Getting the measure of remote e-

working: a revision and further

validation of the E-work life scale
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A. & Tramontano, C.
Author post-print (accepted) deposited by Coventry University’s Repository

Original citation & hyperlink:

Charalampous, M, Grant, CA & Tramontano, C 2022, 'Getting the measure of remote
e-working: a revision and further validation of the E-work life scale', Employee
Relations, vol. (In-Press), pp. (In-Press).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2021-0483

DOI 10.1108/ER-11-2021-0483
ISSN 0142-5455

Publisher: Emerald

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright
owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively
from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The
content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium
without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during
the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version
may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from
it.
Getting the measure of remote e-working: A revision and further validation of the E-Work

Life Scale

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aimed to revise and further validate the published E-Work Life (EWL) scale.

The EWL was originally developed to assess theoretically relevant aspects of the remote e-working

experience related to four main areas: organisational trust, flexibility, work-life interference, and

productivity.

Design/methodology/approach: A number of changes were implemented to the scale (i.e.,

including new items, rewording of existing items) following a recent qualitative study conducted

by the authors. The two studies outlined in this paper, conducted within discrete remote e-working

populations, resulted in a validated and adjusted 20-item version of the scale.

Findings: Study 1 performs Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on data from a sample of 399

U.K. remote e-workers (57.9% female) to check the factor structure of the revised version of the

EWL scale and the reliability of the posited dimensions. Results provided support for a 20-item

scale, replicating the factorial structure of the original version. Study 2 tests and confirms the

factorial structure of the final 20-item EWL scale in an independent sample of 366 U.K. remote e-

workers (48.6% female). Study 2 provides further evidence of EWL scale’s reliability and validity,

with the four factors of the scale being significantly correlated with positive mental health,

detachment from work, and technostress.

Originality: The EWL is a very timely and important tool which provides an overall framework

of the key areas that are affecting remote e-workers’ life; whose greater understanding may better

prepare organisations to adapt work arrangements and introduce support policies and guidance.

Keywords: remote e-working, work-life balance, productivity, flexibility, scale revision; well-

being.
1
1. Introduction

Remote e-working has been in practice as a working style for several decades. Since Nilles

(1975) firstly introduced telecommuting a virtual working arrangement which allowed individuals

to work from home by using technology to communicate with their workplace; a variety of

definitions and terms have been used. In particular, telework, remote e-work, virtual work, flexible

work (Allen et al., 2015) and more recently agile work (Grant and Russell, 2021), among other

labels, have been used to indicate work which is not constrained to an office environment, making

use of communication tools (such as email and video calls). Remote e-working has been constantly

but relatively slowly increasing over the past two decades (Eurofound and ILO, 2017). However

COVID-19 and the need to tackle the issues raised by the pandemic in the beginning of 2020 led

to a sudden, pervasive, and extended adoption of remote working practices, that is anticipated to

be here to stay (Eurofound, 2020). According to Eurofound (2020) after the stay-home orders from

the government, almost 4 in 10 employees in Europe started e-working remotely. However,

approximately 24% of employees who were working remotely in Europe had never worked in this

way before, in contrast to 56% of employees who occasionally had some experience of remote e-

working (ILO, 2020). Although the growing remote e-working numbers suggested that a lot more

jobs can be performed from a distance than previously assumed, it is worth considering that not

all organisations and employers were well prepared nor familiar with this working practice and,

which raised the issue about how best to support themselves and their employees (Milasi et al.,

2020). In addition, a large and diverse virtual team of researchers (i.e., Kniffin et al., 2021)

discussed the implications, issues and insights for future research and action, suggesting that the

virtual work practices resulted from COVID-19 will demand individuals to work in ways far

different from how previous generations worked. Thus, the importance of tackling and measuring

2
issues raised by remote e-working is enhanced, as well as the need to ensure that individuals remain

productive, and satisfied when working away from their office premises.

A great amount of research has already been conducted on the topic with scholars

attempting to identify remote e-working’s benefits and drawbacks (see Allen et al., 2015;

Charalampous et al., 2019; Gajendran and Harisson, 2007; Oakman et al., 2020 for reviews of the

literature). The EWL scale, developed by Grant et al. (2019) who conducted research in this area,

focused on the key concepts relating to improving the quality of remote working for employers,

employees and managers. In particular, the EWL scale composes organisational trust, flexibility,

work-life interference, and productivity, which dimensions are discussed in greater detail below.

Revising and further developing Grant et al.’s (2019) scale constitutes the main aim of this paper,

as the EWL dimensions’ interplay is proposed to provide a greater understanding of the remote e-

working experience as a whole.

1.1. The development of the E-Work Life (EWL) scale: An integrated view of the remote e-

working experience

Grant et al. (2019) presented the EWL scale as a relevant measure to capture the multiple

consequences and crucial issues linked to measuring the quality of the remote e-working

experience. This scale was developed as a response to both the lack of relevant and robust measures

in this area, and a growth in the remote e-working arrangement which resulted from more available

and extended use of technologies for work purposes (Grant et al., 2013). The development of the

EWL scale was based on collating information gathered from a literature review and relevant

qualitative findings by Grant et al. (2013), which explored the psychological impact that remote

e-working has on individuals. Consequently, as mentioned above, Grant et al. (2019) presented a

17-item version of the EWL scale with a four-factor structure including: organisational trust,

3
flexibility, work-life interference, and productivity. The four EWL factors were significantly

linked to individual well-being (i.e., general health mental health and vitality) and reported good

reliability as indicated in Factor Determinacy scores (Grant et al., 2019). Also, the EWL scale was

designed to be applicable in a variety of organisational contexts, and for all levels within the

organisation (i.e., individual, supervisor, and organisational).

The profound importance of the EWL scale lies in the fact that it provides an overall

framework of the key areas that are affecting a remote e-workers’ life, which allows us to explore

the co-existence and interaction of relevant issue. This can, in turn, inform and guide the

management and the development of strategies to support individuals’ remote e-working

experience. Hence, this paper discusses a revision and further validation of the newly devised EWL

by Grant et al. (2019), which seems to be a very timely and important tool.

1.2. Key areas of the remote e-working experience as indicated by the EWL scale

The first key concept measured by the EWL scale is organisational trust, which has been

extensively supported by research as a fundamental aspect in the success of remote e-working

(Pyöriä, 2011). It has, in particular, been suggested that when remote e-workers felt trusted they

experienced very positive emotions (i.e., proud, grateful, and content), whereas they classified

distrustful behaviors by managers as challenging (Charalampous et al. 2021). In addition, in cases

where remote e-workers did not feel trusted, they tend to experience greater levels of guilt, which

not only increased the hours they worked but also lessened their detachment from work

(Charalampous et al., 2021). Echoing these results, recent qualitative data collected in Italy during

the COVID-19 crisis, suggested that managerial control changes took place, with managers

monitoring their employees constantly and checking the team’s activities multiple times a day

(Delfino et al., 2021). Taking into consideration that the level of ‘visibility’ and ‘presence’ of

4
employees is lessened, employers and especially managers are called to change the way they

manage people by using output-related metrics and trust when evaluating individuals’ performance

(Felstead et al., 2002). Furthermore, trust can be classified as a resource (as per the JD-R

framework) which can act as a buffer against stress that individuals may experience during remote

e-working (Hobfoll, 1989).

