
studied( the source of the scales used to measure wor$%family conflict( the
num'er of items in each scale( and the relia'ility coefficient for the scales as
reported in the articles. Lach scale also was evaluated to determine if it distin*uished
'etween the direction of conflict( the form of conflict( and if it included
FIG. 1. Dimensions of wor$%family conflict.
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "6!
T-3LL !
8epresentation of the Si& Dimensions of Wor$%:amily Conflict in L&istin* Measures
-uthor Conflict measuredM Source of scale
Jum'er
of items -lpha
Distin*uish
'etween
directionN
W=:F:=W#
Distin*uish
'etween
formN time(
strain(
'ehavior#
-ll A
dimensions
representedN
-dams( Kin*( and Kin* J-.( !44A# Time 2 strain W=: Kopelman( 1reenhaus( and
Connoly !45G#
D .7" Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W 3urley !454# D .AA
-ryee <8( !44"# 1eneral W:C Small and 8iley( !44,# !6 .75(
.77( .7G
Jo Jo Jo
-ryee and Lu$ JC3( !44A# 1eneral W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# D .5D Jo Jo Jo
3acharach( 3am'er*er( and Conley
J>3( !44!#
1eneral W=: <olohan and 1il'ert
!474#
D .77( .57 Kes Jo Jo
3edeian( 3ur$e( and Moffett J>M(
!455#
1eneral W:C 3ur$e( Weir( and Du Wors
!45,#
5 .4" Jo Jo Jo
Du&'ury and <i**ins J-.( !44!# Strain W:C 3ohen and CiverosHLon*
!45!#; .lec$ !475#
!A .55 M#
.4, :#
Jo Kes Jo
:rone( 8ussell( and Cooper J-.(
!44"a#
Time 2 strain W=: Developed 'y authors " .7A Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W Developed 'y authors " .6A
:rone( 8ussell( and Cooper J>3(
!44"'#
Time 2 strain W=: Developed 'y authors " .7A Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W Developed 'y authors " .6A
:rone( 8ussell( and Cooper J>3(
!44G#
Time 2 strain W:C Developed 'y authors; see
:rone et al. !44"a#
D .A6 Jo Jo Jo
"6" C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
:rone( 8ussell( and Cooper J>M(
!44D#
Time 2 strain W=: Developed 'y authors " .7A Kes Jo Jo
1reenhaus( .arasuraman( 1ranrose(
8a'inowitz( and 3eutell JC3(
!454#
TimeH'ased W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# A .7"( .5" Jo Kes Jo
StrainH'ased W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# A .7"( .7"
1ute$( Searle( and Klepa J-.(
!44!#
Time 2 strain W=: Kopelman et al. !45G# D .5!F.5G Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W 3urley !454# D .74F.5G
<i**ins( Du&'ury( and =rvin*
>3<D.( !44"#
Strain W:C 3ohen and CiverosHLon*
!45!#; .lec$ !475#
!A .4! Jo Kes Jo
Jud*e( 3oudreau( and 3retz J-.(
!44D#
Time 2 strain W=: 1ute$ et al. !44!#; :rone
et al. !44"a#
D .5" Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W 1ute$ et al. !44!# :rone
et al. !44"a#
D .7A
Loerch( 8ussel( and 8ush JC3(
!454#
TimeH'ased W:C Thompson !456# 5 .5A Jo Kes Jo
StrainH'ased W:C Wiley !45G# 6 .A5
3ehaviorH'ased W:C Developed 'y authors 6 .5"
Matsui( >hsawa( and >n*latco
JC3( !446#
Time 2 strain W=: Developed 'y authors 6 .56 Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W Developed 'y authors 6 .5G
Jetemeyer( 3oles( and McMurrian
J-.( !44A#
Time 2 strain W=: Developed 'y authors 6 .55F.54F
.55
Kes Jo Jo
Time 2 strain :=W Developed 'y authors 6 .5AF.5GF
.54
Strain W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# D .7" M#
.7" :#
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "6G
T-3LL !*Continued
-uthor Conflict measuredM Source of scale
Jum'er
of items -lpha
Distin*uish
'etween
directionN
W=:F:=W#
Distin*uish
'etween
formN time(
strain(
'ehavior#
-ll A
dimensions
representedN
>?Driscoll( =l*en( and <ildreth
J-.( !44"#
Time W=JW Developed 'y authors 7 .57 Kes Kes Jo
Time JW=W Developed 'y authors 7 .74
.arasuraman( 1reenhaus( and
1ranrose J>3( !44"#
Time W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# A .7" M#
+,- .F/
Jo Kes Jo
.arasuraman( 1reenhaus(
8a'inowitz( 3edeian( and
Mossholder -MJ( !454#
1eneral W:C 3ur$e( Weir( and Du Wors
!474#
5 .4" Jo Jo Jo
.arasuraman( .urhoit( 1odshal$( and
3eutell JC3( !44A#
Time W=: Kopelman et al. !45G# A .57 Kes Jo Jo
Strain :=W Kopelman et al. !45G# D .AD Kes Jo Jo
8ice( :rone( and Mc:arlin J>3(
!44"#
Strain W:C Developed 'y authors ! J- Jo Kes Jo
Thomas and 1anster J-.( !446# Time 2 strain W:C Kopelman et al. !45G# 5 .57 Jo Jo Jo
Wiley J>M( !457# 1eneral WJC 3ur$e( Weir( and Du Wors
!474#
"" .5A( .7G
+01, +23
Jo Jo Jo
Williams and -lli*er -MJ( !44D# 1eneral W:C Developed 'y authors Diaries J- Jo Jo Jo
!ote+ -''reviationsE W=:( wor$ interference with family conflict; :=W( family interference with wor$ conflict; time( timeH'ased
conflict; 'ehavior( 'ehavior'ased
conflict; WJC( wor$%nonwor$ conflict 'oth directions#; W=JW( wor$ interference with nonwor$ conflict; JW=W( nonwor$
interference with wor$ conflict;
strain( strainH'ased conflict; *eneral( form not specified.
a W:C( wor$%family conflict 'oth directions( W=: 2 :=W#.
"6D C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
all si& dimensions of wor$%family conflict. The results of this investi*ation
appear in Ta'le !.
-s can 'e seen in Ta'le !( researchers distin*uish items 'y direction 'etween
W=: and :=W in their scales in less than half of the "6 studies reviewed.
Specifically( !" out of "6 researchers separated the direction of conflict in their
scales. 8esearchers distin*uish 'etween the forms of conflict i.e.( time( strain(
'ehavior# in their scales even less often. =n only 7 of the "6 studies did
researchers distin*uish 'etween the forms of conflict. :urther( only one of the
scales e&amined included 'ehaviorH'ased conflict introduced 'y 1reenhaus and
3eutell !456#. >verall( !7 of the "6 measures do ma$e some $ind of distinction
whether it is 'y form or direction in measurin* wor$%family conflict. :inally and
perhaps most importantly( of all the scales e&amined( none included items that
represent all si& of the dimensions of wor$%family conflict.
S$'D& () EXIS$IN* WO#%FMI!& CONF!IC$ SC!ES
=n Study !( e&istin* items from the literature were collected and used as the
initial foundation of the scale. These items were included in a content ade)uacy
analysis .art !# to determine which( if any( form or direction of wor$%family
conflict they 'est represented. -dditional data collected on the retained items
were analyzed via e&ploratory factor analysis .art "# to determine the underlyin*
factor structure of the items.
Methods*'art 4
5tem generation+ - total of G! nonredundant items were *enerated from
e&istin* measures in the literature see -ppendi& -#. =tems were incorporated
from 3ohen and CiverosHLon* !45!#; 3urley !454#; Du&'ury et al. !44"#;
:rone et al. !44"#; 1ute$ et al. !44!#; Kopelman( 1reenhaus( and Connolly
!45G#; .lec$ !475#; and Stephens and Sommer !44G#. The items developed
and used 'y -ryee !44"#; 3edeian( 3ur$e( and Moffett !455#; >?Driscoll et al.
!44"#; and Wiley !457# were not included 'ecause these various measures
specifically considered 9o' demands or nonwor$ conflict and did not fit the scope
of the present study. =n addition( Jetemeyer et al. !44A# had not 'een pu'lished
when we collected the items used in Study ! so their items were not included.
