35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Fueling Work Engagement: The Role of Sleep, Health, and Overtime

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          With the current study, we investigate mechanisms linking sleep quality with work engagement. Work engagement is an affective-motivational state of feeling vigorous, absorbed, and dedicated while working. Drawing from both the effort-recovery model and the job demands-resources framework, we hypothesize that sleep quality should be positively related to work engagement via the replenishment of personal resources that become apparent in mental health and physical health. Because personal resources should gain salience especially in the face of job demands, we hypothesize that overtime as an indicator for job demands should strengthen the positive relationship between mental health and work engagement. We gathered data from 152 employees from diverse industries via an online survey. Results showed that sleep quality was positively related to work engagement ( r = 0.20, p < 0.05), and that mental health mediated this relationship (indirect effect: β = 0.23, lower limit confidence interval = 0.13, upper limit confidence interval = 0.34). However, physical health did not serve as a mediator. Overtime turned out to be significantly and positively related to work engagement ( r = 0.22, p < 0.01), replicating previous findings, but did not significantly interact with mental health or physical health in predicting work engagement. Overall, the study highlights the significance of sleep quality for employees' mental health and work engagement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research

          Despite the prevalence of sleep complaints among psychiatric patients, few questionnaires have been specifically designed to measure sleep quality in clinical populations. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is a self-rated questionnaire which assesses sleep quality and disturbances over a 1-month time interval. Nineteen individual items generate seven "component" scores: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfunction. The sum of scores for these seven components yields one global score. Clinical and clinimetric properties of the PSQI were assessed over an 18-month period with "good" sleepers (healthy subjects, n = 52) and "poor" sleepers (depressed patients, n = 54; sleep-disorder patients, n = 62). Acceptable measures of internal homogeneity, consistency (test-retest reliability), and validity were obtained. A global PSQI score greater than 5 yielded a diagnostic sensitivity of 89.6% and specificity of 86.5% (kappa = 0.75, p less than 0.001) in distinguishing good and poor sleepers. The clinimetric and clinical properties of the PSQI suggest its utility both in psychiatric clinical practice and research activities.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

              Regression methods were used to select and score 12 items from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to reproduce the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scales in the general US population (n=2,333). The resulting 12-item short-form (SF-12) achieved multiple R squares of 0.911 and 0.918 in predictions of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores, respectively. Scoring algorithms from the general population used to score 12-item versions of the two components (Physical Components Summary and Mental Component Summary) achieved R squares of 0.905 with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and 0.938 with SF-36 Mental Component Summary when cross-validated in the Medical Outcomes Study. Test-retest (2-week)correlations of 0.89 and 0.76 were observed for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, respectively, in the general US population (n=232). Twenty cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of empirical validity previously published for the 36-item short-form scales and summary measures were replicated for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, including comparisons between patient groups known to differ or to change in terms of the presence and seriousness of physical and mental conditions, acute symptoms, age and aging, self-reported 1-year changes in health, and recovery for depression. In 14 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates for the 12-item Physical Component Summary ranged from 0.43 to 0.93 (median=0.67) in comparison with the best 36-item short-form scale. Relative validity estimates for the 12-item Mental Component Summary in 6 tests involving mental criteria ranged from 0.60 to 107 (median=0.97) in relation to the best 36-item short-form scale. Average scores for the 2 summary measures, and those for most scales in the 8-scale profile based on the 12-item short-form, closely mirrored those for the 36-item short-form, although standard errors were nearly always larger for the 12-item short-form.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                20 May 2021
                2021
                : 9
                : 592850
                Affiliations
                Occupational, Economic and Social Psychology, University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria
                Author notes

                Edited by: Daniel P. Bailey, Brunel University London, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Catherine Bodeau-Pean, Independent Researcher, Paris, France; Jens Brandt, International School of Management, Germany

                *Correspondence: Ricarda Schleupner ricarda.schleupner@ 123456univie.ac.at

                This article was submitted to Occupational Health and Safety, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2021.592850
                8172578
                34095043
                b0685b9f-c174-4431-8987-50ddd7f7a86c
                Copyright © 2021 Schleupner and Kühnel.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 12 August 2020
                : 28 April 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 77, Pages: 10, Words: 8458
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                sleep,work engagement,mental health,job demands - resources model,resources

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content243

                Cited by10

                Most referenced authors1,207