The second key concept discussed is flexibility over the time and location of individuals’

work, which has been supported by a vast majority of literature to increase job satisfaction (e.g.,

Caillier 2012, Chesley, 2010; Messenger and Gschwind, 2016), and individuals’ levels of

commitment and loyalty (Charalampous et al., 2021). This given flexibility was also supported to

increase retention and engagement with the organisation (Richman et al., 2008) as well as

employee well-being (Ter Hoeven and Van Zoonen, 2015). Also, flexibility which allowed better

dealing with personal and life commitments led to work released tension and decreased emotional

exhaustion, which in turn, allowed recovery and recuperation from work (Charalampous et al.,

2021). Similarly to organisational trust, flexibility can be considered to be a resource since

individuals are allowed to better juggle the demands of their work and personal lives (Kelliher,

2013), which can act as a buffer against stress.

The third pivotal issue concerns the work life-interference. Qualitative narratives in Jeffrey

et al.’s (2004) study expanded on how the time saved from commuting can be used for work,

family, and personal matters and commitments, which can in turn reduce work-life conflict. Being

able to flex the completion of job tasks allowed in many cases employees to spend more time with

their families, continuing work later on in the evening times (Haddock et al., 2006). In contrast,

what was found to threaten work-life balance, is the increased permeability of boundaries between

work and personal life, something which was heightened even more during COVID-19 both for

5
working parents who had their family at home with them (Hjálmsdóttir and Bjarnadóttir 2021), or

single professionals (Akanji et al., 2020). The modern ‘always-on’ culture, where individuals need

to be contactable 24/7, beyond typical working hours (Derks et al., 2015) can definitely play a role

to this conflict and increase the lack of psychological detachment. Examples of boundary breaches

between an individual’s work and personal life include emailing people outside hours and poor

working practices from role models, both of which can be detrimental to individuals’ ability to

detach from work and switch off (Charalampous et al., 2021). Moreover, technostress experienced

by individuals was found to be related to their work-family conflict levels (Molino et al.)

Finally, numerous studies have proposed that being able to e-work remotely can be

positively associated with productivity (e.g., Gajendran, Harrison, and Delaney-Klinger, 2014,

Kossek et al., 2006) one reason being that individuals tend to work longer, on the days they work

from home (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010). Filtering interruptions and not being part of the office

politics also gave individuals the opportunity to focus more on their work tasks (Fonner and Roloff,

2010). Nevertheless, as Boell et al. (2016) highlighted the degree to which remote e-working is

effective is inextricably linked to the nature of the work task. For instance, even though remote e-

working seems to be more appropriate for activities that require concentration, such as writing, it

may be less desirable for teamwork and creative tasks. A new skill that individuals seem to be

working on now is their ability to reduce “e-distractions” caused by emails, phone calls and instant

messages, with some remote e-workers properly logging off to eliminate “e-noise” (Charalampous

et al., 2021). What is worth keeping in mind though is Boell et al.’s (2016) suggestion that the

degree to which individuals rely on their colleagues to complete a task can also influence how

much they will benefit from remote e-working. Also, using technology, which is essential for

remote e-working, was found to cause technostress to individuals, which can in turn have a

6
negative impact on productivity (Tarafdar, Tu, and Ragu-Nathan, 2010). At last, remote e-workers

may find it difficult to detach from work, due to being connected 24/7 (Felstead and Henseke,

2017), which can in turn reduce productivity (Fritz et al., 2010).

1.3. The use of the EWL scale in the field

A great level of interest was shown into the EWL scale, which has been already employed

by researchers and practitioners in the field. For example, scholars suggested that a positive remote

e-working experience as captured within the scale’s four dimensions was negatively associated

with technostress (i.e., stress due to inability to cope with the demands of organizational computer

usage; Tarafdar, Tu and Ragu-Nathan, 2010) and loneliness individuals experienced, and

positively linked to their levels of flow while working (Taser et al., 2021). These findings were in

line with Grant et al.’s (2019) suggestion that a positive remote e-working experience can be linked

to improved well-being. Also, a recent study exploring e-Work Self-Efficacy configurations in a

remote e-working population identified three different profiles (i.e. Well-adjusted, Unhealthily

dedicated, and Distrustful self-shielding), and found significant and meaningful difference in

organisational trust, work-life interference, and productivity across these profiles (Tramontano et

al., 2021).

1.4. The rationale behind revisiting the 17-item version of the EWL scale.

Notwithstanding the appeal of the EWL scale, a very recent qualitative study using in-

depth semi structured interviews within 40 remote e-workers (Charalampous et al., 2021) provided

valuable insight into the remote e-working experience, which is what inspired and stimulated the

revision of the published EWL scale. Although Charalampous et al. (2021) conducted interviews

which had primarily focused on remote e-workers’ well-being, participants’ narratives still

discussed all four areas covered by the EWL scale. This further supported the importance of

7
considering these aspects when evaluating the remote e-workers’ experience. Taking into

consideration that as the remote e-working arrangement grows, evolves and its use becomes wider

throughout the years (Grant, and Russell, 2021; Kelliher, and De Menezes 2019), we can justify

the revision and further development of the EWL scale so that it remains up-to-date. Considering

that psychologists prefer using short scales in their research to not only reduce respondent time,

but also to avoid fatigue (Jebb et al. 2021) researchers developed only five items (as described

below), which was considered reasonable considering the four-factor solution of the scale.

1.4.1. Specific amendments to the 17-item version of the EWL scale: Drawing upon the

qualitative study

The original 17-item version of the EWL comprises 3 items measuring organisational trust,

3 items measuring work-related flexibility, 7 items measuring work-life interference, and 4 items

measuring productivity. The section below presents these 17 items, but also the newly added or

reworded items to the EWL scale, drawing upon the qualitative interviews conducted and

presented by the authors (Charalampous et al., 2021). This is expected to allow capturing important

issues of the e-work life at a greater depth and in a more holistic way. For instance, the interview

data suggested that avoiding micro-management, providing career development opportunities to

individuals, and trusting individuals to work more effectively when e-working remotely were

suggested to be fundamental indicators of trust within the remote e-working arrangement. In

addition, it was proposed that freedom in the location of work and breaking down working hours

to suit work and non-work commitments are essential indicators of flexibility. The development

of additional items was in line with literature suggesting that a retention of four to six items per

construct may be ideal (Hinkin, 1998), and that at least four items are needed to comprise a factor

when testing for homogeneity of items (for each construct; Harvey et al., 1985).

8
Organisational trust

As according to Grant et al. (2019) organisational trust relates to the way in which the

remote e-worker experiences their relationship with their manager. Trust can be a means to urge

individuals to be more committed to their organisation and go the extra mile. Table 1 below

presents the items included in the original version of the scale, along with three new items added,

based on results of author’s qualitative study (Charalampous et al., 2021). In particular, the three

new items tapped the key elements relating to trust as suggested by the interviewees:

micromanaging, professional support, and trust regardless of visibility.

Table 1: Organisational trust dimension revisited

No Item Old/ New

1 My organisation provides training in e-working skills and behaviours. Old
2 I trust my organisation to provide good e-working facilities to allow me to e- Old
work effectively.
3 My organisation trusts me to be effective in my role when I e-work remotely. Old
4 My manager does not micro-manage me when e-working remotely. New
5 I trust my manager to provide me with career professional developmental New
opportunities when e-working remotely.
6 When I’m not visible e-working remotely, my manager trusts me to work New
effectively.

Flexibility

The flexibility dimension, Grant et al. (2019) included items evolving around the when and

how work is completed, that is flexing working hours. As highlighted in the interviews conducted,

two new items were developed to consider the aspect of flexibility around the location in which

work is completed, and the importance of being able to take longer breaks during their typical

working hours; for both personal and family reasons, and complete their work hours later on in the

day/evening (see Table 2).