'rocedure+ The G! items were included in a content ade)uacy test followin*
the *uidelines provided 'y Schriesheim et al. !44G#. - respondent was as$ed to
determine the de*ree to which each of the wor$%family conflict items represented
a wor$%family conflict definition. The si& wor$%family conflict dimensions
previously discussed :i*. !# were used. The definitions of each dimension were
'ased on the wor$ of 1reenhaus and 3eutell !456# and Du&'ury et al. !44"#.
=n order to not fati*ue the raters and ris$ a reduction in the accuracy of their
ratin*s( 9ud*es only rated two dimensions that were randomly assi*ned to them.
This re)uired them to ma$e only A" 9ud*ements rather than !5A A 3 G!#.
'articipants+ The raters consisted of "GA under*raduates enrolled in an upper
level 'usiness course at a southern university. >f the "GA( !"6 6GO# were male.
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "66
The avera*e a*e of the sample was "!.5 years. @sin* colle*e students as content
ade)uacy raters has 'een endorsed in the literature. Schriesheim et al. !44G#
noted that the main re)uirement for a content ade)uacy 9ud*e is /that they
possess sufficient intellectual a'ility to perform the item ratin* tas$ and that they
'e relatively free of serious potential 'ias0 p. D,7#. 1iven this re)uirement(
colle*e students appear to 'e a hi*hly appropriate choice for content ade)uacy
9ud*es as they would have the capa'ility to read and understand the ratin* tas$
instructions( items( and theoretical definitions Schriesheim et al.( !44G#.
$nalyses and results+ The mean score of the responses on each item provided
was calculated for each dimension. =n order to 'e retained( an item?s mean had
to pass two tests. :irst( an item?s hi*hest mean had to correspond to the intended
wor$%family conflict dimension. =n addition( to eliminate items that did not
discriminate 'etween dimensions( an item?s hi*hest mean had to 'e sufficiently
different from the ratin*s o'tained for the other cate*ories. =f the difference
'etween the hi*hest and the ne&t hi*hest mean was not at least .",( the item was
discarded.
:our items i.e.( "( !!( !6( and G!# were dropped 'ecause they failed to score
hi*hest on their intended dimension. -n additional seven items i.e.( !( 6( A( 7( 5(
!G( and !4# were removed due to failure to discriminate 'etween dimensions. The
", retained items are mar$ed with an asteris$ in -ppendi& -.
Methods*'art -
'rocedure+ - survey was administered to employees in a division of a state
*overnment a*ency in the Southeast. The survey was comprised of the ", items
retained from the content ade)uacy analyses. Lmployees rated the de*ree to
which they felt that they e&perienced the conflict represented in each of the items.
8esponses were made on a Li$ertHdirection scale with the anchors 'ein* stron*ly
a*ree 6# and stron*ly disa*ree !#.
'articipants+ The state *overnment a*ency sample provided G4, usa'le surveys.
The sample included "GD males A,O# whose a*es avera*ed to D" years.
With respect to marital status( "67 AAO# of the respondents indicated they were
married and """ 67O# had children.
$nalyses and results+ The responses to the items were factor analyzed with an
e&ploratory factor analysis L:-# applyin* an o'li)ue rotation. Multiple criteria
for determinin* the num'er of factors to retain were used :ord( MacCallum( 2
Tait( !45A; Kim 2 Mueller( !475; Stevens( !44"#. The specific criteria used
wereE Kaiser?s criterion( where only factors with ei*envalues *reater than !., are
retained; cumulative percenta*e of variance e&plained; and the scree plot of the
factor ei*envalues.
Three factors were identified. The ei*envalues for the three factors were( 6.5(
".5( and !.7 respectively. These three factors e&plained 6".GO of the variance.
Lach item loaded on only one factor. -ll of the items had loadin*s *reater than
.D6( e&cept for item !A( which loaded at .G,. =tem !A was the only strain 'ased
"6A C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
W=: item. Therefore( it would not 'e e&pected to load as stron*ly on a factor that
did not distin*uish 'etween 'oth form and direction of conflict.
The ", items used for this analysis did not e)ually represent each of the si&
dimensions of conflict. :or e&ample( the 'ehavior 'ased :=W dimension was not
represented. :urther( only one item measured the strainH'ased W=: dimension(
only two items measured the timeH'ased :=W dimensions( and only three items
measured the strainH'ased :=W dimension. While these ", items provide a solid
'e*innin* of a comprehensive wor$%family conflict scale( additional items were
needed to cover all si& dimensions.
S$'D& +) '*MEN$IN* EXIS$IN* SC!ES
Methods
5tem development+ The ne&t step was to develop new wor$%family conflict
items to au*ment each of the si& dimensions and have them rated for content
ade)uacy. The items developed were 'ased on a review of the literature as well
as on personal and anecdotal e&perience. -n additional GD items( which can 'e
found in -ppendi& 3( were developed so that each dimension contained a
representative set of items.
'articipants+ The respondents who served as 9ud*es for the content ade)uacy
analysis consisted of !G" M3- students enrolled in a 'usiness course at a
western university. - total of 54 A5O# were male( the avera*e a*e was "A."
years( and 7DO were employed at least partHtime.
'rocedure+ To test the content ade)uacy of the 6D items( ", retained from
Study ! and GD *enerated for Study "( two different approaches were usedE
cate*orization and ratin*. =n the first approach( !! randomly selected respondents
used a stac$in* procedure. These individuals were *iven the items on separate
sheets of paper and as$ed to stac$ the sheets on top of the definition they most
closely fit. The remainin* !"! individuals also were as$ed to place each item in
one dimension( 'ut the items were listed on one sheet of paper( not separate ones.
=n this case( respondents placed a num'er from ! to A in front of each item to
reflect which dimension definition most accurately represented each item. =n the
second approach( all of the 9ud*es also were as$ed to follow the content ade)uacy
*uidelines outlined 'y Schriesheim et al. !44G# i.e.( the procedure used in Study
!#. Lach rater rated all 6D items on three of the si& dimension definitions selected
at random.
$nalyses and results+ :or the cate*orization portion of the data( the num'er of
9ud*es who placed an item in a dimension was counted. :or the ratin* portion of
the data( the mean for each item on each dimension was calculated. =n order for
an item to 'e retained( it had to pass 'oth a cate*orization and a ratin* content
ade)uacy test. To pass the cate*orization test( an item had to 'e assi*ned to the
correct definition at least 7,O of the time. This test was performed on data from
the cate*orization techni)ues. :or the ratin*Hcontent ade)uacy testin*( a mean
score of G.6 or hi*her 7,O# for an item on the correct definition was considered
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "67
accepta'le. The 7,O cutHoff is consistent with the criterion used in previous
content ade)uacy research i.e.( Schriesheim 2 <in$in( !44,#. -pplyin* these
rules to the data indicated that "! items did not pass 'oth tests( leavin* GG items.
-ll GG of these items could have 'een included in the final scale( 'ut for
parsimony and e)ual representation across dimensions( three additional items
were removed leavin* only the 6 'est items for each dimension. The G, items
included in the final scale are shown with an asteris$ in -ppendi& 3.
S$'D& ,) SC!E V!ID$ION
Study G was desi*ned to validate the scale developed in Studies ! and ". .art
! of this validation effort included further measure purification analyses. .art "
used a second sample to e&amine the dimensionality( relia'ility( and discriminant
validity of the scale. -lso in .art "( the factor structure from .art ! was applied
to various samples and tested on a sample split on *ender. :inally( differential
relationships were e&amined. To *ather the data needed to perform these tests( a
survey composed only of the G, wor$%family conflict scale items retained in
Study " was administered.
Met-ods."art (
'articipants 4
The participants consisted of ""5 *raduates from an L&ecutive M3- pro*ram
at a lar*e western university. -ppro&imately G5, surveys were distri'uted to
individuals from a mailin* list of past *raduates response rate A,O#. - cover
letter was included *uaranteein* confidentiality and e&plainin* the purpose of the
survey. 8espondents were supplied reply envelopes and as$ed to return the
survey to the researchers throu*h the mail. The participants included !6! AAO#
males( were an avera*e a*e of D, years old( and had an avera*e or*anizational
tenure of 7.4 years. With respect to marital status( !7, 76O# of the respondents
indicated they were married and !G7 A,O# had children.
#esults
Measure 'urification
Structural e)uation modelin* SLM# was applied to the G, item measure from
Study " to isolate items that performed well across a num'er of different criteria.
