USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Development and initial validation of the work-family facilitation scale

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Development and initial validation of the work-family facilitation scale
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Holbrook, Sheila K
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Work-family facilitation
Job satisfaction
Family satisfaction
Life satisfaction
Work overload
Work autonomy
Psychological distress
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The benefits of occupying multiple roles have typically been overlooked. One reason for this oversight is the lack of a well-established scale measuring work-family facilitation. This study developed and validated short, self-report scales of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Based on conceptualizations of work and family facilitation presented in current research content domains and definitions of the constructs are presented. Work-to-family facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the job, work skills, and emotional gratification from work makes participation in the family easier. Family-to-work facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the family, family skills, and emotional gratification from family makes participation in work easier. Advocated procedures were used to develop the scales and test dimensionality and internal consistency.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sheila K. Holbrook.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 139 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001670365
oclc - 62300873
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001233
usfldc handle - e14.1233
System ID:
SFS0025554:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Development and Initial Validation of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale by Sheila K. Holbrook A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosphy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Carnot E. Nelson, Ph.D. Paul Spector, Ph.D. Tammy Allen, Ph.D. Judith Bryant, Ph.D. Cynthia Cimino, Ph.D. Date of Approval: June 1, 2005 Keywords: Work-Family Facilitation, Job Satisfaction, Family Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction, Work Overload, Work Autonomy, Psychological Distress Copyright 2005, Sheila K. Holbrook

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Carnot Nelson for his guidance and advice as the major professor on this projec t. I also am grateful for the valuable comments made by very supportive committ ee members, Drs. Tammy Allen, Paul Spector, Judith Bryant, and Cynthia Cimi no, my other committee members, who were helpful and understanding th roughout the process. I am also grateful for the assistance provided by the work-family scholars who assisted in the evaluating items generated for the work-family facilitation scale: Gwenith Fisher McAuley, University of Michigan, Joseph Grzywacz, Wake Forest University, Patricia Voydanoff, University of Daytona, and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Drexel University.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv Abstract v Introduction 1 Literature Review 4 Background 4 Conceptual Framework 5 What We Know About Wo rk-Family Facilitation 9 Relationship Between Work-Family Conflict and Work-Family Facilitation 10 Predictors of Wo rk-Family Facilitation 11 Personal Characteristics 11 Family Characteristics 13 Work Characteristics 16 Outcomes of Work-Family Facilitation 18 Family Related Outcomes 20 Work Related Outcomes 22 Psychological and Physical Well-Being 25 Current Study 29 Components of Work-Family Facilitation Defined 29 Relations With Other Variables 29 Work Constructs 30 Nonwork Constructs 30 Method 33 Item Generation and Judging 33 Procedure 33 Phase 1, Review of Literature and Existing Work-Family Facilitation Scales 33 Phase 2, Focus Groups 34 Focus group participants 35 Focus group recruitment procedure 35 Focus group sessions 37 Phase 3, Rating by Expert Judges 38 Dimensionality and Internal Consiste ncy and Construct Validity Assessment 39 Participants 39

PAGE 4

ii Procedure 40 Instruments 41 Work-Family and Family-Work Conflict 41 Work Role Overload 42 Autonomy 42 Work Hours 43 Home Chores 43 Parental Demands 43 Job Satisfaction 43 Family Satisfaction 44 Life Satisfaction 44 Psychological Distress 45 Demographic Variables 45 Results 47 Item Generation and Judging 47 Phase 1, Literature Review 47 Phase 2, Focus Groups 47 Phase 3, Rating by Expert Judges 48 Dimensionality and In ternal Consistency 52 Item Analysis 53 Factor Analysis 54 Construct Validity Assessment 72 Descriptive Information 72 Correlations 74 Work Constructs 74 Nonwork Constructs 74 Correlational Tests 76 Discussion 78 Summary 78 Dimensionality and In ternal Consistency 78 Construct Validity Assessment 80 Limitations and Future Research 85 List of References 90 Appendices Appendix A Focus group recruitment materials 99 Appendix B Focus group acknowledg ement letter, acknowledgement e-mail, and informed consent 101 Appendix C Focus group discussion guide 106 Appendix D Subject matter expert instructions and rating scale 108 Appendix E Letter to selected re spondents and informed consent 109 Appendix F Follow-up letter and e-mail to participants 112