9
 Table 2: Flexibility dimension revisited

No Item Old/ New

1 My work is so flexible I could easily take time off e-working remotely, if and Old
when I want to.
2 My line manager allows me to flex my hours to meet my needs, providing all Old
the work is completed.
3 My supervisor gives me total control over when and how I get my work Old
completed when e-working.
4 There are no constraints on the location where I work providing I complete New
my role effectively.
5 I work flexible hours across the day breaking down my hours to suit my work New
and non-work commitments.

Work-life interference

Out of the seven items constituting this dimension in Grant et al.’s (2019) paper, four items

were retained (see Table 3 below). Referring back to the interviewees conducted by the authors,

two of the seven items were slightly reworded, aiming to be more appealing in their wording. In

addition, Item 7 was not semantically aligned with the rest of the items in this dimension. Its

reference to work demands suggested some shared ground with the Productivity dimension. To

avoid interference within dimensions, this item was reworded and moved to the Productivity

dimension instead.

Table 3: Work-life interference dimension revisited

No Item Old/ Reworded

1. My e-working does not take up time that I would like to spend with Old
my family/friends or on other non-work activities
2. When e-working remotely I do not often think about work-related Old
problems outside of my normal working hours
3. I am happy with my work-life balance when e-working remotely Old
4. Constant access to work through e-working is not very tiring Old
5. When e-working from home I do know when to switch off/put work Reworded
down so that I can rest
Reworded to: When e-working from home I do know when to switch
off so that I can recuperate effectively

10
 6. My social life is poor when e-working remotely Reworded
Reworded to: My relationships suffer when I am e-working remotely.
7. I feel that work demands are much higher when I’m e-working Reworded/
remotely Moved to
Productivity

Productivity

As can be displayed in the Table 4, three out of the five items of this dimension remained

the same. Item 4 was slightly reworded. Particularly, the reference to ‘other family responsibilities’

was deleted to eliminate any similarity with the work-life interference dimension. Interviewees’

narratives were considered, to ensure that appropriate and meaningful wording was used. Also, as

mentioned above, the item “I feel that work demands are much higher when I am e-working

remotely” was moved from the work-life interference dimension to this dimension and was

reworded to “I can cope with work demands more effectively when I e-work remotely”.

A minor alteration that is worth mentioning regarding the entire scale, is that the term

manager was used to replace terms such as line manager and supervisor to maintain consistency

in items’ wording. The aforementioned revision led to an updated 22-item version of the EWL

scale which is presented below. Thus, this updated version is examined in Study 1.

Table 4: Productivity dimension revisited

No Item Old/ Reworded

1. When e-working I can concentrate better on my work tasks Old
2. E-working makes me more effective to deliver against my key Old
objectives and deliverables
3. My overall job productivity has increased by my ability to e-work Old
remotely/from home
4. If I am interrupted by family/other responsibilities whilst e- Reworded
working from home, I still meet my line manager’s quality
expectations
Reworded to: If I am interrupted when working from home I still
meet my manager’s quality expectations

11
 5. I can cope with work demands more effectively when I e-work Reworded/
remotely Moved from
Work/Life
interference

Study 1

This study aimed to validate the revised 22 – item version of the EWL scale. In particular,

a four-factor structure of the scale was assessed, including: organisational trust, flexibility, work

life interference, and productivity.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

An online cross-sectional survey was used to collect data. A snowball sampling method

was employed to disseminate the study within U.K. remote e-workers, with the study advertised

through social media (e.g., LinkedIn, Twitter) and researchers’ networking contacts.

2.2. Participants

In total, 399 U.K. employees were recruited. Participants had a mean age of 39.80 (SD =

11.93) and 231 (57.9%) of them were female. The three most often reported occupations were

information technology (14.8%), teaching and education (14.5%), and other (11.3%). The majority

of the participants claimed that they worked additional hours (79.7%). On a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from Never to Very frequently /all the time, individuals indicated highly frequent use of

ICT for work purposes; both during normal hours (M = 4.74, SD = .66) and outside hours (M =

4.21, SD = .88). The mean hours individuals e-worked remotely per week were 15.40 (SD = 11.54).

The office was the most cited work location (M hours per week = 19.01, SD = 14.90), followed

by employees’ homes (M hours per week = 16.80, SD = 36.20).

12
2.3. Materials/Measures

The updated version of the EWL scale discussed above (i.e., 22-item) was used. Items were

measured on a five point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

2.4. Data analyses plan

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and Mplus 8.0. In particular,

descriptive statistics and a preliminary screening for normality of the data were examined using

SPSS. Also, CFA using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2016) was performed, providing Factor

Scores Determinacies to evaluate the reliability of each EWL factor (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

Factor Determinacy coefficients have been used as an alternative to Cronbach’s alpha in order to

measure the internal consistency of the factor solution. Factor Determinacy scores indicate the

extent to which the true factor score is measured in the model (Grice, 2001); showing the extent

to which the estimated and true factor scores are correlated (Muthén and Muthén, 2016). The

criteria for the Factor Determinacy scores are the same as for the Cronbach’s alpha; the closer the

coefficient is to 1, the better the factor is defined by the observed variables. Tabachnick and Fidell

(2007) suggested that a score needs to be ≥ .70 to support scale’s good internal consistency. In

addition, composite reliability was also calculated to test internal consistency, with a score above

.70 indicating adequate reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity was further evaluated

by calculating the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) with a score exceeding .50 being desired

(Hair et al., 2010). At last, discriminant validity was evaluated by calculating Maximum Shared

Variance (MSV) with values < 0.4 considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). Lastly, a four-factor

model, as posited by Grant et al. (2019), was tested using Mplus.

A set of goodness-of-fit indices was considered to evaluate the factorial solutions.

Specifically in order to show a good fit: the (i) chi square test is required to either be non-

13
significant, or a χ²:df ratio which is less than 3:1 is needed (Kenny, 2015). The (ii) Comparative

Fit Index (CFI) needs to be above .95 (Vandenberg, and Lance, 2000), but scores above .9 still

indicated adequate fit (Bentler, 1990). The (iii) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) needs to be lower than .06 along with a non-significant test of close fit (Steiger, 1990),

with values lower than .08 still showing adequate/mediocre fit (MacCallum, Browne and

Sugawara, 1996). The (iv) Standardised Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR) has to be lower

than .08 to indicate a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999), but a cut-off point of .10 was still suggested

to be appropriate (Garson, 2008). Moreover, as per Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), each factor’s

reliability was evaluated using Factor Scores Determinacies, which are interpreted similarly to

Cronbach’s alpha.

3. Results

Out of the 22 items, only one slightly deviated from the normal distribution (i.e., Item 2

with kurtosis = 2.87), whereas the rest were normally distributed (Mean skewness = .66, Mean

kurtosis = .68). Therefore, CFA was performed using maximum likelihood (ML) parameter

estimates. The descriptive statistics for the EWL scale items are presented in Appendix A,

providing Means, SDs, skewness and kurtosis scores for all 22 items of the EWL scale.