- si&Hfactor confirmatory model with five items reflectin* each of the si& factors
esta'lished in Study " was specified usin* L=S8LL 5 JoPres$o* 2 SoPr'om(
!44G#. To determine which items should 'e removed, we applied su**estions
found in the scale development literature 3a*ozzi 2 Ki( !455; DeCillis( !44!#.
:irst( we deleted any items that had completely standardized factor loadin*s of
less than .6,. Je&t( we inspected the modification indices and e&pected chan*e
values for all the factor loadin*s to ensure that an item was not more stron*ly
associated with any factor other than the one for which it was intended. =f it was(
it was eliminated. :inally( we removed items that consistently resulted in correH
"65 C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
lated measurement error either within factors( across factors( or 'oth. That is(
items were dropped if consistently si*nificant standardized residuals were found.
-pplyin* these criteria resulted in the removal of !! of the G, itemsE 6 items
due to correlated measurement error( " items due to factor loadin* issues( " items
due to values for modification and e&pected chan*e parameters( and " items
which were pro'lematic on multiple criteria. >ne final item was removed from
the scale due to the redundancy of its wordin*. The purification process produced
an !5Hitem scale with G items measurin* each of the A dimensions. >f the
remainin* !5 items( 6 were from e&istin* scales and !G items were new. The final
items appear in Ta'le ".
Met-ods."art +
.art " of Study G was desi*ned to assess dimensionality( relia'ility( and
discriminant validity of the scale and to determine if the factor structure of the
scale held for a new sample and across *ender. :urthermore( several antecedents
and conse)uences of wor$%family conflict were collected for construct validation
of the new !5 item measure. <ence( in .art "( not only were responses collected
for the wor$%family conflict items( 'ut several antecedents and conse)uences of
wor$%family conflict also were included in the survey. The antecedents included
were role conflict( role am'i*uity( and social support from 'oth the wor$ and
family domain as well as wor$ involvement. The outcomes studied were 9o'
satisfaction( family satisfaction( life satisfaction( and or*anizational commitment.
-ll of these varia'les have 'een found to 'e si*nificantly related to wor$%family
conflict. =t was e&pected that the antecedents of role overload and role am'i*uity(
and involvement from each domain( would 'e positively related to the respective
domains of wor$%family conflict e.*.( -dams( Kin*( 2 Kin*( !44A; :rone(
Kardley( 2 Mar$el( !447#( while the antecedent of social support from each
domain would 'e ne*atively related to domain specific wor$%family conflict
1reenhaus( 3edeian( 2 Mossholder( !457; Schau'roec$( Cotton( 2 Jennin*s(
!454#. The three satisfaction outcomes i.e.( 9o'( family( life# and or*anizational
commitment were e&pected to decrease as wor$%family conflict increases( so a
ne*ative relationship is predicted <i**ins et al.( !44"( .arasuraman et al.( !454;
>?Driscoll et al.( !44"; 8ice( :rone( 2 Mc:arlin( !44"#. Data collected from the
second survey .art "# were used to perform differential prediction analyses.
'articipants -
Data were collected from ""6 individuals who were employed fullHtime. The
respondents were employed 'y numerous or*anizations in a midwestern city and
secured throu*h a snow'all samplin* approach. The principal sample included
individuals who were enrolled as fullHtime students in an evenin* pro*ram
caterin* to wor$in* adults finishin* their under*raduate de*rees. 3esides completin*
the survey themselves( these individuals were as$ed to distri'ute five
surveys to collea*ues at their places of employment who would 'e willin* to
complete a )uestionnaire e&aminin* wor$%family conflict. The only selection
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "64
criterion applied was that respondents hold fullHtime 9o's. The sample consisted
of 5G G7O# males who were an avera*e a*e of G6.6 years old. - total of !DD
ADO# were married and !D" AGO# had children livin* at home. The results were
T-3LL "
:inal Cersion of Wor$%:amily Conflict Scale
Wor$%family conflict items
TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family
!. My wor$ $eeps me from my family activities more than = would li$e.a
". The time = must devote to my 9o' $eeps me from participatin* e)ually in household
responsi'ilities and activities.a
G. = have to miss family activities due to the amount of time = must spend on wor$
responsi'ilities.
TimeH'ased family interference with wor$
D. The time = spend on family responsi'ilities often interfere with my wor$ responsi'ilities.
6. The time = spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities at wor$
that could 'e helpful to my career.
A. = have to miss wor$ activities due to the amount of time = must spend on family
responsi'ilities.
StrainH'ased wor$ interference with family
7. When = *et home from wor$ = am often too frazzled to participate in family activitiesF
responsi'ilities.
5. = am often so emotionally drained when = *et home from wor$ that it prevents me from
contri'utin* to my family.
4. Due to all the pressures at wor$( sometimes when = come home = am too stressed to do the
thin*s = en9oy.
StrainH'ased family interference with wor$
!,. Due to stress at home( = am often preoccupied with family matters at wor$.
!!. 3ecause = am often stressed from family responsi'ilities( = have a hard time concentratin*
on my wor$.
!". Tension and an&iety from my family life often wea$ens my a'ility to do my 9o'.
3ehaviorH'ased wor$ interference with family
!G. The pro'lemHsolvin* 'ehaviors = use in my 9o' are not effective in resolvin* pro'lems at
home.a
!D. 3ehavior that is effective and necessary for me at wor$ would 'e counterproductive at
home.a
!6. The 'ehaviors = perform that ma$e me effective at wor$ do not help me to 'e a 'etter
parent and spouse.a
3ehaviorH'ased family interference with wor$
!A. The 'ehaviors that wor$ for me at home do not seem to 'e effective at wor$.
!7. 3ehavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would 'e counterproductive at
wor$.
!5. The pro'lemHsolvin* 'ehavior that wor$ for me at home does not seem to 'e as useful at
wor$.
a =tems from Stephens and Sommer !44A#.
"A, C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
e&amined to determine if the sample was confounded 'y includin* a small *roup
of individuals who were not married and had no children livin* at home. The
comparisons for the model 'ased on the full and more constrained sample
su**ested no differences 'etween samples. Thus( the results for the full sample
are reported herein.
Measures
&ole conflict+ Wor$Hrelated role conflict was measured usin* 8izzo( <ouse(
and Lirtzman?s !47,# ei*htHitem measure of role conflict. - sample item is /=
must do thin*s that should 'e done differently.0 The internal relia'ility was .4,
for the participants in this study. The same ei*ht items were used to measure
familyHrelated role conflict. <owever( each item was modified to reflect the
family domain. The Cron'ach alpha was .56 for the participants in this study.
&ole am#iguity+ Wor$ role am'i*uity was measured with 8izzo et al.?s !47,#
role am'i*uity scale. This scale consists of si& items and produced a Cron'ach
alpha of .5". - sample item is /= $now e&actly what my responsi'ilities are.0 The
same items( ad9usted for the family domain( were used to measure family role
am'i*uity. The internal consistency relia'ility estimate for these si& items was
.5G.
Social support+ Social support from the wor$ domain was measured with a !A
item measure of or*anizational support developed 'y Lisen'er*er( <untin*ton(
<utchison( and Sowa !45A#. - representative item is /<elp is availa'le from the
or*anization when = have a pro'lem.0 The alpha coefficient was .4D for the
participants in this study. :or the family domain these items were adapted to tap
the support received from family sources. The alpha coefficient for this scale was
.4G for the participants in this study.
5nvolvement+ Two )uestions e.*.( /= would li$e more time to spend wor$in*0#
ori*inally from Quinn and Staines !474# and used 'y <i**ins et al. !44"# were
used to tap wor$ involvement. =n addition( two )uestions from 3uchanan !47D#
e.*.( /= am very much personally involved in my wor$0# were included that were
desi*ned to measure a'sorption in the activities of one?s role. The alpha coefficient
for this scale was .5D. These items were modified to measure the familyrelated
domain as well. The Cron'ach alpha coefficient produced 'y the family
scale was .5".
%o# satisfaction+ The 9o' satisfaction scale was an overall measure of the
de*ree to which an individual is satisfied or happy with his or her 9o'. >ur
threeHitem measure of 9o' satisfaction was desi*ned and used 'y Cammann(
:ichman( Jen$ins( and Klesh !474# and Seashore( Lawler( Mirvis( and Cammann
!45"#. >ne of the items from this scale is /-ll in all( = am satisfied with
my 9o'.0 The Cron'ach alpha for this scale was .4!.
