36-2

Running head: WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT IN KOREA

Construct Validation of a Korean Version of the Work-Family Conflict Scale

Doo Hun Lim

University of Oklahoma, Norman

Michael Lane Morris

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Heather S. McMillan

Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau

Copyrights © 2010 Doo Hun Lim, Michael L. Morris, & Heather S. McMillan

36-2

Abstract

This research study seeks to further facilitate a cross-cultural study on a work-family

balance by developing the Korean language version of the Work-family Conflict (WFC)

construct. Our research purpose is to translate and establish construct validity of a

Korean version of work-family conflict for use in Korea. Factor analysis was used to

uncover the underlying structure of the Korean version of the WFC. Results indicate

that the Korean version demonstrates psychometric properties similar to the original

English version of the WFC.

Keywords: work family conflict, instrument validation, Korean case studies

36-2

Construct Validation of a Korean Version of the Work-Family Conflict Scale

For several decades, work-family conflict issues have been identified as one of

the stressful organizational dynamics impacting the workplace. This trend has become

prevalent in modern workplace organizations due to various factors. In an overview of

the work-family research literature, Morris (2008) noted that the changing landscape of

organizational life creates numerous stressors for employees and their organizations.

The changing landscape includes: mergers, acquisitions, lay-offs, spin-offs, competitive

advantage demands for globalization, competition for talent, increased technological

sophistication, and workforce diversity among others. Given the magnitude of change

these events create, it is natural to assume—and previous research has supported—that

these changes create conflicts in the interface of “work” and “family” (Greenhaus &

Beutell, 1985). Within the work-family research, these conflicts have been shown to

influence productivity, recruitment, retention, turnover, job satisfaction, morale, loyalty,

commitment, motivation, citizenship behaviors, engagement, corporate image, ethical

behaviour, customer satisfaction and loyalty (Morris, 2008). Although work-family

issues are an emerging topic within HRD (Morris & Madsen, 2007), the role of HRD

researchers and scholarly practitioners is significant. Specifically, our HRD expertise is

needed in developing resources and interventions that assist employees and

organizations ameliorate and/or alleviate stressor demands that contribute to work-

family conflict creating value-added opportunities for organizational effectiveness

through the development and unleashing of human potential (Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley,

2002; Swanson & Holton, 2009). However, work-family conflict is not a U.S.

phenomenon only.

While reducing work-family conflict and keeping work-family balance have

been a critical workplace issue within western societies such as American and

36-2

European countries, research examining similar workplace issues has emerged in Asian

countries as their relatively fast economic development has occurred in recent decades

(Choi, Jung, & Cho, 2007; Sakamoto & Spinks, 2008). For example, a study about

women’s work-family conflict in Middle East Asian country indicated that women

were more suffering from work-family conflicts in jobs than men (Ng, Fosh, & Nalyor,

2002). From a Japanese study, it was found that, for women worker, a causal chain was

existed linking parental demands, work-family conflicts, and life strain (Matsui,

Ohsawa, & Onglatco, 1995). From a cross-cultural perspective, several studies

indicated that life satisfaction is most influenced by work-to-family conflict in Asian

cultures, whereas family-to-work conflict has a greater impact in the Western cultures

(Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Ayree, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999). For example, in Asian

cultures, work issues affecting family life (e.g., heavy workloads interfere with the

length of parental time with children) are more influential than family issues affecting

work life (e.g., serving school matters for children affects attention to work).

Recently, there has been a growing population of Asian workers in the work

force and the participation of Asian workers is projected to grow in the U.S. (U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, 2004). Internationally, women in industrialized

Asian countries take roughly half of the workforce population. Globalization of the

workforce and business pattern is believed to accelerate this trend more. In this regard,

the need for identifying the types and characteristics of work-family conflict and

balance within Asian cultural context has been a pressing research issue to understand

the global nature of work and family issues and prescribe appropriate interventions

needed for organizational improvement and effectiveness in the global workplace.

Work-family conflict is a source of stress requiring supportive cultures and

appropriate support services for many employees, regardless of race, gender, or sexual

36-2

orientation (Hornsby & Munn, 2009). According to Greenhaus and Beutell (1985),

work-family conflict is “a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the

work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (p. 77). Due to its

significant impact on employee work performance and their workplace attitudes and

behaviors, many researchers have investigated various aspects of work-family conflict

issues in modern organizations. Some examples included psychological distress, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover, and life satisfaction (Frone, Russell,

& Cooper, 1992; Higgins, Duxbury, & Irving, 1992; O’Driscoll, Ilgen, & Hildreth,

1992; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinowitz, Bedeian,

Burke, & Moffett, 1988).

