Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,922

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.

Crawford, Eean R., LePine, Jeffery A., Rich, Bruce Louis·2010·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0019364
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We refine and extend the job demands-resources model with theory regarding appraisal of stressors to account for inconsistencies in relationships between demands and engagement, and we test the revised theory using meta-analytic structural modeling. Results indicate support for the refined and updated theory. First, demands and burnout were positively associated, whereas resources and burnout were negatively associated. Second, whereas relationships among resources and engagement were consistently positive, relationships among demands and engagement were highly dependent on the nature of the demand. Demands that employees tend to appraise as hindrances were negatively associated with engagement, and demands that employees tend to appraise as challenges were positively associated with engagement. Implications for future research are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0019364

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010-09
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
834-848
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/a0019364
OpenAlex
W2094182805
Cited by
2,922
References
27
FWCI
120.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.