(rgani)ational commitment+ The or*anizational commitment scale measures
the de*ree to which individuals are committed to the or*anization. The nine items
used were developed 'y 3alfour and Wechsler !44A#. - sample item is /= am
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "A!
)uite proud to 'e a'le to tell people who it is = wor$ for.0 The relia'ility for this
scale was .4!.
Family satisfaction+ The family satisfaction scale is an overall measure of the
de*ree to which an individual is satisfied with his or her family life. The
threeHitem scale was developed 'y Staines and .lec$ !45G#. - sample item is /=
am happy with my family life.0 The internal relia'ility for this scale was .56.
6ife satisfaction+ The life satisfaction scale measures an individual?s perceptions
re*ardin* the )uality of his or her life in *eneral. The fiveHitem scale
developed 'y Diener( Lmmons( Larsen( and 1riffin !456# was used. -n item
from this scale is /= am satisfied with my life.0 The Cron'ach alpha estimate for
this scale was .57.
$nalyses
The dimensionality of the items was assessed with confirmatory factor analysis.
Je&t( the relia'ility of the scales was esta'lished with coefficient alpha.
Discriminant validity of the scales was e&amined with SLM. :urther( a multiple
*roup SLM test was conducted to determine if the si&Hfactor structure held across
samples. The .articipants ! and .articipants " data from Study G were used for
this analysis. =n addition( a multiple *roup SLM test was conducted on .articipants
" to determine if the si& factor structure held across *ender. Differential
predictions were investi*ated throu*h e&aminin* path coefficients in structural
e)uation models usin* the measures developed to tap the wor$%family conflict
dimensions with antecedents and outcomes. This analysis was 'ased on .articipants
".
#esults
Dimensionality
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess a si&Hfactor model where each
of the si& cate*ories were represented separately -nderson 2 1er'in*( !455#.
:or comparison purposes( three other possi'le models similar to models used in
prior scales were e&amined. :irst( a threeHfactor model( which represented the
three forms of wor$%family conflict( time( strain( and 'ehavior collapsin* across
direction#( was tested. Je&t( a twoHfactor model representin* the two directions
of wor$%family conflict( W=: and :=W collapsin* across form#( was estimated.
:inally( a oneHfactor model representin* a *eneral wor$%family conflict perspective
was e&amined.
=n each model the items were forced to load on a specified factor and the
factors were allowed to correlate. Ta'le G presents the 7"( comparative fit statistic
C:=#( and rootHmeanHs)uare error of appro&imation for each of the four models.
The indices show that the si&Hfactor model is the 'est fittin* model. :urther
e&amination of the si&Hfactor model indicated that the factor loadin*s were all
si*nificant. The completely standardized factor loadin*s for each of the !5 items
appear in :i*. ".
"A" C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
5nternal Consistency
The internal consistency of each of the si& dimensions was estimated with
coefficient alpha. The relia'ilities e&ceeded the conventional level of acceptance
of .7, Junnally( !475#E timeH'ased W=: 5 .57; timeH'ased :=W 5 .74; strain'ased
W=: 5 .56; strainH'ased :=W 5 .57; 'ehaviorH'ased W=: 5 .75; 'ehavior'ased
:=W 5 .56.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity was assessed 'y e&aminin* the factor correlations from
the confirmatory factor analysis. The correlations of the si& factors( found in
Ta'le D( ran*ed from ."D to .5G. >nly two of the correlations were a'ove .A,.
Thus( discriminant validity was shown.
Factor Structure 8ests
To determine if the factor structure of the si&Hdimensional model was invariant
across various samples( a L=S8LL twoH*roup measurement procedure was performed.
This procedure was used 'ecause it allows the factor loadin*s( correlations(
and error variances to 'e held invariant individually or in com'ination.
Tests of this nature provide a ri*orous assessment of the measurement properties
of the models 3a*ozzi 2 Ki( !455; 3ollen( !454; Marsh( !446#.
:our twoH*roup models for the si&Hdimensional wor$%family conflict approach
were estimated for comparison purposes. The first model re)uired the factor
loadin*s( factor correlations( and the error variances for 'oth data sets to 'e
e)uivalent. The second model still held the factor loadin*s and correlations
invariant( 'ut allowed the error variances to 'e different for each dataset. The
T-3LL G
Lstimates of :it =ndicesRSample "
Model 7" df p
Comparative
fit inde&
8oot mean s)uare
error of
appro&imation
Si&Hdimensional modelE
@ni)ue cate*ories of
wor$%family conflict
"G7.D, !", .,, .46 .,A
ThreeHdimensional modelE
:orms of wor$%family
conflict
!!AA.!D !G" .,, .AA .!4
TwoHdimensional modelE
Directions of wor$%
family conflict
!G"A.44 !GD .,, .A! .!4
>neHdimensional modelE
1eneral wor$%family
conflict
!A77.G4 !G6 .,, .6, ."G
!ote+ ! 5 ""6.
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "AG
ne&t model allowed the factor correlations and error variances to vary( 'ut the
factor loadin*s remained invariant. The final model allowed the factor loadin*s(
correlations( and error variances to vary across the samples. The fit for each of
the four models as well as the 7" difference tests 'etween the 'aseline model and
each of the other models can 'e found in Ta'le 6.
These results su**est that the two different data sets map well to the model
with respect to the factor loadin*s( factor correlations( and error variances(
indicatin* that the model is *eneraliza'le across the data sets. The 'aseline model
was not si*nificantly different from the model with the factor loadin*s held
FIG. 2. Completely standardized path loadin*s for !5Hitem scale.
"AD C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
invariant or from the model with the factor loadin*s and factor correlations held
invariant. The only instance where the factor structure did not hold across the
samples was the most constrained model( where factor loadin*s( factor correlations(
and error variances were all invariant. <owever( invariant error variances
are considered the least important in testin* measurement property invariance
across *roups 3ollen( !454; Jetemeyer et al.( !44A#. :urthermore( statistical
tests of invariance have limitations so fit indices also should 'e used to assess
invariance Marsh( !446; Williams( 3ozdo*an( 2 -imanHSmith( !44A#. -n
e&amination of the fit statistics for the model in which factor loadin*s( correlations(
and error variances were fi&ed indicated ade)uate fit on all indices. Thus(
evidence of measurement invariance across samples was found( further confirmin*
the structure of the si&Hfactor model.
9ender Differences
To determine if the factor structure of the si&Hdimensional model was invariant
across *ender( the same analytic procedure used to e&amine the factor structure in the
T-3LL 6
Test of Measurement =nvariance
Si&Hdimensional model 7" df 7diff
" dfdiff
Comparative
fit inde&
8ootHmeanHs)uare
estimate of
appro&imation
Jo constraints
'aseline model#
D6!.",M "DA .4A .,G4
:actor loadin*s
invariant
D7".75M "AD "!.65 !5 .4A .,G4
:actor loadin*s 2
factor correlations
invariant
D57.6"M "7G GA.G" "7 .4A .,G4
:actor loadin*s( factor
correlations( 2 error
variances invariant
674.4,M "4! !!4.7,M D6 .4D .,DG
M p , .,!.
T-3LL D
Discriminant Calidity of the Si& Dimensions of Wor$%:amily ConflictE
.hi Matri& from C:- -nalysis
Dimension of wor$%family conflict ! " G D 6 A
!. TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family R
". TimeH'ased family interference with wor$ .G! R
G. StrainH'ased wor$ interference with family .65 .D6 R
D. StrainH'ased family interference with wor$ ."D .7A .D5 R
6. 3ehaviorH'ased wor$ interference with family .G! .D, .6D .D7 R
A. 3ehaviorH'ased family interference with wor$ ."5 ."A .6! .D6 .5G R
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "A6
previous section was applied. - L=S8LL twoH*roup measurement procedure was
performed in which four twoH*roup models i.e.( male versus female# for the si&
dimensional wor$%family conflict approach were estimated for comparison purposes.
The fit for each of the four models as well as the 7" difference tests 'etween the
'aseline model and each of the other models appear in Ta'le A.
These results su**est that the two different data sets map well to the model
with respect to the factor loadin*s. The 'aseline model was not si*nificantly
different from the model when the factor loadin*s were held invariant. <owever(
there were differences across *ender when the factor loadin*s and factor correlations
were held invariant and in the most constrained model in which the factor
loadin*s( factor correlations( and error variances were all invariant. While it is
not surprisin* to find differences in error variance the differences in factor
correlations su**est that women and men may e&perience conflict differently.