Literature Review

Work-family Conflict

Traditionally, researchers have measured work-family conflict using different

sub-domains of work-family conflict. For example, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)

identified three forms of work-conflict in: (a) time-based conflict, (b) strain-based

conflict, and (c) behavior-based conflict. Time-based conflict occurs when the amount

of time spent on multiple roles prohibits the individual’s ability to adequately function

in one’s work and/or family role (Bartolome & Evans, 1980). Sources of time conflict

include: the amount of hours spent on the job and work related travel, overtime, and

shiftwork (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Pleck, Staines, & Lang, 1980). In general,

studies of work-family conflict tend to overlook the difference between preferred and

actual hours of work and empirical studies to identify the relationship between work-

family conflict and hour mismatches are much needed (Barnett, 1998). Regarding

family-related time-based conflict, it is associated with the amount of time spent on

36-2

family matters detracting from the amount of time that could be spent at work

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Strain-based conflict refers to work/family experiences when stressors felt in

one role (e.g., home) inhibit the performance in the other role (e.g., work) (Greenhaus

& Beutell, 1985). Sources of strain-based conflict include fatigue and irritability created

from one role interfering with the other role. The pattern of strain-based conflict can be

explained by the person-environment fit theory. According to this theory, when a

person’s ability does not match the expectations of the role, the lack of fit becomes a

source of stress (Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Several research studies have identified

that work-related strain conflict has been related to various job variables: job ambiguity

and leader support and facilitation (Jones & Butler, 1980; Kopelman, Greenhaus &

Connolly, 1983), stressful events at work, job burnout, and depression in the family role

(Bartolome & Evans, 1980; Maslach & Jackson, 1982). Family-related strain conflict

happens when incongruence between spousal career and family expectations exists

(Beutell & Greenhaus, 1982; Chadwick, Albrecht & Kunz, 1976; Eiswirth-Neems &

Handal, 1978).

Behavior-based conflict occurs when certain types of behavior developed for

one role (e.g. work) are inappropriate or dysfunctional when used for the other role

(e.g., family) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997). An

example of behavior-based conflict includes aggressive behaviors that may be required

at work are considered inappropriate at home (Hammer, 2003).

Researchers have noted that work–family conflict is a bi-directional relationship

with work-based sources of conflict influencing the family and family-based sources of

conflict influencing work. Accordingly, many research studies have measured the

duality of work–family conflict considering the directions of effect: work interference

36-2

with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW) (Duxbury, Higgins, &

Mills, 1992; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991). When the two directions

(WIF and FIW) and three forms of work-family conflict (time-based, strain-based, and

behavior-based conflict) are combined, six dimensions of work–family conflict are

developed: (a) time-based WIF, (b) time-based FIW, (c) strain-based WIF, (d) strain-

based FIW, (e) behavior-based WIF, and (f) behavior-based FIW (Gutek et al., 1991).

Development of the Work-family Conflict Scale

From an extensive review of existing studies about work-family conflict

Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) identified 25 different scales measured work-

family conflict in various settings. In doing so, they distinguished the scales whether

they contained direction between work and family and found 12 out of the 25 scales

separated the direction of conflict. Also, they found only seven out of the 25 scales did

distinguish between the forms of conflict (i.e., time, strain, behavior) in their scales.

Considering none of these scales measured the six dimensions of work-family conflict,

Carlson et al. conducted a series of studies to develop a reliable and valid scale

measuring work-family conflict in workplace.

In developing the scale, Carson et al. (2000) generated scale items from

numerous existing measures that included: Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981), Burley

(1989), Duxbury et al. (1992), Frone et al. (1992), Gutek et al. (1991), Kopelman et al.

(1983), Pleck (1978), and Stephens and Sommer (1996). Initially, the researchers

developed 31 items using a content adequacy test following the guidelines by

Schriesheim et al. (1993) (Study 1). From an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

applying an oblique rotation to identify three factors for the scale (the eigen values for

the three factors were 5.8, 2.8, and 1.7 respectively), they retained 20 items for the

work-family conflict scale. In Study 2, they augmented the scale items by adding 34

36-2

new items so each dimension could contain a set of representative items for the scale.