PAGE 5

iii Appendix G Work-family conflict an d family-work conflict scales 113 Appendix H Work role overload scale 114 Appendix I Work autonomy scale 115 Appendix J Job satisfaction scale 116 Appendix K Family satisfaction scale 117 Appendix L Life satisfaction scale 119 Appendix M Psychological distress scale 120 Appendix N Demographic information 121 Appendix O Item generation 123 Appendix P Items included in questionnaire 128 About the Author End Page

PAGE 6

iv List of Tables Table 1 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 13-item work-to-family facilitati on subscale, one factor solution 57 Table 2 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 13-item work-to-family facilitati on subscale, two f actor solution 58 Table 3 Factor analysis pattern and structure coefficients for the initial 13-item work-to-family facilitation subscale, three fa ctor solution 59 Table 4 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 13-item family-to-work facilitati on subscale, one factor solution 60 Table 5 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 13-item family-to-work facilitati on subscale, two f actor solution 61 Table 6 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 13-item family-to-work facilitation subscale, three fa ctor solution 62 Table 7 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 26-item work-family facilitation scale, two factor solution 63 Table 8 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 26-item work-family facilitation sc ale, three factor solution 65 Table 9 Factor analysis pattern and st ructure coefficients for the initial 26-item work-family facilitation sc ale, four factor solution 67 Table 10 The work-family facilitation scale 71 Table 11 Demographic variables mea n, standard deviation, range and correlation with work-family facilitation 72 Table 12 Mean, standard deviation, range, and internal consistency 73 Table 13 Correlations betw een study variables 75

PAGE 7

v Development and Initial Validation of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale Sheila K. Holbrook ABSTRACT The benefits of occupying multiple role s have typically been overlooked. One reason for this oversight is the lack of a well-establishe d scale measuring work-family facilitation. This study developed and validated short, self-report scales of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Based on conceptualizations of work and family facilitation presented in current rese arch content domains a nd definitions of the constructs are presented. Work-to-family facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the job, work skills, and em otional gratification from work makes participation in the family easier. Family-to-work facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the family, family skills, and emotional gratification from family makes participation in work easier. Advocated procedures were used to develop the scal es and test dimensionality and internal consistency. Satisfactory internal consistenc y was found. Estimates of construct validity were presented by relating the scales to 11 onand off-job constructs. Possible instrument limitations and future research needs on the st udy of work-family f acilitation, particularly the identification of antecedents of facil itation, are reviewed.

PAGE 8

INTRODUCTION A widely studied topic in organizational behavior has been the conflict between work and family. Over the past 25 years st udies have advanced our understanding of how work conflicts with family and visa vers a (Adams, King, & King, 1996; Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a, 1992b; Hammer, Allen & Grigsby, 1997; Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1999; Nelson, Quick, Hitt, & Moesel, 1990. More recently there has been an interest in the study of a much broader concep tualization of the work and family interface, particularly the study of work-family balance. Frone (2003) suggests that there are two components to work-fam ily balance: work-family conflict (also referred to as negative work-family spillover, interrole conflict, work-nonwork conflict, and work-family interference) and work-family facilitation (also referred to as positive work-family spillover and work-family e nhancement). As noted by Frone (2003), numerous studies have examined the prevalen ce, predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict. In addition, several studies have pr ovide support for a concep tual distinction to be made between work conflicting with family and family conflicting with work (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a, 1992b; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). There has been very little research on the second com ponent of work-family balance, work-family facilitation. As such, little is known about the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of work-family facilitation. As w ith work-family conflict, Fr one (2003) proposes that a

PAGE 9

conceptual distinction can be made between work facilitating family and family facilitating work. Although recent research has identified pos itive consequences of work-family facilitation, the potential benefits of partic ipation in the family domain and the work domain need to be examined and unde rstood more thoroughly. As noted by Gutek, Nakamura, and Nieva (1981), because the majori ty of men and women often must fulfill family and work roles, research on the inte rdependence of these tw o important life roles is critical to the understandi ng of the attitudes and behavi ors of both sexes. The major limitations noted in the work-family facilitation literature are a lack of understanding of how work positively affects family life and visa versa and the lack of a well-established, psychometrically sound scale measuring work-family facilitation (Frone, 2003; Voydanoff, 2004a; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003). Prior research has noted that there are very few established measures of workfamily facilitation (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003; Voydanoff, 2004a; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003). Voydanoff (2004a) poi nts out that measures of work-family facilitation that have been used in the re search have limited reliability. There are two national studies (National Study of the Cha nging Workforce and National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States) that were revised in the 1990s to include items on work-family facilitation that have reported acceptable levels of reliability. However, the National Study of the Changing Workfor ce items measure only energy and mood and do not adequately measure work-family facilitation because it does not include items on aspects of facilitation such as work (family) behaviors, attitudes, and skills (Voydanoff, 2004a). A major limitation of the National Survey of Midlife Developm ent in the United