L&amination of the factor correlations su**est that men and women had the same
pattern of si*nificance. The avera*e overall correlation for males was .D7 and for
females was .D6. :urthermore( twoHthirds of the individual differences were less
than .", and the lar*est difference 'etween correlations was .G7.
T-3LL A
Test of 1ender Differences
7" df 7diff
" dfdiff
Comparitive
fit inde&
8ootHmeanHs)uare
estimate of
appro&imation
Si&Hdimensional model
Jo constraints
'aseline model#
D"7.AGM "DA .4" .,7
:actor loadin*s invariant DA,.64M "AD G".4A !5 .4" .,5
:actor loadin*s 2 factor
correlations invariant
D57."7M "7G 64.5DM "7 .4! .,5
:actor loadin*s( factor
correlations 2 error
variances invariant
6!5.74M "4! 4!.!AM D6 .4, .,5
t test for 1ender Differences
Dimension
Mean for
males
Mean for
females t p
TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family ".4! ".5" .6" .A,!
TimeH'ased family interference with wor$ !.77 ".,! 2".,6 .,D"
StrainH'ased wor$ interference with family ".D6 ".5! 2".6" .,!G
StrainH'ased family interference with wor$ !.7! !.4G 2".," .,D6
3ehaviorH'ased wor$ interference with family ".DG ".AG 2!.65 .!!A
3ehaviorH'ased family interference with wor$ ".GA ".A6 2".,4 .,G5
M p , .,!.
"AA C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
To further e&amine *ender differences( t tests were conducted on the level of
e&perienced conflict across all si& dimensions. >n four of the si& dimensions of
conflict si*nificant differences were found. More specifically( females were
found to e&perience more conflict than men in terms of all three family interference
with wor$ forms of conflict time( strain( 'ehavior# as well as strain 'ased
wor$ interference with family conflict. =t is possi'le that the inconsistent findin*s
in past research on *ender differences La*le( Miles( 2 =ceno*le( !447( :rone et
al.( !44"( .lec$( !477( Williams 2 -lli*er( !44D# may 'e e&plained 'y the fact
that females are li$ely to e&perience more conflict than men on only some( not
all( forms of conflict. Thus( the way in which conflict was measured may e&plain
whether *ender differences were found.
Differential &elationships
Differential relationships 'etween the dimensions of wor$%family conflict and
several antecedent and outcome measures were e&amined. To e&amine the differences
in the wor$%family conflict dimensions two models were tested( one for each
direction( which included relevant antecedents and conse)uences. The first model
included the three forms of W=: conflict. =n addition( the antecedents of wor$Hrole
conflict( wor$Hrole am'i*uity( wor$ involvement( and wor$ social support were
included since they all represent the wor$ domain. This model is consistent with past
research that showed domainHspecific antecedents were related to different directions
of wor$%family conflict i.e.( -dams et al.( !44A; :rone et al.( !447; Thomas 2
1anster( !446#. The four outcomes 9o' satisfaction( family satisfaction( life satisfaction(
and or*anizational commitment# also were included in the model. :inally(
consistent with past research( direct paths from the antecedents to outcomes were
included. The second model e&amined was similar to the first e&cept that it included
the three :=W forms of conflict and family specific antecedents and conse)uences.
The model approach descri'ed a'ove was chosen 'ecause of its advanta*es relative
to a more traditional correlational analysis e.*.( accounts for measurement error(
omni'us statistical test#.
To determine if the dimensions of conflict were differentially related to the
antecedents and outcomes considered here( the si*nificance of the path coefficients
from the model were e&amined. These path coefficients appear in Ta'le 7.
The three forms of W=: conflict have differential relationships such that three of
the four antecedents role conflict( am'i*uity( and involvement# were si*nificantly
related to strain 'ased conflict( two am'i*uity and involvement# were
related to 'ehavior 'ased( and only one involvement# to time 'ased. The three
forms of W=: conflict also differentially predicted the three types of satisfaction
and commitment. More specifically( two of the forms of conflict strain and
'ehavior# were si*nificantly related to the outcomes of family and life satisfaction.
<owever( timeH'ased conflict was not si*nificantly related to any of the
outcomes of interest.
Similar findin*s of differential relationships were found for the :=W varia'les.
-ll four of the family domain antecedents si*nificantly predicted 'ehaviorH'ased
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "A7
conflict 'ut only two role conflict and social support# predicted timeH and
strainH'ased conflict. :urthermore( while family role conflict had similar relations
to all three forms of conflict( social support was more hi*hly related to time and
strain conflict than 'ehavior conflict. The strainH'ased form of conflict si*nificantly
predicted three of the four outcome varia'les not predicted 'y the other
two forms of conflict. =n addition( or*anizational commitment was si*nificantly
related to the 'ehaviorH'ased form of conflict 'ut not the other two forms of :=W.
These findin*s would su**est that the si& dimensions of wor$%family conflict are
differentially related to various antecedents and outcomes commonly found in
the wor$%family conflict literature.
T-3LL 7
Completely Standardized .ath Loadin*s
Measure
TimeH'ased wor$
interference with
family
StrainH'ased
wor$ interference
with family
3ehaviorH'ased
wor$ interference
with family
Three forms of wor$ interference with family conflict
-ntecedents
Wor$ role conflict 1# .!! ."4M ."!
Wor$ role am'i*uity 1# .!7 ."DM .""M
Wor$ social support 2# .,, 2.,G 2.,4
Wor$ involvement 1# .G7M .G7M ."!M
>utcomesE
Jo' satisfaction 2# .,D 2.,G .,,
:amily satisfaction 2# .,7 2."6M 2.G4M
Life satisfaction 2# .!G 2."DM 2.GAM
>r*anizational commitment 2# .,D .,G 2.,A
Measure
TimeH'ased family
interference with
wor$
StrainH'ased
family interference
with wor$
3ehaviorH'ased
family interference
with wor$
Three forms of family interference with wor$ conflict
-ntecedents
:amily role conflict 1# ."6M ."7M ."7M
:amily role am'i*uity 1# 2.,4 .," .",M
:amily social support 2# 2.G5M 2.G6M 2."GM
:amily involvement 1# .,, 2.," .!"M
>utcomesE
Jo' satisfaction 2# 2.,G 2."DM 2.!D
:amily satisfaction 2# .," 2.""M .!!
Life satisfaction 2# .,7 2."GM .,4
>r*anizational commitment 2# 2.!6 2.!! 2.""M
!ote+ ! 5 ""6.
M p , .,6.
"A5 C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
DISC'SSION
The present research constructed and initially validated a comprehensive scale
of wor$%family conflict that incorporated the multiple dimensions of the construct.
The items composin* the scale are a com'ination of items from previous
wor$ and new items developed specifically for this study. Content ade)uacy(
content analysis( e&ploratory and confirmatory factor analyses( and correlation
analyses were performed on these items. The end result was an !5Hitem scale
with si& different su'scales that measured the si& dimensions of wor$%family
conflictE timeH'ased W=:( timeH'ased :=W( strainH'ased W=:( strainH'ased :=W(
'ehaviorH'ased W=:( and 'ehaviorH'ased :=W. Lach of the scales in the si&dimensional
model showed discriminant validity( internal consistency( and invariance
of the factor structure across samples. =n addition( each of the scales
differentially related to various antecedents and conse)uences of wor$%family
conflict( further su**estin* the potential predictive validity of the scales.
>ther scales e&ist that measure wor$%family conflict i.e.( :rone et al.( !44";
1ute$ et al.( !44!#( and some have even 'een su'9ected to su'stantial validation
efforts Jetemeyer et al.( !44A; Stephens 2 Sommer( !44A#. <owever( none of
the e&istin* scales provide a way to measure each of the si& dimensions of
conflict. =n fact( Jetemeyer et al. !44A# stated that their scale was /not as useful
as scales that use a multidimensional approach0 p. D,5# to measure wor$%family
conflict. Stephens and Sommer !44A#( whose measure consisted of W=: items(
ac$nowled*ed that /further study is necessary to ade)uately measure family to
wor$ conflict0 p. D56#. The scale developed in the present study overcomes 'oth
limitations of previous scale development efforts and answers the call for a
measure that considers the importance of 'oth nature and direction of conflict
Kosse$ 2 >ze$i( !445#. The multidimensional measure of the concept of
wor$%family conflict developed in the present study is a more accurate depiction
of the construct as it allows each of the si& dimensions to 'e e&amined. :uture
use of this scale should provide a *reater understandin* re*ardin* how the
separate wor$%family conflict dimensions relate to attitudes and 'ehaviors of
interest.