The initial model investigating the 4-factors solution of the 22-item scale did not

adequately fit the data (χ² = 740.657, df = 203, p < .001, CFI = .88; RMSEA = .08, (C.I.: .075

.088), SRMR = .07). The item loadings showed that the old item EWL1 belonging to the

Organisational trust dimension (i.e., ‘My organisation provides training in e-working skills and

behaviours’) was very low (.30) and thus removed (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Once this item

was deleted, the fit improved but was still not adequate (χ² = 661.632, df = 183, p < .001, CFI =

.89; RMSEA = .081, (C.I.: .074 - .088, p <.001; SRMR = .06). When checking the modification

14
indices the highest value (56.211) was associated with the covariance between the old item EWL7

belonging to the Flexibility dimension (i.e., ‘My manager gives me total control over when and

how I get my work completed when e-working’) and the new item EWL6 belonging to the

Organisational Trust dimension (i.e., ‘When I’m not visible e-working remotely, my manager trusts

me to work effectively’). Considering that these two items belonged to different dimensions (i.e.,

trust and flexibility respectively) and following guidance suggesting that items should be as clear

as possible, reducing any ambiguity that may confuse the respondent (Clark and Watson, 1995)

one of the items needed to be excluded. Taking a great look at the item descriptive statistics and

factor loadings for both items suggested that the item EWL6 was a stronger item to keep, as it had

a higher loading to its corresponding factor (i.e., .83) compared to the item EWL7 (i.e., .77). This

deletion provided an adequate fit to the model (χ² = 489.915, df =164, p < .001, CFI = .92; RMSEA

= .07, (C.I.: .063 - .078, p <.001), SRMR = .06). Four correlated residuals were included in the

model, as these were between items belonging to the same dimensions (see Table 5).

Table 5: Goodness of fit statistics CFA for E-Work Life scale

Measures χ² Df CFI RMSEA SRMR

22-item version 740.657 203 .88 .08 (.075-.088) p <.001 .07

21-item - Deleting 661.632 183 .89 .08 (.074 - .088) p <.001 .06
EWL1
20-item - Deleting 489.915 164 .92 .07 (.063- .078), p <.001 .06
EWL1 and EWL7

20-item - Deleting 373.659 160 .95 .06 (.050 -.066), p =.05 .05
EWL1 and EWL7 and
Including 4correlations
Notes. Correlated residuals were included in the model: EWL4 with EWL6; EWL9 with
EWL10; EWL18 with EWL19; EWL21 with EWL22 (see Appendix A for specific items).

15
 Thus, the final 20-item scale led to a good (and improved) fit of the data: χ² = 399.327, df

= 161; p < .001), CFI = .94; RMSEA = .06 (C.I.: .053 -.068, p =.05, SRMR = .06). This model

reproduces with a good approximation the covariances among the items of the EWL scale, with

Factor Determinacies being also very good (Organisational Trust = .92, Flexibility = .94, Work

Life Interference = .93, and Productivity = .94). Composite reliability scores were good

(Organisational Trust = .84, Flexibility = .85, Work Life Interference = .73, and Productivity =

.88); as well as AVE (Organisational Trust = .65, Flexibility = .60, Work Life Interference = .68,

and Productivity = .76). Calculating MSV suggested that discriminant validity values were

acceptable for Work Life Interference and Productivity but high for Organisational Trust and

Flexibility (>0.4; Organisational Trust = .44, Flexibility = .66, Work Life Interference = .18, and

Productivity = .19).

3.1. Summary

Based on the CFA analyses, two items were removed (i.e., EWL1: “My organisation

provides training in e-working skills and behaviours”; and EWL7: “My manager gives me total

control over when and how I get my work completed when e-working”) leading to a final 20 item

version of the scale. All four factors of organisational trust, flexibility, work life interference, and

productivity were confirmed (see Appendix A). In order to confirm the factorial structure and the

validity of the 20-item EWL scale, and additional study was conducted on an independent sample.

Study 2

This study aimed to provide the final evidence of the factorial structure of the 20-item

version of the EWL scale. In particular, a four-factor structure of the scale was assessed, including:

organisational trust, flexibility, work life interference, and productivity. In addition, as per the

16
aforementioned links made between the EWL dimensions and existing constructs (see section 1.2.)

the below hypotheses were checked to explore EWL scale’s construct validity:

Hypothesis 1: Organisational trust is expected to positively correlate with positive mental

health, and detachment from work; and negatively correlate with technostress.

Hypothesis 2: Flexibility is expected to positively correlate with positive mental health,

and detachment from work; and negatively correlate with technostress.

Hypothesis 3: Work life interference is expected to negatively correlate with positive

mental health, and detachment from work; and positively correlate with technostress.

Hypothesis 4: Productivity is expected to positively correlate with positive mental health

and detachment from work; and negatively correlate with technostress.

4.1. Method

4.2. Procedure

The same to the previous study’s procedure was followed, using an online cross-sectional

survey.

4.3. Participants

In total, 366 U.K. employees were recruited, using a snowballing method. Participants had

a mean age of 32.4 (SD = 10.73) and 178 (48.6%) of them were female. The three most often

reported occupations were information technology (19.9%), business, consulting, and

management (12.6%), and other (13.1%). Since the data collection occurred during the COVID-

19 pandemic, with individuals mainly working from home, almost half of the sample mentioned

that they had no experience with remote e-working before (48.9%). At the moment the data was

collected, individuals were in their majority working 5 days a week from home (50.8%) following

from four days a week (12.3%) and three days a week (10.7%). Before COVID-19 the majority

17
worked from home once a week (23.8%), following from two days a week (10.9%) and five days

a week (8.2%).

4.4. Materials/Measures

E-Work Life was measured using the 20-items remained in Study 1, assessing each of four

dimensions (organisational trust, flexibility, work-life interference and productivity). Items were

rated on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Positive mental health was measured using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-

being Scale (SWEMWBS) which is a 7-item shortened version of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental

Well-being Scale (WEMWBS; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). Items were rated on a scale from 1

(None of the time) to 5 (All of the time). The scale has also been used within an organisational

setting (e.g., Gilchrist, Brown, and Montarzino, 2015).

Detaching from work was measured using the detachment rumination subscale, developed

by Cropley, Michalianou, Pravettoni, and Millward (2012), which refers to respondent’s ability to

switch-off, and leave work behind. In this questionnaire respondents have to rate the way they

think about work, on a 5- point Likert-scale (from Very seldom or never to Very often or always).

Technostress was measured using a reduced version of Tarafdar et al.’s (2007) technostress

creators scale focusing on three dimension specifically: ‘techno-overload’, ‘techno-invasion’, and

‘techno-complexity’. ‘Techno-overload’ refers to cases where technology can increase

individuals’ workload, forcing them to work at a much faster pace. ‘Techno-invasion’ refers to the

situations where the technology use creates this expectation that individuals are connected to their

work even outside working hours, which then invades personal life. Lastly, ‘techno-complexity’

refers to the cases where individuals do not feel competent enough to use technology and handle

18
their jobs satisfactorily. Individuals were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

Strongly disagree to Strongly agree how much they agreed with the provided statements.

4.5. Data analyses plan

Similarly to Study 1, data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and Mplus

8.0. Again, descriptive statistics and a preliminary screening for normality of the data were

examined using SPSS. Also, CFA using Mplus 8.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2016) was performed,

providing Factor Scores Determinacies to evaluate the reliability of each EWL factor (Tabachnick

and Fidell, 2007). The same four-factor model assessed in Study 1, including four correlations was

tested using Mplus. The same set of goodness-of-fit indices was considered to evaluate the factorial

solutions. In addition, analyses pertaining to evidence of EWL’s construct validity were also

conducted using SPSS. Construct validity evidence was based on partial correlations between all

four EWL dimensions and scores on the measures of positive mental health, detachment from work

and technostress creators (i.e. technology overload, technology invasion, technology complexity).

The potential confounding effect of gender, experience with remote e-working before COVID-19,

frequency of remote e-working during COVID-19 and frequency of remote e-working before

COVID-19 was controlled.