Using categorization and rating procedure, the researchers came up with 30 items for

the scale to be tested for final validation.

In Study 3, the 30 item scale was tested from a group of 228 graduates of

Executive MBA program at a large western university and utilized a structural equation

modeling (SEM) to isolate items that performed well across a number of different

criteria (i.e., factor loadings less than .50, modification indices to check association

with other factors, correlated measurement error either within factors, across factors, or

both). From their rigorous statistical procedure, they retained the final 18 items (five

were from existing scales and 13 items were new). Another part of Study 3 was also

designed to assess dimensionality, reliability, and discriminant validity of the scale by

including several antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict during data

collection. The antecedents included role conflict, role ambiguity, and social support

from both domains of work and family, as well as, work involvement. The

consequences, including job satisfaction, family satisfaction, life satisfaction, and

organizational commitment, were all found to be significantly related to the work–

family conflict scale. The final version of work-family conflict scale included 18 items

as shown in the Appendix.

Problem Statement and Research Question

While an abundance of studies related to work-family conflict have been found

in the literature within the U.S. and some European countries, relatively few research

studies have been found involving Asian samples. Similar to Western countries, work-

family balance issues have been a critical workplace issue for Asian countries. For

example, many for-profit organizations in South Korea reported their employees have

been suffering from job stress that was caused by work-family conflict, which also

36-2

severely impacted their workplace productivity and performance in general (Choi, Jung,

& Cho, 2007). Similar cases were also found from other Asian countries (Sakamoto &

Spinks, 2008). Investigating work-family conflict issues in Asian countries has been a

pressing research issue among organizational researchers first to identify what

antecedent types and characteristics of such conflict exist within Asian cultural context

and second to understand the global nature of work and family issues by comparing

cross national findings about work-family conflict between the East and the West.

Eventually, such findings will help practitioners prescribe appropriate interventions

needed for organizational improvement and effectiveness within global work and

business environment.

The purpose of our research is to translate and establish the construct validity of

a Korean version of the work-family conflict scale (i.e., Carlson et al., 2000) for use in

Korea. Consequently, our research question is: Will construct validation of a Korean

version of the work-family conflict by Carlson et al. (2000) result in an interpretable

factor structure consistent with the original English version? (Are the six dimensions of

work–family conflict scale valid for use in Korean organizations?)

Methodology

Sample

This sample consisted of 106 graduate students from three academic institutions

and 319 full time workers from three corporations in Seoul, South Korea. In selecting

the sample, we used a purposeful sampling method to include workers both from

academic institutions and private sector organizations. Graduate students in the sample

were included because they had fulltime jobs while studying in the various graduate

programs at the three institutions. Among the 425, 92 respondents (21.9%) of the

sample were the age of twenty-seven and below, 229 were (54.5%) between the ages of

36-2

28 and 36, and 99 (23.5%) were 37 and above. The sample was 48.2% male (197) and

46% of the sample was married. 277 respondents (65.2%) of the sample were without

children. All participants voluntarily and anonymously completed the Korean language

version of the 18-item work-family conflict measure.

Measure

In work-family conflict research we found that there have been many scales

measuring conflict in the literature (e.g., Bedeian, Burke & Moffett, 1998; Cooke &

Rousseau, 1984; Frone, et al., 1992; Gutek, Searle & Klepa, 1991; Kopelman, et al.,

1983; MacDermid, 2000; Parasuraman, et al., 1989; Rice, Frone & McFarlin, 1992). In

selecting our instrument for the research, however, we considered the following criteria

for selection: little variability in psychometric properties, shorter scale to reduce

burdens of the respondents, addressing the bi-directional (family to work and work to

family) nature of conflict, demonstrating adequate psychometric properties, and

addressing all three components of conflict (time, strain, and behavior). From our

review of many conflict scales using this selection criteria, the Carlson, et al. (2000)

scale was considered most appropriate as it taps bi-directionality in all three

components of conflict and contains psychometrically sound properties of work-family

conflict.

The English version of the work-family conflict (WFC) is a self-report measure

composed of 18 items assessing the six conceptually and empirically distinct

dimensions (see Table 1). Each of the six dimensions is assessed with three items.

Responses to all items are made on 5-point Likert-type scales (1= strongly disagree to 5

= strongly agree).