Strengths, 6imitations, and Future &esearch
The research performed to construct and validate this scale has several
stren*ths. :irst( the research consisted of three different studies that to*ether
provide a very thorou*h scaleHdevelopment effort. <ence( the resultin* scale has
'een su'9ected to ri*orous development and validation procedures. -nother
stren*th of this research is that it incorporated five different samples. Thus( the
potential for sample specific 'ias has 'een reduced 'y usin* uni)ue and independent
samples for each phase of the pro9ect. @sin* multiple samples also
allowed us to e&amine the invariance of the final scale across samples. :urthermore(
the new scale includes each of the si& dimension of wor$%family conflict(
some of which have 'een missin* in previous measures. :inally( the scale
measures all of the dimensions of wor$%family conflict usin* only !5 items.
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "A4
<owever( the study is not without limitations. :irst( the scale was validated on
only two samples. -dditional validation of the scale across or*anizations and
occupations is needed to further esta'lish the scale and provide *eneraliza'ility.
Second( we did not incorporate all of the items from the Jetemeyer et al. !44A#
scale( as this scale was not pu'lished while the current research was underway.
:uture research should include the Jetemeyer scale and the one developed here
in one study to determine the de*ree of difference or overlap 'etween them.
:inally( only ei*ht constructs were used to e&amine the differential relations of
the wor$%family conflict scales. :uture research should incorporate additional
constructs thou*ht to 'e uni)uely related to different dimensions of wor$%family
conflict. While the current research included traditional varia'les found in the
wor$%family conflict literature( it would 'e useful to e&amine differential predictions
with additional antecedents and conse)uences.
While each of these limitations provides an opportunity for future research(
there is also the need for more research on 'ehaviorH'ased conflict. More
research is needed to clarify the meanin* of 'ehaviorH'ased conflict and su'se)uently
its measurement. =t has 'een historically considered as the reco*nition
that different 'ehaviors are necessary at wor$ and at home( which in and of itself
does not reflect conflict. <owever( the ina'ility of the individual to ad9ust that
'ehavior from one role to the other more clearly represents the construct. =n fact(
in the current study the results from the C:- Ta'le D# su**est the dimensions
of 'ehaviorH'ased conflict are hi*hly correlated .5G#. This correlation( however(
could 'e inflated due to the restrictive assumptions of confirmatory factor
analysis that all secondary factor loadin*s are zeros. Thus( an e&ploratory factor
analysis was conducted and the factor correlation 'etween the two 'ehavior
factors was si*nificantly lower .D"#. =n addition( the factor loadin*s demonstrated
an appropriate simple structure. Thus( while the e&istin* factors do
discriminate( further research also may 'e needed to provide additional conceptual
distinction.
:inally( further research is needed on the uni)ue antecedents and outcomes for
each of the dimensions of wor$%family conflict measured 'y this scale. While a
*reat deal is $nown a'out wor$%family conflict in *eneral( very little is $nown
a'out the stren*th of the relationships of the si& dimensions of wor$%family
conflict with other varia'les. Does each uni)uely e&plain different outcomesN
Does each have uni)ue predictorsN :u rthermore( different )uestions need to 'e
as$ed a'out the directions of wor$%family conflict. Most research su**ests that
W=: conflict is *reater than :=W conflict 1ute$ et al.( !44!; Jud*e( 3oudreau(
2 3retz( !44D; Jetemeyer et al.( !44A#. <owever( little is $now a'out when the
forms of wor$%family conflict are com'ined with the directions. That is( are all
forms of conflict time( strain( 'ehavior# *reater from the W=: direction than
from the :=W directionN -ll of these )uestions and more 'e* to 'e answered. =t
is hoped that when researchers set out to e&plore these issues in the future( the
scale developed and validated in the present study will 'e employed to measure
the comple& nature of wor$%family conflict.
"7, C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
""ENDIX
Initial ,( Items from E/istin0 Scales
=tem Source
!. -fter wor$( = come home too tired to do some of the
thin*s =?d li$e to do.
1ute$ et al. !44!#; Stephens
and Sommer !44G#
". = feel = have more to do than = can comforta'ly
handle.
Du&'ury et al. !44"#
G. My wor$ $eeps me from my family activities more
than = would li$e.a
Du&'ury et al. !44"#;
Stephens and Sommer
!44G( !44A#
D. >n the 9o' = have so much wor$ to do that it ta$es
away from my personal interests.a
1ute$ et al. !44!#
6. = feel physically drained when = *et home from wor$. Du&'ury et al. !44"#;
Stephens and Sommer
!44G#
A. The tensions and an&ieties = feel from my family and
wor$ responsi'ilities often 'ecome so *reat that my
efforts to cope suffer.
Stephens and Sommer !44G#
7. My familyFfriends disli$e how often = am preoccupied
with my wor$ while = am at home.
1ute$ et al. !44!#; Du&'ury
et al. !44"#; Stephens and
Sommer !44G#
5. = feel emotionally drained when = *et home from
wor$.
Du&'ury et al. !44"#
4. The demands of my 9o' ma$e it difficult for me to
maintain the $ind of relationship with my spouse and
children that = would li$e.a
Du&'ury et al. !44"#;
Stephens and Sommer
!44G( !44A#
!,. My wor$ ta$es up time that =?d li$e to spend with
familyFfriends.a
:rone et al. !44"a#; 1ute$
et al. !44!#; Stephens and
Sommer !44G( !44A#
!!. = feel = have to rush to *et everythin* done each day. Du&'ury et al. !44"#
!". My wor$ often interferes with my family
responsi'ilities.a
:rone et al. !44"a#
!G. 3ecause my wor$ is so demandin*( at times = am
irrita'le at home.
Du&'ury et al. !44"#;
Stephens and Sommer
!44A#
!D. =?m often too tired at wor$ 'ecause of the thin*s =
have to do at home.a
1ute$ et al. !44!#
!6. = feel = don?t have enou*h time for myself. Du&'ury et al. !44"#
!A. =t is difficult for me to rela& when = am away from my
wor$.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G#
!7. My personal demands are so *reat that it ta$es away
from my wor$.a
1ute$ et al. !44!#; Du&'ury
et al. !44"#; Stephens and
Sommer !44G#
!5. = often 'rin* wor$ home to do on the evenin*s and
wee$ends.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G#
!4. = *enerally do not seem to have enou*h time to fulfill
my potential 'oth in my career and as a spouse or
parent.
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
",. My superiors and peers disli$e how often = am
preoccupied with my personal life while at wor$.a
1ute$ et al. !44!#; Du&'ury
et al. !44"#
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "7!
""ENDIX 1
#e2ised Items for Second #ound of Content de3uacy
TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family !, items#
L&istin* =tems
G. My wor$ $eeps me from my family activities more than = would li$e.a
D. >n the 9o' = have so much wor$ to do that it ta$es away from my personal interests.
4. The demands of my 9o' ma$e it difficult for me to maintain the $ind of relationship with
my spouse and children that = would li$e.
!,. My wor$ ta$es up time that =?d li$e to spend with familyFfriends.a
!". My wor$ often interferes with my family responsi'ilities.
!5. = often 'rin* wor$ home to do on the evenin*s and wee$ends.
"". The time = must devote to my 9o' $eeps me from participatin* e)ually in household
responsi'ilities and activities.a
Jew =tems
!. = feel = don?t have enou*h time to fulfill my responsi'ilities at home due to time = have to
spend on my career.a
". = feel *uilty for spendin* too much time at wor$ and not enou*h time with my family.
TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family !, items#
-..LJD=B -*Continued
=tem Source
"!. My personal life ta$es up time that =?d li$e to spend at
wor$.a
:rone et al. !44"a#; 1ute$
et al. !44!#; Stephens and
Sommer !44G#
"". The time = must devote to my 9o' $eeps me from
participatin* e)ually in household responsi'ilities and
activities.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"G. My family life often interferes with my responsi'ilities
at wor$.a
:rone et al. !44"a#
"D. = am not a'le to act the same way at home as = do at
wor$.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"6. The pro'lemHsolvin* approaches = use in my 9o' are
not effective in resolvin* pro'lems at home.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"A. = act differently in respondin* to interpersonal
pro'lems at wor$ than = do at home.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"7. 3ehavior that is effective and necessary for me at
wor$ would 'e counterproductive at home.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"5. The thin*s = do that ma$e me effective at wor$ do not
help me to 'e a 'etter parent and spouse.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
"4. What wor$s for me at home does not seem to 'e
effective at wor$ as well( and vice versa.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
G,. =n order for me to succeed at wor$( = must 'e a
different person than = can 'e at home.a
Stephens and Sommer !44G#
G!. = often feel the strain of attemptin* to 'alance my
responsi'ilities at wor$ and home.
Stephens and Sommer !44G(
!44A#
a =tems retained for Study ".
"7" C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
-..LJD=B 3*Continued
G. = have to miss family activities due to the amount of time = must spend on wor$
responsi'ilities.a
TimeH'ased family interference with wor$ !, items#
L&istin* =tems
",. My superiors and peers disli$e how often = am preoccupied with my personal life while
at wor$.
"!. My personal life ta$es up time that =?d li$e to spend at wor$.a
Jew =tems
!. The time = spend on family responsi'ilities often interfere with my wor$ responsi'ilities.a
". My family responsi'ilities prevent me from effectively performin* my 9o'.
G. = find myself ma$in* family related phone calls or runnin* personal errands durin* wor$
time.
D. The demands of my family life prevent me from developin* important career
relationships.
6. The time = spend with my family often causes me to not spend time in activities at wor$
that could 'e helpful to my career.a
A. = feel *uilty for spendin* time with my family when = $now = should 'e concentratin* on
wor$.
7. = have to miss wor$ activities due to amount of time = must spend on family
responsi'ilities.a
5. = feel = don?t have enou*h time to fulfill my potential in my career 'ecause = need to
spend time with my family and friends.a
StrainH'ased wor$ interference with family !, items#
L&istin* =tem
!A. =t is difficult for me to rela& when = am away from my wor$.
Jew =tems
!. The stress from my 9o' often ma$es me irrita'le when = *et home.a
". When = *et home from wor$ = am often too physically tired to participate in family
activitiesFresponsi'ilities.a
G. Tension and an&iety from wor$ often creep into my family life.a
D. = often feel = am rushin* to *et my nonwor$ responsi'ilities ta$en care of in order to *et
'ac$ to wor$.
6. = am often stressed tryin* to 'alance my responsi'ilities when wor$ interferes with the
rest of my life.
A. = am often so emotionally drained when = *et home from wor$ that it prevents me from
contri'utin* to my family.a
7. = am often preoccupied with wor$ while = am at home.
5. Due to all the pressures at wor$( sometimes when = come home = am too stressed to do
the thin*s = en9oy.a
4. Sometimes = feel overwhelmed 'y all of my responsi'ilities at wor$.
StrainH'ased family interference with wor$ !, items#
L&istin* =tems
!D. =?m often too tired at wor$ 'ecause of the thin*s = have to do at home.
!7. My personal demands are so *reat that it ta$es away from my wor$.
"G. My family life often interferes with my responsi'ilities at wor$.
Jew =tems
!. Due to stress at home( = am often preoccupied with family matters at wor$.a
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "7G
#EFE#ENCES
-dams( 1. -.( Kin*( L. -.( 2 Kin*( D. W. !44A#. 8elationships of 9o' and family involvement(
family social support( and wor$%family conflict with 9o' and life satisfaction. %ournal of $pplied
'sychology, 81, D!!%D",.
-ryee( S. !44"#. -ntecedents and outcomes of wor$%family conflict amon* married professional
womenE Lvidence from Sin*apore. Human &elations, 45, 5!G%5G7.
-ryee( S.( 2 Lu$( C. !44A#. Wor$ and nonwor$ influences on the career satisfaction of dualHearner
couples. %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 49, G5%6".
3acharach( S. 3.( 3am'er*er( ..( 2 Conley( S. !44!#. Wor$%home conflict amon* nurses and
en*ineersE Mediatin* the impact of role stress on 'urnout and satisfaction at wor$. %ournal of
(rgani)ational Behavior, 12, G4%6G.
3a*ozzi( 8. ..( 2 Ki( K. !455#. >n the evaluation of structural e)uation models. %ournal of the
$cademy of Marketing Science, 16, 7D%4D.
3alfour( D. L.( 2 Wechsler( 3. !44A#. >r*anizational commitmentE -ntecedents and outcomes in
pu'lic or*anizations. 'u#lic 'roductivity and Management &evie, 29, "6A%"77.
-..LJD=B 3*Continued
TimeH'ased wor$ interference with family !, items#
". Due to my family responsi'ilities( sometime others in the or*anization have to pic$ up the
slac$ i.e.( stay late( travel#.
G. The stress from my family life interferes with my wor$ life.a
D. = feel rushed at wor$ so that = can *o home to my family.
6. 3ecause = am often stressed from family responsi'ilities( = have a hart time concentratin*
on my wor$.a
A. Tension and an&iety from my nonwor$ life often e&tend into my 9o'.a
7. Due to all the pressures at home( sometimes it is hard for me to do my 9o' well.a
3ehavior wor$ interference with family 7 itemsRall e&istin* items#
"D. = am not a'le to act the same way at home as = do at wor$.a
"6. The pro'lemHsolvin* approaches = use in my 9o' are not effective in resolvin* pro'lems
at home.a
"A. = act differently in respondin* to interpersonal pro'lems at wor$ than = do at home.
"7. 3ehavior that is effective and necessary for me at wor$ would 'e counterproductive at
home.a
"5. The 'ehaviors = perform that ma$e me effective at wor$ do not help me to 'e a 'etter
parent and spouse.a
"4. What wor$s for me at home does not seem to 'e effective at wor$ as well.
G,. =n order for me to 'e as successful at home as = am at wor$( = must 'ehave differently.a
3ehavior family interference with wor$ 7 itemsRall new items#
!. The 'ehaviors that wor$ for me at home do not seem to 'e effective at wor$.a
". 3ehavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would 'e counterproductive at
wor$.a
G. The thin*s = do that ma$e me effective at home help me to 'e more successful at my 9o'.
D. The pro'lem solvin* 'ehavior that wor$ for me at home does not seem to 'e as useful at
wor$.a
6. =n order for me to succeed at wor$( = must 'e a different person than = can 'e at home.
A. The 'ehaviors = use to respond to interpersonal pro'lems at wor$ perform 'etter at home
than at wor$.a
7. = do not succeed at wor$ when = use the same 'ehaviors that are effective at home.a
a =tems retained for Study G.
"7D C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS
3edeian( -. 1.( 3ur$e( 3. 1.( 2 Moffett( 8. 1. !455#. >utcomes of wor$%family conflict amon*
married male and female professionals. %ournal of Management, 14G#( D76%D4!.
3ohen( <. C.( 2 CiverosHLon*( -. !45!#. Balancing :o#s and family life" Do fle;i#le ork schedules
help< .hiladelphiaE Temple @niv. .ress.
3ollen( K. !454# Structural e=uations ith latent varia#les+ Jew Kor$E Wiley.
3uchanan( 3. !47D#. 3uildin* or*anizational commitmentE The socialization of mana*ers in wor$
or*anizations. $dministrative Science >uarterly, 19, 6GG%6DA.
3urley( K. !454#. ?ork@family conflict and marital ad:ustment in dual career couples" $ comparison
of three time models+ @npu'lished doctoral dissertation( Claremont 1raduate School(
Claremont( C-.
Cammann( C.( :ichman( M.( Jen$ins( D.( 2 Klesh( J. !474#. 8he Michigan (rgani)ational $ssessment
>uestionnaire+ -nn -r'or( Michi*anE @niv. of Michi*an.
Cortina( J. M. !44G#. What is coefficient alphaN -n e&amination of theory and application. %ournal
of $pplied 'sychology, 78, 45%!,D.
DeCillis( 8. :. !44!#. Scale development" 8heory and applications+ Jew'ury .ar$( C-E Sa*e.
Diener( L.( Lmmons( 8. -.( Larsen( 8. J.( 2 1riffin( S. !456#. The satisfaction with life scale.
%ournal of 'ersonality $ssessment, 49!#( 7!%76.
