The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales
Abstract
Researchers report on a 3-sample study that developed and validated short, self-report scales of work–family conflict (WFC) and family–work conflict (FWC). Using conceptualizations consistent with the current literature, the researchers offer content domains and definitions of the constructs. Advocated procedures were used to develop the scales and test dimensionality and internal consistency. Estimates of construct validity are presented by relating the scales to 16 other on- and off-job constructs. Mean-level difference tests between WFC and FWC also provide evidence of validity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Work-life interface was measured using the two widely adopted scales of family-work conflict (5 items) and work-family conflict (5 items) developed by Netemeyer et al. (1996).”
From Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students (2017) · cites this paper as Netemeyer et al., 1996
In the citing paper
“A total of 30.6% (n = 151) of people scored above the cutoff of the WFC scale of 16.69 [103], indicating they struggle with WFC dog-related conflict.”
From Disenfranchised Guilt-Pet Owners' Burden. (2022) · cites this paper as [103]
In the citing paper
“A total of 30.6% (n = 151) of people scored above the cutoff of the WFC scale of 16.69 [103], indicating they struggle with WFC dog-related conflict.”
From Disenfranchised Guilt-Pet Owners' Burden. (2022) · cites this paper as [103]
In the citing paper
“Cronbach’s Alpha for the WFC has been reported to be 0.88 [103].”
From Disenfranchised Guilt-Pet Owners' Burden. (2022) · cites this paper as [103]
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
The measurement of experienced burnout
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030020205 · Cited by 14,496
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,243
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Consequences of abusive supervision.
Tepper, B. J. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556375 · Cited by 3,810
Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278 · Cited by 2,767
Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Measure of Work–Family Conflict
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713 · Cited by 2,689
What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 · Cited by 2,585
A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents
Byron, K. L. (2005) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009 · Cited by 2,382
Metadata
- Authors
- Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R.
- Affiliations
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1996-08
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-410
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W1979376028
- Cited by
- 3,864
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 172 · 2025: 227 · 2024: 221 · 2023: 265 · 2022: 296 · 2021: 290 · 2020: 244 · 2019: 211 · 2018: 196 · 2017: 165 · 2016: 142 · 2015: 173 · 2014: 172 · 2013: 150 · 2012: 138
- FWCI
- 24.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- work-family conflict, family-work conflict, scale development, scale validation, self-report measures, content domains, construct validity, dimensionality, internal consistency, work-family balance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