5. Results

All the items were normally distributed (Mean skewness = .46, Mean kurtosis = .25).

Therefore, CFA was performed using maximum likelihood (ML) parameter estimates. The

descriptive statistics for the EWL scale items are presented in Appendix B, providing Means, SDs,

skewness and kurtosis scores for all 20 items of the EWL scale.

CFA was performed to replicate previous findings and to support the final structure of the

EWL scale. Thus, the final 20-item scale, including the four dimensions of Organisational Trust,

19
Flexibility, Work-Life Interference, and Productivity led to a good fit of the data: χ² = 327.113, df

= 159; p < .001), CFI = .94; RMSEA = .05 (C.I.: .053 -.068, p =.22, SRMR = .06). It is worth

noting that the four correlations included in Study 1 (see Table 5) were included again. This model

reproduces with a good approximation the covariances among the items of the EWL scale, with

Factor Determinacies being also very good (Organisational Trust = .90, Flexibility = .92, Work-

Life Interference = .92 and Productivity = .93). Composite reliability scores were also good

(Organisational Trust = .79, Flexibility = .80, Work Life Interference = .72, and Productivity =

.86); as well as AVE (Organisational Trust = .54, Flexibility = .51, Work Life Interference = .63,

and Productivity = .70). Calculating MSV suggested that discriminant validity values were

acceptable for all dimensions (>0.4; Organisational Trust = .23, Flexibility = .23, Work Life

Interference = .14, and Productivity = .20).

Partial correlations were examined to check scale’s construct validity (see Table 6).

Findings suggested that work-life interference negatively correlated with positive mental health

(r=-.48, p=.001) and detachment from work (r=-.62, p<.001). It was also positively correlated with

technology overload (r=.26, p<.001), technology invasion (r=.43, p<.001)., technology

complexity (r=.26, p<.001).

Organisational trust positively correlated with positive mental health (r=-.42, p=.001),

detachment from work (r=-.24, p<.001). It was also negatively correlated with technology

overload (r=-.15, p<.001), technology invasion (r=-.21, p<.001), technology complexity (r=-.22,

p<.001).

Flexibility positively correlated with positive mental health (r=.18, p=.001) and

detachment from work (r=.20, p<.001). Regarding technostress creators, flexibility was only

negatively correlated with technology complexity (r=-.16, p<.001).

20
 Productivity positively correlated with positive mental health (r=-.42, p=.001) and

detachment from work (p=-.23, p<.001). It was also negatively correlated with technology

overload (r=-.14, p<.001), technology invasion (r=-.18, p<.001), technology complexity (r=-.16,

p<.001).

Table 6: Partial correlations examining EWL’s construct validity

8 9
Control variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gender
Experience with remote e-working before COVID-19
Frequency of remote e-working during COVID-19
Frequency of remote e-working before COVID-19
Outcome variables
1.PMH 1
2.DET .36** 1
3.T_OVER -.24** -.16** 1
4.T_INV -.28** -.36** .66** 1
5.T_COMPL -.25** -.17** .46** .51** 1
6.TRUST .42** .24** -.15** -.21** -.22** 1
7.FLEX .18** .20** -.03 -.08 -.16** .48** 1
8.WLI -.48** -.62** .26** .43** .26** .34** .23** 1
9.PROD .42** .23** -.14** -.18** -.16** .31** .21** .45** 1
1.PMH=Positive Mental Health, 2.DET= Detachment from work, 3.T_OVER= Technology Overload, 4.T_INV=
Technology Invasion, 5.T_COMPL= Technology Complexity, 6.TRUST= Organisational Trust, 7.FLEX =
Flexibility, 8.WLI = Work-Life Interference, 9.PROD=Productivity

5.1. Summary

Thus, the CFA analyses supported the final 20 item version of the scale, confirming its four

factors of Organisational trust (5 items), Flexibility(4 items), Work-Life Interference (6 items),

and Productivity (5 items) were confirmed (see Appendix B). The significant correlations found

between the EWL scale’s dimensions and positive mental health, detachment from work, and

technostress supported scale’s construct validity; as well as Factor Determinacies scores supported

its reliability.

21
6. Discussion

6.1. Key findings

The present study updates and provides a revision and further validation of the E-Work

Life scale (EWL; Grant et al., 2019) which can be utilised to measure and monitor the quality of

an individuals’ remote e-working experience. The original version of the EWL scale (Grant et al.,

2019) was expanded, based upon the results of a qualitative study conducted by the authors

(Charalampous et al., 2021). For example, these qualitative findings expanded on breaches of trust

when e-working remotely, as a result of micro-managing employees who are not ‘visible’.

Findings also supported the importance of trusting that the employer will provide adequate career

professional development opportunities to individuals working outside the typical working

environment. In addition, when discussing flexibility provided by remote e-working, being able to

work from different locations was discussed, as well as individuals’ choice to breaking down their

hours in the day to suit their work and non-work commitments. Hence, these were considered to

be important elements to add to the existing version of the EWL scale.

Consequently, the current paper provides a revision and further validation and support for

a final 20-item version of the scale, this was based on two further quantitative studies detailed in

this paper. More precisely, we were led to the final 20-item version of the EWL scale, following

CFA was performed in Study 1 suggesting the exclusion of two of the additional/reworded items.

This version of the EWL scale which, similarly to Grant et al. (2019), showed a four-factor

structure and included the dimensions of: Organisational Trust (5 items), Flexibility (4 items),

Work-Life Interference (6 items), and Productivity (5 items). Then, CFA performed in a different

sample in Study 2, confirmed this final 20-item structure. Hence, it can be argued that the

amendments made to the scale, which were inspired and guided by more recent and relevant

22
interviews within remote e-workers (Charalampous et al., 2021), provide an improved version of

the scale which captures the remote e-working experience in a more accurate and holistic way.

Findings also supported significant relationships between each of the four EWL

dimensions and remote e-worker’s positive mental health, detachment from work and technostress

levels. These results not only confirm the scale’s construct and discriminant validity but also offer

valuable contributions to the existing literature of remote e-working. More precisely, the higher

levels of organisational trust, greater flexibility, and increased productivity remote e-workers

experienced, the more likely they were to experience greater levels of positive mental health,

detachment from work, and less technostress levels. This denotes that if remote e-working is

perceived as a positive working experience during which (a) the individuals feel trusted to work

even if they are “out of sight”, (b) they are given the flexibility to stretch their hours, location and

take time out for non-commitments as well as (c) they are productive while e-working remotely,

then the better is their self-reported mental health, detachment from work and technostress levels

and vice versa. These findings mirror previous suggestions which suggest that a link between a

positive experience of remote e-working and employees’ enhanced well-being (Grant et al., 2019;

Taser et al.. 2021). They also bring in the discussion how remote e-workers can avoid becoming

susceptible to experiencing technostress when their e-work life spheres flourish, which can in turn

alleviate the negatives consequences that come with it (Salanova, 2020).

In contrast, when individuals report that remote e-working interferes with their non-

working life, the worse their self-reported mental health and detachment from work. This is in line

with findings suggesting that individuals often find it challenging to keep clear boundaries

between work and non-work (Ramarajan and Reid, 2013), which can in turn have implications

on recovery processes and wellbeing (Schlachter et al., 2018). Moreover, work-life interference

23
was supported to be associated with greater levels of technostress, due to technology’s complexity,

invasion character, and overload. This is in line with literature suggesting a negative link between

technostress and work life balance/interference (Atanasoff, and Venable, 2017; Ma, Ollier-

Malaterre, and Lu, 2021).