Forward and backward translation. In pursuing our research purpose, validating

linguistic equivalence between the different language versions of a cross-cultural

36-2

measure was the first and important task to be completed. Linguistic equivalence refers

to the extent to which matching items on two versions of instrument have the same

meaning, nuance, and connotation (Chen & Bates, 2005). In order to establish the

linguistic equivalence between the English and Korean version of the WFC, we have

utilized a forward-then-back translation procedure adopted by Hui and Triandis (1985).

First, a team composed of two graduate students and two university professors

proficient in English, but whose mother tongue were Korean, independently translated

into Korean each of the items of the WFC instrument. The four translators were asked

to use wording and grammar that could be understood by any adolescent in Korea. Once

the four versions were gathered and compared, a consolidated version was developed.

The consolidated version was then back translated into English by two fully bilingual

graduate students. Any discrepancy between the original version in English and the

back translated version was analyzed and corrected. Finally, a group of six graduate

students was asked to classify each of the items according to the theoretical content of

each of the six dimensions measured by the WFC. This task was successfully completed.

Data Collection

The Korean version of WFC was administered to employees in three Korean

organizations and three academic institutions during the summer of 2008. One of the

researchers visited and contacted coordinators in the organizations and institutions in

Korea to collect the research data. Survey instruments were distributed to the sample

during lecture, training sessions, or daily employee meetings of each organization.

Among the total 425 completed, 106 were collected from three academic institutions in

Seoul area, 127 were from a company selling educational programs for Korean

corporations, 107 from a pharmaceutical company, and 85 from a training center of a

Korean conglomerate.

36-2

Data analysis

Mirroring the statistical technique used by Carlson, et al. (2000), confirmatory

factor analysis was performed using AMOS 16.0 to analyze four separate models: (1)

the six-factor model proposed by Carlson, et al.; (2) a three-factor model representing

the Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) three types of conflict (i.e., time, strain and

behavior); (3) a two-factor model representing the directionality of conflict (i.e., family-

to-work and work-to-family) (Duxbury, et al., 1992; Frone et al., 1992; Gutek, et al.,

1991); and (4) a single-factor model representing conflict as a general construct. Items

were forced to load on a specified factor and the factors were allowed to correlate

(Byrne, 2001).

Results

Dimensionality

Table 1 presents the Χ2, comparative fit statistic (CFI), and root-mean-square

error of approximation for each of the four models. Despite having a p-value above the

traditionally acceptable .05 value, the remaining indices for the six-factor model were

far superior than the other models. Further examination of the six-factor model

indicated that factor loadings were all significant at a p<.001 level. The standardized

factor loadings for each of the 18 items appear in table 2.

Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of each of the six dimensions was estimated with the

coefficient alpha. The reliabilities for each of the six factors exceeds Nunnally’s (1978)

conventional .70 level of acceptance: (1) time-based WIF = .89; (2) time-based FIW

= .94; (3) strain-based WIF = .93; (4) strain-based FIW = .92; (5) behavior-based WIF

=.94; and (6) behavior-based FIW = .93.

36-2

Table 1

Estimates of Fit Indices

Model X2 df p Comparative

fit index

Root mean square error of approximation

Six-factor model 144.47 120 .06 .996 .022

Three-factor model 2390.94 132 .00 .631 .201

Two-factor model 2987.20 134 .00 .534 .224

One-factor model 4020.37 135 .00 .365 .261

Note. N = 425

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was assessed by examining factor correlations obtained

from the confirmatory factor analysis. Shown in table 3, the correlations of the six

factors ranged from .08 to .66, with only two correlations above .60. Therefore,

discriminant validity is demonstrated.

Factor Structure Tests

The final test of this construct validation study is the factor structure test to

ensure the six-factor model is invariant across gender. This test was performed using the

multiple group measurement procedure in AMOS which allows for factor loadings,

factor correlations and error variances to held invariant individually and in different

combinations, thereby allowing rigorous assessment of the measurement properties of

the models (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001; Marsh, 1995).