Du&'ury( L. L.( <i**ins( C. -.( 2 Mills( S. !44"#. -fterHhours telecommutin* and wor$%family
conflictE - comparative analysis. 5nformation Systems &esearch, 3, !7G%!4,.
La*le( 3. W.( Miles( L. W.( 2 =ceno*le( M. L. !447#. =nterrole conflicts and permea'ility of wor$ and
family domainsE -re there *ender differencesN %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 50, !A5%!5D.
Lisen'er*er( 8.( <untin*ton( 8.( <utchison( S.( 2 Sowa( D. !45A#. .erceived or*anizational support.
%ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 71, 6,,%6,7.
:ord( J. K.( MacCallum( 8. C.( 2 Tait( M. !45A#. The application of e&ploratory factor analysis in
applied psycholo*yE - critical review and analysis. 'ersonnel 'sychology, 39, "4!%G!D.
:rone( M. 8.( 8ussell( M.( 2 Cooper( M .L. !44"#. -ntecedents and outcomes of wor$%family conflictE
Testin* a model of the wor$%family interface. %ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 77!#( A6%76.
:rone( M. 8.( Kardley( J.( 2 Mar$el( K. S. !447#. Developin* and testin* an inte*ative model of the
wor$%family interface. %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 50, !D6%!A7.
1reenhaus( J. <.( 3edeian( -. 1.( 2 Mossholder( K. W. !457#. Wor$ e&periences( 9o' performance(
and feelin*s of personal and family wellH'ein*. %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 31, ",,%"!6.
1reenhaus( J. <.( 2 3eutell( J. J. !456#. Sources of conflict 'etween wor$ and family roles.
$cademy of Management &evie, 10!#( 7A%55.
1reenhaus( J. <.( .arasuraman( S.( 1ranrose( C. S.( 8a'inowitz( S.( 2 3eutell( J. J. !454#. Sources
of wor$%family conflict amon* two career couples. %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 34,
!GG%!6G.
1ute$( 3.( Searle( S.( 2 Klepa( L. !44!#. 8ational versus *ender roleHe&planations for wor$%family
conflict. %ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 76, 6A,%6A5.
<i**ins( C.-.( Du&'ury( L. L.( 2 =rvin*( 8. <. !44"#. Wor$%family conflict in the dualHcareer
family. (rgani)ational Behavior and Human Decision 'rocesses, 51, 6!%76.
JoPres$o*( K.( 2 SoPr'om( D. !44G#. 65S&A6 ," Structural e=uation modeling ith the S5M'65S
command language+ <illsdale( JJE Lrl'aum.
Jud*e( T. -.( 3oudreau( J. W.( 2 3retz( 8. D. !44D#. Jo' and life attitudes of male e&ecutives.
%ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 79, 7A7%75".
Kim( J. >.( 2 Mueller( C. W. !475#. Factor analysis" Statistical methods and practical issues+ Jew
.ar$( C-E Sa*e.
Kopelman( 8. L.( 1reenhaus( J. <.( 2 Connolly( T. :. !45G#. - model of wor$( family( and interrole
conflictE - construct validation study. (rgani)ational Behavior and Human 'erformance, 32,
!45%"!6.
Kosse$( L. L.( 2 >ze$i( C. !445#. Wor$%family conflict( policies( and the 9o'%life satisfaction
relationshipE - review and directions for or*anizational 'ehavior%human resources research.
%ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 83, !G4%!D4.
W>8K%:-M=LK C>J:L=CT "76
Loerch( K. J.( 8ussell( J. L.( 2 8ush( M. C. !454#. The relationship amon* family domain varia'les
and wor$%family conflict for men and women( %ournal of Vocational Behavior, 35, "55%G,5.
Marsh( <. W. !446#. Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invarianceE - multifaceted
approach. Structural A=uation Modeling, 1, 6%GD.
Jetemeyer( 8. 1.( 3oles( J. S.( 2 McMurrian( 8. !44A#. Development and validation of wor$%family
conflict and family%wor$ conflict scales. %ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 81, D,,%D!,.
Junnally( J. C. !475#. 'sychometric theory .-nd ed+/+ Jew Kor$E Mc1raw%<ill.
>?Driscoll( M. ..( =l*en( D. 8.( 2 <ildreth( K. !44"#. Time devoted to 9o' and offH9o' activities(
interrole conflict( and affective e&periences. %ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 77, "7"%"74.
.arasuraman( S.( 1reenhaus( J. <.( 8a'inowitz( S. 8.( 3edeian( -. 1.( 2 Mossholder( K. W. !454#.
Wor$ and family varia'les as mediators of the relationship 'etween wives? employment and
hus'ands? wellH'ein*. $cademy of Management %ournal, 32, !56%",!.
.lec$( J. <. !477#. The wor$%family role system. Social 'ro#lems, 24, D!7%D"7.
.lec$( J. <. !475#. ?ork@family conflict" $ national assessment+ .resented at the -nnual meetin* of
the Society for the Study of Social .ro'lems( 3oston( M-.
Quinn( 8.( 2 Staines( 1. !474#. 8he 4B22 =uality of employment survey+ -nn -r'orE @niv. of
Michi*anE Survey 8esearch Center.
8ice( 8. W.( :rone( M. 8.( 2 Mc:arlin( D. 3. !44"#. Wor$%nonwor$ conflict and the perceived
)uality of life. %ournal of (rgani)ational Behavior, 13, !66%!A5.
8izzo( J. 8.( <ouse( 8. J.( 2 Lirtzman( S. =. !47,#. 8ole conflict and am'i*uity in comple&
or*anizations. $dministrative Science >uarterly, 15, !6,%!AG.
Seashore( S. L.( Lawler( L. L.( Mirvis( ..( 2 Cammann( C. !45"#. (#serving and measuring
organi)ational change" $ guide to field practice+ Jew Kor$E Wiley.
Schau'roec$( J.( Cotton( J. L.( 2 Jennin*s( K. 8. !454#. -ntecedents and conse)uences of role stressE
- covariance structure analysis. %ournal of (rgani)ational Behavior, 10, G6%65.
Schriesheim( C. -.( 2 <in$in( T. 8. !44,#. =nfluence tactics used 'y su'ordinatesE - theoretical and
empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis( Schmidt( and Wil$inson Su'scales. %ournal of
$pplied 'sychology, 75, "DA%"67.
Schriesheim( C. -.( .owers( K. J.( Scandura( T. -.( 1ardiner( C. C.( 2 Lan$au( M. J. !44G#.
=mprovin* construct measurement in mana*ement researchE Comments and )uantitative approach
for assessin* the theoretical content ade)uacy of paperHandHpencil surveyHtype instruments.
%ournal of Management, 19, G56%D!7.
Staines( 1. L.( 2 .lec$( J. <. !45G#. 8he impact of ork schedules on the family+ =nstitute for Social
8esearch( -nn -r'or( M=.
Stephens( 1. K.( 2 Sommer( S. M. !44G#. ?ork@family conflict, :o# attitudes, and orkplace social
support" 5nvestigations of measurement and moderation+ .resented at the meetin* of -cademy
of Mana*ement( -tlanta( 1eor*ia.
Stephens( 1. K.( 2 Sommer( S. M. !44A#. The measurement of wor$ to family conflict. Aducational
and 'sychological Measurement, 56, D76%D5A.
Stevens( J. !44"#. $pplied multivariate statistics for the social sciences+ Jew JerseyE Lrl'aum.
Thomas( L. T.( 2 1anster( D. C. !446#. =mpact of familyHsupportive wor$ varia'les on wor$%family
conflict and strainE - control perspective. %ournal of $pplied 'sychology, 80, A%!6.
Wiley( D. L. !457#. The relationship 'etween wor$Fnonwor$ role conflict and 9o'Hrelated outcomesE
Some unanticipated findin*s. %ournal of Management, 13, DA7%D7".
Williams( K. J.( 2 -lli*er( 1. M. !44D#. 8ole stresssors( mood spillover( and perceptions of
wor$%family conflict in employed parents. $cademy of Management %ournal, 37, 5G7%5A5.
Williams( L. J.( 3ozdo*an( <.( 2 -imanHSmith( L. !44A#. =nference pro'lems with e)uivalent
models. =n 1. -. Marcoulides 2 8. L. Schumac$er Lds.#( $dvanced structural e=uations
modeling+ Mahah, !%" Arl#aum+
8eceivedE Jovem'er ",( !445
"7A C-8LS>J( K-CM-8( -JD W=LL=-MS