6.2. Theoretical and Practical applications

The discussed findings have significant theoretical value, as they support the interplay

between all four characteristics of the remote e-working experience (as outlined by the EWL scale)

and workers’ positive mental health, detachment from work, and technostress. Therefore,

academics and practitioners have evidence for a multi-dimensional measure, such as the EWL

scale, which can be used to explore pivotal issues linked to the remote e-working experience.

Our findings also have practical significance as they contribute to and expand on

conversations discussing the effectiveness and best implementation of remote e-working practices,

in a world of work that is embracing a progressively hybrid and agile way of working. The use of

the EWL scale and the measurement of the remote e-working experience in its whole can benefit

employers, Human Resource (HR) professionals, managers, and individuals. From an

organisational perspective, it is pivotal that a culture of organisational trust is established and

promoted where individuals build rapport and create bonds with their superiors and colleagues.

This level of trust is necessary so remote e-workers feel more comfortable to stop working and

switch-off, without feeling guilty that people will question their engagement and loyalty levels

(see Tietze, 2002; Tietze and Musson, 2005). This will, in turn, benefit remote e-workers’ well-

being. Although trust has been an extensively discussed issue within the remote e-working

literature (Felstead et al., 2002; Owens and Khazanchi, 2018) it may be more challenging

nowadays considering the large amount of time individuals spend working apart, and the absence

24
of important physical interpersonal cues. In addition, building on individuals’ perceptions of

productivity when e-working remotely seems to also be fundamental, as it might consequently

impact on their well-being. To enable individuals work at their best, it is worth acknowledging

recent literature discussing optimal new knowledge, skills, and competencies that remote e-

workers need, as well as ways the beneficial role of increasing their self-efficacy levels

(Tramontano et al., 2021). Finally, organisations should prioritise enabling balance between the

work and personal spheres, reducing any negative interference. Occupational psychologists have

recently been discussing about the likelihood of a “hybrid hangover” whereby individuals feel

mentally exhausted from switching back and forth between remote e-working and being in the

office and the permeability of boundaries may need greater consideration than ever (Banning-

Lover, 2021).

6.3. Limitations and future research

This research comes with several limitations that are worth acknowledging. These

limitations can in some cases be counterbalanced by the strengths of the current research, and in

others may demand future research to fill these gaps. First, the cross-sectional character of the

quantitative studies obstructs the identification of causal relationships between the EWL scale and

existing validated measures. Future longitudinal studies can meet this need, as well as assessing

theoretical models can enable researchers to also recommend potential mechanisms underpinning

the relationship between remote e-working and organisational trust, flexibility, work-life

interference, and productivity at work. Longitudinal invariance would also prove test-retest

reliability for the EWL scale. Furthermore, although these studies supported the sound

psychometric properties of the EWL scale, the development and validation of a scale is considered

to be an ongoing process, going beyond the initial item development (Comrey, 1988; Nunnally,

25
1978). Given that the phenomenon of remote e-working has seen growth in different countries

around the world (Eurofound and the ILO, 2017), it is important to test the validity of the newly

devised EWL scale in diverse samples and across cultural groups (DeVellis, 2016). Cross-national

validation of scales is a common practice within the organisational psychology field (for an

example see the Italian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale by Balducci, Fraccaroli,

and Schaufeli, 2010), and it could be a warranted next step to EWL’s further development.

6.4. Conclusions

Especially after COVID-19, remote e-working has gained an even greater amount of interest

from both researchers and practitioners who are continuously discussing the best ways of

implementing remote e-working effectively. The results of this study support a 20-item version of

the EWL which seems to be a timely addition when measuring the remote e-working experience

in its whole. Also, the discussion around remote e-working continues and further develops as

technological advances such as the creation of virtual metaverses will lead to a remote working

experience which is 3D and more interactive/experiential. This even increases the likelihood that

remote e-working might be here to stay as a working style. It therefore, becomes very important

to ensure that the outlined areas by the EWL scale (i.e., organisational trust, flexibility, work-life

interference, and productivity) are given the required attention. This will, in turn, ensure that

remote e-workers not only are satisfied and effective but they also enjoy experience an

improvement to their well-being at work. Last but not least, the EWL scale demonstrates solid

theoretical foundations and provides a clear agenda, based on which organisations can initiate

meaningful conversations in order to improve best remote e-working practices and inform

organisational policy.

26
Appendix A: E-Work-Life scale: Items descriptive statistics, factor loadings and factor correlations for the
initial and final 4-factor solutions

Items Initial 4-factor Final 4-factor solution

Descriptive Statistics solution**
Mean SD Sk. Kur. F1 F2 F3 F4 F1 F2 F3 F4
EWL1 1. My organisation provides training 3.04 1.24 .09 -1.11 .30 Removed
in e-working skills and behaviours
EWL2 2. My organisation trusts me to be 1.85 .97 1.62 2.83 .77 .80
effective in my role when I e-work
remotely
EWL3 3. I trust my organisation to provide 2.30 1.07 .71 -.05 .65 .70
good e-working facilities to allow me
to e-work effectively
EWL4 4. My manager does not micro- 1.90 1.04 1.26 1.18 .75 .66
manage me when e-working remotely
EWL5 5. I trust my manager to provide me 2.47 1.07 .54 -.22 .66 .68
with career professional
developmental opportunities when e-
working remotely
EWL6 6. When I’m not visible e-working 1.88 .99 1.31 1.53 .83 .75
remotely, my manager trusts me to
work effectively
EWL7 7. My manager gives me total control 2.13 1.13 .98 .30 .77 Removed
over when and how I get my work
completed when e-working
EWL8 8. My work is so flexible I could 2.57 1.23 .36 -.88 .74 .77
easily take time off e-working
remotely, if and when I want to
EWL9 9. My manager allows me to flex my 2.26 1.18 .82 -.16 86 .84
hours to meet my needs, providing all
the work is completed
27
EWL10 10. There are no constraints on the 2.44 1.26 .54 -.84 73 .74
location where I work providing I
complete my role effectively
EWL11 11. I work flexible hours across the 2.67 1.24 .26 -1.03 .71 .75
day breaking down my hours to suit
my work and non-work commitments
EWL12 12. My e-working does not take up 2.52 1.07 .41 -.64 .70 .70
time that I would like to spend with
my family/friends or on other non-
work activities
EWL13 13. When e-working remotely I do not 2.88 1.14 .03 -1.07 .68 .68
often think about work-related
problems outside of my normal
working hours
EWL14 14. I am happy with my work life 2.27 1.05 .71 -.07 .82 .83
balance when e-working remotely
EWL15 15. Constant access to work through e- 2.80 1.09 .07 -.87 .67 .67
working is not very tiring
EWL16 16. When e-working from home I do 2.47 1.09 .50 -.58 .61 .61
know when to switch off so that I can
recuperate effectively
EWL17 17. My relationships suffer when I am 3.74 1.07 -.67 -.31 -.49 -.49
e-working remotely*
EWL18 18. When e-working I can concentrate 2.18 .96 .66 .07 .75 .72
better on my work tasks
EWL19 19. E-working makes me more 2.15 .94 .64 .02 .87 .86
effective to deliver against my key
objectives and deliverables
EWL20 20. If I am interrupted when working 1.97 .82 .82 .79 .60 .60
from home I still meet my manager’s
quality expectations

28
 EWL21 21. My overall job productivity has 2.08 .95 .75 .216 .83 .81
increased by my ability to e-work
remotely/from home
EWOR 22. I can cope with work demands 2.09 .96 .69 -.021 .89 .88
K22 more effectively when I e-work
remotely
Factor correlations
F1 1.00

F2 .66** 1.00

F3 -.43** -.34** 1.00

F4 .34** .33** -.44** 1.00

Note: Sk.=skewness; Kur.=kurtosis

*items that are reverse scored.
**Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.
***The Factors are named:
F1 = Organisational Trust, 5 items
F2 = Flexibility, 4 items
F3 = Work-Life Interference, 6 items
F4 = Productivity, 5 items

29
Appendix B: E-Work-Life scale: Items descriptive statistics, factor loadings and factor correlations for the
final revised measure.