Four, two-group versions of the six-factor model were estimated for comparison

purposes. The first version, known as the baseline, utilized no constraints (i.e., all

aspects of the model were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset). In the second

36-2

Table 2

Completely Standardized Path Loadings of the Six-Factor Model

Factor Item Path Weight Time-Based WIF Item #1 .899 Time-Based WIF Item #2 .905 Time-Based WIF Item #3 .876 Time-Based FIW Item #4 .856 Time-Based FIW Item #5 .910 Time-Based FIW Item #6 .897 Strain-Based WIF Item #7 .877 Strain-Based WIF Item #8 .967 Strain-Based WIF Item #9 .745 Strain-Based FIW Item #10 .913 Strain-Based FIW Item #11 .943 Strain-Based FIW Item #12 .892

Behavior-Based WIF Item #13 .766 Behavior-Based WIF Item #14 .865 Behavior-Based WIF Item #15 .816 Behavior-Based FIW Item #16 .940 Behavior-Based FIW Item #17 .907 Behavior-Based FIW Item #18 .837

Note. N = 425

Table 3

Discriminant Validity of the Six-Factor Model: Phi Matrix from CFA Analysis

Dimension of Conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Time-based WIF --- 2. Time-based FIW .31 --- 3. Strain-based WIF .61 .22 --- 4. Strain-based FIW .09 .53 .18 --- 5. Behavior-based WIF .32 .40 .39 .45 --- 6. Behavior-based FIW .14 .39 .19 .45 .66 ---

36-2

version, the factor loadings were held invariant, while the factor correlations and error

variances were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset. In the third version, the

factor loadings and factor correlations were held invariant, and only the error variances

were allowed to freely estimate for each dataset. In the final version, the most rigorous

of the tests, all aspects of the model were held invariant across the datasets.

As shown in table 4, the results suggest that the gender-divided data sets map

well to the six-factor model with respect to the model fit. Model fit results were

relatively consistent across the four tested versions. These results suggest stability

regardless of gender of respondent.

Table 4

Factor Structure Tests

Model X2 df p Comparative

fit index

Root mean square error of approximation

No constrains (baseline model) 333.56 240 .00 .98 .03

Factor loadings invariant 379.49 264 .00 .98 .03

Factor loadings & factor correlations

invariant 417.64 279 .00 .98 .03

Factor loadings, factor correlations & error variances

invariant

445.83 297 .00 .98 .03

Note. N = 425

Discussion and Conclusions

Carlson et al. (2000) facilitated the research on work-family conflict by

developing a comprehensive and empirically supported multidimensional measure of

the work-family conflict construct. Our goal in the present paper was to extend this

work by developing and evaluating a Korean version of the WFC measure. In addition,

36-2

we sought to apply a detailed confirmatory factor analytic approach to the assessment of

the measurement equivalence of the WFC measure between the Korean and English

versions. In order to address our future research needs we thoroughly reviewed the

existing literature regarding work-family conflict studies in the U.S. and illustrated the

detailed process to develop the WFC scale along with its statistical analysis procedure

to finalize the 18-item measure. From our review of the literature, we concluded that the

WFC is one of the most statistically sound and valid measures used for work-family

conflict studies in the U.S.

From our initial analysis, the study results indicated that the dimensionality,

internal consistency, discriminant validity, and factor structure results were all

acceptable for the Korean version of the WFC measure as the Korean version contains

psychometric properties similar to the original English version of the WFC. In essence,

we found that the Korean language version of the WFC measures the same set of six

work-family conflicts dimensions originally proposed by Carlson et al. (2000). This

implies this study adds further proofs to the validity and reliability of the original

English version of the WFC through cross-cultural validation. This study also provides

researchers of cross-cultural studies with wider opportunities to use the WFC measure

in their studies beyond the U.S. territory.

Many cross-cultural research studies have utilized direct translation methods in

translating instruments from one language version to another which caused a series of

problems to use the translated version in foreign contexts (Kinzie & Manson, 1987). For

example, Cheung and Rensvold (1999) identified two types of measurement invariance:

conceptual and psychometric invariance. Among these two types of measurement

invariance, conceptual invariance refers whether measures are conceptually equivalent

across cultures and satisfying this condition becomes primary prerequisite for using an

36-2

instrument in different cultures. In developing a foreign language version of an

instrument, therefore, it is critical to use proper procedure to translate one version to

another. This study took a more rigorous translation process by using the forward-

backward translation approach with subjective and objective evaluations of the

translation. The rigorous translation process was believed to enhance the quality of this

research and reduced the biases that likely would have occurred in the translation

process.