PAGE 10

States is the lack of items that consid er positive psychological spillover (Voydanoff, 2004a). In most of the other research repor ted on work-family fac ilitation, the measure of facilitation was developed specifically for the study and for which litt le or no validity and reliability data are presented (Fisher-McAu ley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003) or they are adapted from existing work-family conflict scales (Sumer & Knight, 2001). In addition, there is a lack of consistency with which the work-family facilitation construct has been operationalized. For exampl e, several studies have looked at workfamily balance as a composite of facili tation and conflict (Fis her-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003), while others have looked at the nonwork roles that an individual participates in, such as parent, spouse, caretaker (Hammer & N eal, 2003; Kirschmeyer, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Stephens & Franks, 1995; Stephens, Franks, & Atuenza, 1997), making it difficult to make comparisons betw een studies and examine the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of work-family f acilitation. These problems generate concerns about the reliability and validity of measures of work-family fac ilitation. It has been suggested that the measures that are used w ould benefit from additional validation efforts (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003) and that other measures of work-family facilitation should be investigated (Hammer & Neal, 2003). Grzywacz and Butler (2003) note that, if progress is to be made in the examination of the relationship between work-family facilitation and other variables, there is a profound need for additional theo retical and empirical development around the work-family facilitation construct and bette r measurement of the construct. Wayne, Randel, and Stevens (2003) also call for res earchers to focus on th eoretical development of the work-family construct upon which scal e building efforts can then be based. The

PAGE 11

purpose of this research is to develop and validate self-report meas ures of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation: the Work-Family Facilitation Scale. Literature Review This section is divided in to three parts. The first pa rt provides the background on the growing interest in the work-family interface. The second part discusses the theoretical framework upon which the Work -Family Facilitation Scale was developed. The third part examines the relationship between work-family facilitation and other variables that have been reported in the work-family literature. Background Since the groundbreaking report on dual career families by Rapoport and Rapoport was published in 1969, a large number of studies have been conducted by behavioral scientists and business/manage ment researchers seeking to gain an understanding of the dynamics of the linkage between work and family. While the initial focus of the early research was on work -family conflict (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Bedeian, Burke, & Moffett, 1988; Kopelman, Greenhaus & Connelly, 1983; MacEwen & Barling, 1988), in recent years the focus has broadened to include positive aspects (positive spillover or work-f amily facilitation) of the linkage between work and nonwork (Clark, 2001; Fisher-M cAuley, Stanton, Jolton, & Gavin, 2003; Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b; Sumer & Knight, 2001; Tiedie, Wortman, Downey, Emmons, Biernatt, & Lang, 1990; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b, 2003). Women and men are both faced with trying to balance the competing demands of their family and work roles. Research that has focused on the changing roles of men and

PAGE 12

women has shown that the increased entry of women into the paid labor force has resulted in the expansion of their roles. Women now must meet the demands of their responsibilities in the home and in th e workplace (Schultz, Chung, & Henderson, 1989). At the same time, research suggests that working men whose spouses are employed are more involved in family activities and cont ributing more to child care and household responsibilities than men w hose spouses are not employe d (Alpert & Culbertson, 1987; Emmons, Biernat, Tiedje, Lang, & Wortman, 1990; Hammer, Allen & Grigsby, 1997). As reported by Barnett and Shen (1997) men in dual earner couples do roughly 45% of the housework, as assessed by their own and their wives reports. Research suggests that personal and family lives are becoming more important to individuals than their job life. There is growing evidence that, for both men and women, the role of partner and parent are ranked similarly in prominence and higher than the role of employee. For example, a recent publication by the Families and Work Institute (2002), based on data from the National Study of the Changing Workforce, reported that participants in this national study between the age of 18 and 37 placed a higher priority on family than work. In addition, research suggests that for both married men and women, a higher percentage would like to re duce their work hours to spend more time with their families (Bond, Galinsky, & Sw anberg, 1998; Schultz, Chung, & Henderson, 1989). In order to compete successfully in the job market, organizations may need to develop personnel strategies and policies that facilit ate participation in the work place. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework guiding resear ch on work-family conflict is based on what has been labeled the scarcity approach of multiple roles, also described as the

