Assessment of the validity of Netemeyer et al.'s (1996) WFC and FWC scales

Scott L. Boyar; Charles M. Carson; Donald C. Mosley Jr; Carl P. Maertz Jr; Allison W. Pearson

doi:10.1108/10444060610734163

Login

Welcome:
Guest

Search for:

Browse:

Product Information:

Resources:

International Journal of Conflict Management

ISSN: 1044-4068

Online from: 1990

Subject Area: Management Science/Management Studies

Content: Latest Issue | Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Assessment of the validity of Netemeyer et al.'s (1996) WFC and FWC scales

Document Information:
Title:	Assessment of the validity of Netemeyer et al.'s (1996) WFC and FWC scales
Author(s):	Scott L. Boyar, (Mitchell College of Business, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA), Charles M. Carson, (School of Business, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, USA), Donald C. Mosley Jr, (Mitchell College of Business, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama, USA), Carl P. Maertz Jr, (John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA), Allison W. Pearson, (Department of Management and Information Systems, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA)
Citation:	Scott L. Boyar, Charles M. Carson, Donald C. Mosley Jr, Carl P. Maertz Jr, Allison W. Pearson, (2006) "Assessment of the validity of Netemeyer et al.'s (1996) WFC and FWC scales", International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 Iss: 1, pp.34 - 44
Keywords:	Conflict, Employee turnover, Family life, Workplace
Article type:	Research paper
DOI:	10.1108/10444060610734163 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:	Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Abstract:	Purpose – The purpose of the current paper is to continue assessment of the construct and predictive validity of the Netemeyer et al. Work Family Conflict (WFC) and Family Work Conflict (FWC) scales while reassessing the scales for possible improvements. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from workers in a poultry processing plant to reassess Netemeyer et al.'s WFC and FWC scales. Carlson et al. were unable to include Netemeyer et al.'s items in constructing and validating their new measures of WFC and FWC. This paper assesses and extends the validation of the Netemeyer et al. scales. Findings – This study supports the notion that a reduced model of both scales (four items for WFC and three items for FWC) fit the data in the sample better than the original five-item measures presented by Netemeyer et al. By deleting items from each scale more variation in the constructs was accounted for and reduced unexplained error. By clarifying the measurement of WFC and FWC, the substantive predictive model in the paper was supported. In addition, both WFC and FWC predicted individuals' intention to quit, indicating potential predictive validity for these modified scales. Originality/value – While this is a reassessment of a previously used scale, the improvements in functionality (decreased items needed for assessment) and potential for predictive validity of the modified scales result in an exciting new avenue for WFC and FWC research.