As one of the most westernized countries in Asia, South Korea has grown with

an incredible record of economic development since the early 1960s (Scarborough,

1998). Due to the rapid modernization of the society, South Korea has experienced

major social changes moving from the traditional Confucianism and Buddhism

dominant culture to the modern and westernized culture. We believe that the

development of a Korean language version of the WFC would provide an initial

environment to conduct cross-cultural analyses of the work-family conflicts issues. Our

next task is then utilizing the Korean version of the WFC for future studies. One area of

possibility is examining the influence of work-family conflicts on various workplace

issues including work performance, employee morale, motivation, and work stress

within Korean context. Another potential study is combining the WFC with other work-

family related constructs. For example, other than work-family conflicts, work-family

enrichment is another measure commonly used for organizational studies and can be

used to connect both measures to wholly examine work-family issues within the

workplace. Testing the reciprocal relationships and influences of the two measures on

other workplace variables would deserve a handful effort of research for future studies.

Also, within cross cultural domains, comparison of the WFC between different

36-2

countries will be a worthwhile study to identify differences and similarities in work-

family conflict issues between different cultures.

Implications for the field of HRD

While work-family conflict has been a frequently studied research topic within

U.S. organizational and management studies, it is a relatively new study area within the

HRD field (Morris & Madsen, 2007). Since balanced work-family relationship for

individual employees is considered instrumental in workplace performance as well as

workplace well-being for organizational members, identifying the types and

characteristics of work-family related issues is central to HRD research. For

practitioners, the WFC can be used to guide the efforts for their HRD function in

diagnosing work-family related problems and issues and prescribe appropriate training

or organizational interventions to address such workplace issues detrimental to

organizational health.

Also, due to the new era of globalization, multinational organizations have

encountered various workplace issues hindering their pursuit of organizational goals

and work-family conflict issue is one of them. Identifying what aspects of work-family

conflicts are interfering with other organizational and culture specific variables becomes

one critical task that HRD professionals need to know to address diverse work and

human needs of their employees domestically and internationally.

References

Ayree, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-

family interface. Journal of Management, 25(4), 491-511.

doi:10.1177/014920639902500402

Ayree, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and

well-being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors

36-2

among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2),

259-278.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

doi:10.1177/009207038801600107

Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a review and reconceptualzation of the work/family

literature. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 14, 125-182.

Bartolome, F., & Evans, P. A. (1980). Must success cost so much? Harvard Business

Review, 58, 137-148.

Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G., & Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work–family

conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management,

14(3), 475–491. doi:10.1177/014920638801400310

Beutell, N. J., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1982). Interrole conflict among married women: The

influence of husband and wife characteristics on conflict and coping behavior.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 99-110. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(82)90055-

0

Bohen, H. C., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible

work schedules help? Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

Bollen, K. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

Burley, K. (1989). Work–family conflict and marital adjustment in dual career couples:

A comparison of three time models. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),

Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

36-2

Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial

validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713

Chadwick, B. A., Albrecht, S. L., & Kunz, P. R. (1976). Marital and family role

satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 431–440.

Chen, H., & Bates, R. A. (2005). Instrument translation and development strategies for

cross-cultural studies. In M. L. Morris & F. Nafuko (Eds.), Proceedings of the

2005 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference. (pp. 693-

700). Estes Park, Colorado: Academy of HRD.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A

reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-

27. doi:10.1177/014920639902500101

Choi, S., Jung, W., & Cho, E. S. (2007). Work and family conflict in Korea: A

longitudinal study on married women’s discontinuity of employment. Paper

presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association,

New York.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-

role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252–260.

Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Mills, S. (1992). After-hours telecommuting and

work–family conflict: A comparative analysis. Information Systems Research, 3,

173–190.

Eiswirth-Neems, N., & Handal, P. (1978). Spouses' attitudes toward maternal

occupational status and effects on family climate. Journal of Community

Psychology, 6, 168-172. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(197804)6:2<168::AID-

JCOP2290060211>3.0.CO;2-9

36-2

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M .L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of

work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65–75. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.65

Gilley, J.W., Eggland, S.A., & Gilley, A.M. (2002). Principles of human resource

development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family

roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role-explanations for

work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.560

Hammer, L. B. (2003). Work–family enrichment: An expansion of the work–family

paradigm. In L. B. Hammer, Symposium of 18th Annual Society for Industrial

and Organizational Psychology Conference. Orlando, FL.

Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L. E., & Irving, R. H. (1992). Work–family conflict in the

dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

51, 51–75. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90004-Q

Hornsby, E. E., & Munn, S. L. (2009). University work-life benefits and same-sex

couples. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 67-81.

doi:10.1177/1523422308329199

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A

review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16,

131-152. doi:10.1177/0022002185016002001

Jones, A. P., & Butler, M. C. (1980). Influences of cognitive complexity on the

dimensions underlying perceptions of the work environment. Motivation and

Emotion, 4, 1–19.

36-2

Kinzie, J. D., & Manson, S. M. (1987). Self-rating scales in cross-cultural psychiatry.

Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 38(2), 190-196.

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,

and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 32, 198–215. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2

MacDermid, S. M. (2000). The measurement of work/life tension: Recommendations of

a virtual think tank. Boston: Sloan Work Family Network.

Marsh, H. W. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A

multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5–34.

Maslach C., & Jackson S. E. (1982). Burnout in health care professions: A social

psychological analysis. In G. Sanders & J. Suls (Eds.), Social psychology of

health and illness (pp. 227-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matsui, T., Ohsawa, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1995). Work-family conflict and the stress-

buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese

married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47. 78-92.

doi:10.1006/jvbe.1995.1034

Morris, M. L. (2008). Combating workplace stressors: Using work-life initiatives as an

OD intervention (Editorial). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2),

95-105.

Morris, M. L., & Madsen, S. R. (2007). Advancing work-life integration in individuals,

organizations, and communities. Advances in Developing Human Resources,

9(4), 1-6. doi: 10.1177/1523422307305486

Nelson, D., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more

positive approach, In J. Quick and L. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational

36-2

Health Psychology (pp. 97-119). Washington D.C.: American Psychological

Association.

Ng, C. W., Fosh, P., & Naylor, D. (2002). Work-family conflict for employees in an

East Asian Airline: Impact on career and relationship to gender. Economic and

Industrial Democracy, 23(1), 67-105.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.

O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job

activities, interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 77, 272–279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.272

Parasuramanm, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1997). Integrating work and family: Challenges

and choices for a changing world. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Toward reducing some critical gaps in

work–family research. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 299–312.

doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00062-1

Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K.

W. (1989). Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between

wives’ employment and husbands’ well-being. Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 185–201.

Pleck, J. H. (1978). Work–family conflict: A national assessment. Presented at the

Annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, Boston, MA.

Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflicts between work and family life.

Monthly Labor Review, 103, 29-32.

Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1992). Work–nonwork conflict and the

perceived quality of life. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 155–168.

36-2

Sakamoto, Y., & Spinks, W. (2008). The impact of home-based telework on work-

family conflict in the childcare stage. The Journal of eWorking. 2(2), 144-158.

Scarborough, J. (1998). The origins of cultural differences and their impact on

management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J.

(1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments

and quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of

paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19, 385–417.

doi:10.1177/014920639301900208

Stephens, G. K., & Sommer, S. M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475–486.

doi:10.1177/0013164496056003009

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2004). 2004 Yearbook of immigration

statistics. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from

http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/Yearbook2004.pdf

36-2

Appendix

Work-family Conflict Scale Items

Time-based work interference with family

1. My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like.

2. The time I must devote to my job keeps me from participating equally in

household responsibilities and activities.

3. I have to miss family activities due to the amount of time I must spend on work

responsibilities.

Time-based family interference with work

4. The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work

responsibilities.

5. The time I spend with my family often causes me not to spend time in activities

at work that could be helpful to my career.

6. I have to miss work activities due to the amount of time I must spend on family

responsibilities.

Strain-based work interference with family

7. When I get home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family

activities/responsibilities.

8. I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents

me from contributing to my family.

9. Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too

stressed to do the things I enjoy.

Strain-based family interference with work

10. Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work.

11. Because I am often stressed from family responsibilities, I have a hard time

concentrating on my work.

12. Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job.

Behavior-based work interference with family

13. The problem-solving behaviors I use in my job are not effective in resolving

problems at home.

14. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at work would be

counterproductive at home.

36-2

15. The behaviors I perform that make me effective at work do not help me to be a

better parent and spouse.

Behavior-based family interference with work

16. The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effective at work.

17. Behavior that is effective and necessary for me at home would be

counterproductive at work.

18. The problem-solving behavior that works for me at home does not seem to be as

useful at work.