Items Final 4-factor solution

Descriptive Statistics
Mean SD Sk. Kur. F1 F2 F3 F4
EWL1 My organisation trusts me to be .81 .72 .79 .82 .79
effective in my role when I e-work
remotely
EWL2 I trust my organisation to provide 1.16 .97 .82 .30 .50
good e-working facilities to allow
me to e-work effectively
EWL3 My manager does not micro- 1.09 1.00 .66 -.20 .62
manage me when e-working
remotely
EWL4 I trust my manager to provide me 1.51 1.09 .46 -.39 .58
with career professional
developmental opportunities when
e-working remotely
EWL5 When I’m not visible e-working 1.02 .91 .91 .82 .75
remotely, my manager trusts me to
work effectively
EWL6 My work is so flexible I could 1.46 1.14 .43 -.59 .65
easily take time off e-working
remotely, if and when I want to
EWL7 My manager allows me to flex my 1.21 1.11 .83 .01 .82
hours to meet my needs, providing
all the work is completed
EWL8 There are no constraints on the 1.09 1.04 .93 .36 .64
location where I work providing I
complete my role effectively

30
EWL9 I work flexible hours across the day 1.55 1.23 .44 -.83 .73
breaking down my hours to suit my
work and non-work commitments
EWL10 My e-working does not take up time 1.57 1.05 .33 -.76 .64
that I would like to spend with my
family/friends or on other non-work
activities
EWL11 When e-working remotely I do not 1.87 1.09 -.01 -.93 .65
often think about work-related
problems outside of my normal
working hours
EWL12 I am happy with my work life 1.41 1.06 .55 -.41 .82
balance when e-working remotely
EWL13 Constant access to work through e- 1.89 1.06 .00 -.83 .66
working is not very tiring
EWL14 When e-working from home I do 1.62 1.07 .27 -.57 .62
know when to switch off so that I
can recuperate effectively
EWL15 My relationships suffer when I am 2.56 1.14 -.40 -.80 -.42
e-working remotely*
EWL16 When e-working I can concentrate 1.63 1.06 .33 -.46 .75
better on my work tasks
EWL17 E-working makes me more effective 1.60 1.03 .35 -.28 .84
to deliver against my key objectives
and deliverables
EWL18 If I am interrupted when working 1.19 .89 .76 .64 .48
from home I still meet my
manager’s quality expectations
EWL19 My overall job productivity has 1.54 1.04 .24 -.53 .75
increased by my ability to e-work
remotely/from home
EWL20 I can cope with work demands more 1.45 1.03 .45 -.31 .81
effectively when I e-work remotely

31
 Factor correlations
F1 1.00
F2 .48** 1.00
F3 -.34** -.37** 1.00
F4 .32** .23** -.45** 1.00

Note: Sk.=skewness; Kur.=kurtosis

*items that are reverse scored.
**Correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.
***The Factors are named:
F1 = Organisational Trust, 5 items
F2 = Flexibility, 4 items
F3 = Work-Life Interference, 6 items
F4 = Productivity, 5 items

32
References

Akanji, B., Mordi, C., Simpson, R., Adisa, T. A., and Oruh, E. S. (2020), “Time biases: exploring

the work–life balance of single Nigerian managers and professionals”, Journal of

Managerial Psychology Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 57-70, doi: 10.1108/JMP-12-2018-0537.

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., and Shockley, K. M. (2015), “How effective is telecommuting?

Assessing the status of our scientific findings.” Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 40-68, doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273.

Atanasoff, L., and Venable, M. A. (2017), “Technostress: Implications for adults in the

workforce”, The career development quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 326-338,

doi:10.1002/cdq.12111.

Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2010), “Psychometric properties of the Italian

version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9)”, European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 143-149, doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000020.

Banning-Lover, R. (2021, November 4), “The office metaverse could fuel ‘always on’ working

culture. Financial Times”, retrieved from: https://www.ft.com/content/9dac90d6-f3b5-

483d-b7c4-10378d5b8be7?fbclid=IwAR3L-

LDZUFab7ncPVl68qNbr3QvzdxHZ7NZ_PzaTvLzMkQYV5Xv9uv3CrLg

Bentler, P. M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.

107 No. 2, pp. 238-246, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

Boell, S. K., Cecez‐Kecmanovic, D., and Campbell, J. (2016), “Telework paradoxes and practices:

the importance of the nature of work”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 31

No. 2, pp. 114-131, doi:10.1111/ntwe.12063.

33
Caillier, J. G. (2012), “The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a U.S. federal government

agency”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 42, pp. 461-480, doi:

10.1177/0275074011409394.

Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., and Michailidis, E. (2019), “Systematically

reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: a multidimensional approach”, European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 51-73, doi:

10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886.

Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., & Tramontano, C. (2021). “It needs to be the right blend”: a

qualitative exploration of remote e-workers’ experience and well-being at work. Employee

Relations, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 335-355. doi: 10.1108/ER-02-2021-0058.

Chesley, N. (2010), “Technology use and employee assessments of work effectiveness, workload,

and pace of life”, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 485-514,

doi: 10.1080/13691180903473806.

Clark, L. A., and Watson, D. (1995), “Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-319, doi: 10.1037/1040-

3590.7.3.309

Comrey, A. L. (1988), “Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical

psychology”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 754-761,

doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978), “Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed”. McGraw-Hill.

Cropley, M., Michalianou, G., Pravettoni, G., and Millward, L. J. (2012), “The relation of post‐

work ruminative thinking with eating behaviour”, Stress and Health, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-

30. doi: 10.1002/smi.1397

34
Derks, D., Duin, D., Tims, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2015), “Smartphone use and work–home

interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement”,

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 155-177, doi:

10.1111/joop.12083.

DeVellis, R. F. (2016), “Scale development: Theory and applications”, Vol. 26, Sage publications.

Eurofound and the ILO (2017), “Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work”,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour

Office, Geneva. Retrieved from Eurofound Publications website:

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/

Eurofound (2020), “Living, working and COVID-19 First findings – April 2020”, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N., Phizacklea, A., and Walters, S. (2002), “Opportunities to work at home

in the context of work‐life balance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12 No.

1, pp. 54-76, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00057.x.

Fonner, K. L., and Roloff, M. E. (2010), “Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than

are office-based workers: When less contact is beneficial”, Journal of Applied

Communication Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 336-361, doi:

10.1080/00909882.2010.513998

Gajendran, R. S., and Harrison, D. A. (2007), “The good, the bad, and the unknown about

telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences”,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1524-1541, doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.92.6.1524.

35
Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., and Delaney Klinger, K. (2014), “Are telecommuters remotely

good citizens? Unpacking telecommuting's effects on performance via i-deals and job

resources”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 353-393, doi: 10.1111/peps.12082

Garson, D. G. (2008), “Factor Analysis: Statnotes. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from North Carolina

State University Public Administration Program”, retrieved from:

http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm.

Delfino, G. F., and van der Kolk, B. (2021), “Remote working, management control changes and

employee responses during the COVID-19 crisis”, Accounting, Auditing and

Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1376-1387. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-06-2020-4657.

Felstead, A., and Henseke, G. (2017), “Assessing the growth of remote working and its

consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance”, New Technology, Work and

Employment, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp 195-212, doi:10.1111/ntwe.12097

Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., and Barger, P. (2010), “Happy, healthy, and productive:

the role of detachment from work during nonwork time”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 977-983, doi:10.1037/a0019462

Gilchrist, K., Brown, C., and Montarzino, A. (2015), “Workplace settings and wellbeing:

Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business

sites”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 138, pp. 32-40, doi:

10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.004.

Grant, C., and Russell, E. (Eds.). (2020), “Agile working and well-being in the digital age”.

Springer International Publishing.

Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., and Spurgeon, P. C. (2013), “An exploration of the psychological

factors affecting remote e-worker's job effectiveness, well-being and work-life

36
 balance”. Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 527-546, doi: 10.1108/ER-08-2012-

0059.

Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., Spurgeon, P. C., Tramontano, C., and Charalampous, M. (2019),

“Construction and initial validation of the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-

working”, Employee Relations, Vol. 41 No.1, pp. 16-33, doi: 10.1108/ER-09-2017-0229.

Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Lyness, K. P., and Ziemba, S. J. (2006), “Practices of dual

earner couples successfully balancing work and family” Journal of Family and Economic

Issues, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 207-234,doi: 10.1007/s10834-006-9014-y.

Hair J., Black W., Babin B., and Anderson R. (2010), “Multivariate Data Analysis”, 7th Edition

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., and Nilan, K. J. (1985), “Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job

Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70

No. 3, pp. 461-468, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.461.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-121, doi:

10.1177/109442819800100106.

Hjálmsdóttir, A., and Bjarnadóttir, V. S. (2021), “ ‘I have turned into a foreman here at home’:

Families and work–life balance in times of COVID‐19 in a gender equality paradise”,

Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 268-283, doi: 10.1111/gwao.12552.

Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

ILO. (2020), “Teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A Practical Guide”.

37
Jebb, A. T., Ng, V., and Tay, L. (2021), “A review of key Likert scale development advances:

1995–2019”, Frontiers in psychology, 12, 637547, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547

Jeffrey Hill, E., Märtinson, V., and Ferris, M. (2004), “New‐concept part‐time employment as a

work‐family adaptive strategy for women professionals with small children”, Family

Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 282-292, doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.0004.x.

Kelliher, C., and Anderson, D. (2010), “Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the

intensification of work”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 83-106, doi:

10.1177/0018726709349199.

Kelliher, C., and de Menezes, L. M. (2019), “Flexible Working in Organisations: A Research

Overview”. Routledge, doi: 10.4324/9781351128346

Kenny, D. A. (2015), “Measuring model fit”, retrieved from:

http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm.

Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger,

P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand,

M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., . . . Vugt, M. v. (2021),

“COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and

action”, American Psychologist, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 63-77, doi: 10.1037/amp0000716.

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., and Eaton, S. C. (2006), “Telecommuting, control, and boundary

management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family

effectiveness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.68 No. 2, pp. 347-367, doi:

10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002.

38
Ma, J., Ollier-Malaterre, A., and Lu, C. Q. (2021), “The impact of techno-stressors on work–life

balance: The moderation of job self-efficacy and the mediation of emotional exhaustion”

Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 121 No. 106811, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106811

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., and Sugawara, H. M. (1996), “Power analysis and

determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling”, Psychological methods,

Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 130-149.

Messenger, J. C., and Gschwind, L. (2016), “Three generations of Telework: New ICT s and the

(R) evolution from Home Office to Virtual Office”, New Technology, Work and

Employment, Vol.31 No. 3, pp. 195-208, doi: 10.1111/ntwe.12073.

Milasi, S., González-Vázquez, I., and Fernández-Macías, E. (2020), “Telework in the EU before

and after the COVID-19: where we were, where we head to”. JRC Science for Policy Brief.

Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M. L., Russo, V., ... and Cortese, C.

G. (2020), “Wellbeing costs of technology use during Covid-19 remote working: An

investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators

scale.” Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 15, pp. 5911, doi:10.3390/su12155911.

Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. (2016), “Mplus. The comprehensive modelling program for applied

researchers: user’s guide, 5”.

Nilles, J. (1975), “Telecommunications and organizational decentralization.” IEEE Transactions

on Communications, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1142-1147.

Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., and Weale, V. (2020), “A rapid review of

mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health?” BMC

Public Health, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-13, doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z.

39
Owens, D., and Khazanchi, D. (2018), “Exploring the impact of technology capabilities on trust

in virtual teams”, American Journal of Business, doi: 10.1108/AJB-04-2017-0008.

Pyöriä, P. (2011), “Managing telework: risks, fears and rules”, Management Research Review.

Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 386-399, doi: 10.1108/01409171111117843.

Ramarajan, L., and Reid, E. (2013), “Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating nonwork

identities at work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 621-644, doi:

10.5465/amr.2011.0314.

Richman, A. L., Civian, J. T., Shannon, L. L., Jeffrey Hill, E., and Brennan, R. T. (2008), “The

relationship of perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal

flexible arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected

retention”, Community, work and family, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 183-197, doi:

10.1080/13668800802050350.

Salanova, M. (2020), “How to survive COVID-19? Notes from organisational resilience”,

International Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No.3, pp. 670–676, doi:

10.1080/02134748.2020.1795397.

Schlachter, S., McDowall, A., Cropley, M., and Inceoglu, I. (2017), “Voluntary work‐related

technology use during non‐work time: A narrative synthesis of empirical research and

research agenda” International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 0, pp. 1-22, doi:

10.1111/ijmr.12165.

Steiger, J. H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation

approach”. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-180, doi:

10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

40
Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., and Weich, S. (2009),

“Internal construct validity of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale

(WEMWBS): a Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish health education population

survey”, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 15-23, doi: 10.1186/1477-

7525-7-15.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007), “Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.)”, Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2013), “Using multivariate statistics: International

edition”. Pearson2012.

Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., and Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007), “The impact of

technostress on role stress and productivity” Journal of Management Information Systems,

Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 301-328, doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109.

Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., and Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2010), “Impact of technostress on end-user

satisfaction and performance”, Journal of management information systems, Vol. 27 No.

3, pp. 303-334, doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270311

Taser, D., Aydin, E., Torgaloz, A. O., and Rofcanin, Y. (2022), “An examination of remote e-

working and flow experience: The role of technostress and loneliness”, Computers in

Human Behavior, Vol. 12 No.107020, doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107020

Ter Hoeven, C. L., and Van Zoonen, W. (2015). Flexible work designs and employee well‐

being: Examining the effects of resources and demands. New Technology, Work and

Employment, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 237-255, doi:10.1111/ntwe.12052

41
Tietze, S. (2002), “When" work" comes" home": Coping strategies of teleworkers and their

families”, Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 385-396, retrieved from:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25074935.

Tietze, S., and Musson, G. (2005), “Recasting the home-work relationship: A case of mutual

adjustment?” Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1331-1352.

doi:10.1177/0170840605054619.

Tramontano, C., Grant, C., and Clarke, C. (2021), “Development and validation of the e-Work

Self-Efficacy Scale to assess digital competencies in remote working”, Computers in

Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 4 No.100129, doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100129.

Vandenberg, R. J., and Lance, C. E. (2000), “A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational

research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol.3 No.1, pp. 4-70, doi:

10.1177/109442810031002.

42