PAGE 13

competing demands hypothesis and role conf lict hypothesis (Marks, 1977). According to the scarcity thesis, individuals have a fi xed amount of psychological and physiological resources to expend in their role obligations (Coser & Coser, 1974). It rests on the assumption that quantity of human energy is fi xed and limited, and that the more roles an individual occupies the gr eater will be the demand on his/her energy and the more depleted his/her reserve (Barnett, 1999). Coser and Coser (1974) suggest that the competition for loyalty and commitment is a c ontinuing dilemma because of a scarcity of time and energy. The various groups that form a nd individuals total ro le set have a claim on the individuals energies and time. As su ch, they compete with one another in an effort to get as much of the individuals energy and time as they can, within normative limits. Given the scarcity of time and ener gy, individuals occupying multiple roles will inevitably experience role conflict. The indi viduals major dilemma is determining how to manage their total role set and keep ro le strain within acceptable limits (Goode, 1960, cited in Marks, 1977). The scar city approach of multiple roles has been linked with theories of multiple roles, including theo retical models of work-family conflict. Theoretical models of work-f amily conflict propose the stra ins of competing work and family domains intensifies conflict between work and family roles. The role scarcity hypothesis has been challenged by the role accumulation hypothesis of Sieber (1974) a nd the role expansion hypothesis, also referred to as the role enhancement hypothesis, of Marks (1977 ). Sieber (1974) and Marks (1977) argue that the benefits of occupying multiple ro les outweigh the costs. Researchers who advocate these perspectives have proposed that multiple roles provide multiple sources of social support, skills that tran sfer from one role to anothe r, and an increased sense of

PAGE 14

meaning, personal worth, and purpose (Thoits, 1983, 1999; Tiedie, Wortman, Downey, Emmons, Biernat, & Lang, 1990). Sieber (1974) argues that role accumula tion may have positive outcomes, which he classifies into four types: role privileges overall status securit y, resources for status enhancement and role performance, and enrichment of the personality and ego gratification. Contrary to scarcity theory, wh ich asserts that an individuals efforts are directed toward reducing the strain resulting from participation in multiple roles, Sieber suggests that an individuals efforts are directed toward acquiring and enjoying the net benefits of role accumulation. He believes that role accumulation tends to be more gratifying than stressful and that extending roles successfu lly contributes to the stability of the role system of an individual in the long run at the modest expense of intermittent short-run instability. While not denying the o ccurrence of role overloa d and role conflict, Sieber asserts that if indiv iduals are as motivated to e xpand and diversify their role systems as they are to retrench and conso lidate them (p. 577), then perhaps research should focus on the processes that facilitate role accumulation. Marks (1977) suggests that th e scarcity theory is not ab le to explain those cases where research has found individuals engaged in multiple roles who do not appear to be struggling with role conflicts or experiencing role strain or overlo ad. He proposes that expansion of role occupancy can create en ergy, rather than simply expend energy. The expansion approach sees the available supply of time and energy as abundant and expansible and that there is no natural limit on the expa nsion of an individuals commitment level within the range of th e individuals ongoing activities and role partners. The main premise is that multiple roles do not inevitably create strain, but may

PAGE 15

actually enhance an individuals abilities to pa rticipate in their total role system (Marks, 1977). Rather than individuals expending energy on their social involvement, they come away from them more enrich ed and energized. As such, en ergy is attributed to sociocultural conditions rather than a biological fact of nature. In short, individuals are able to form strong commitments to multiple roles and make time and generate energy to engage in role behaviors to which they are committed. Marks (1977) also does not deny the occurr ence of role overload and role conflict. He suggests that the benefit of participation in multiple roles depends on the number of roles and the time demands of each, and that beyond certain limits overload and conflict may occur. The degree to which there is a posit ive gain depends, in part, on which roles one occupies and on the quality of those ro les, with some combinations being more beneficial than others. The benefits of multiple role involvement include monetary income, increased self-esteem, the ability to delegate role obligations, opportunities for social relationships, and challenges (Bar nett, 1998; 1999). Acco rding to the role expansion perspective, multiple roles have the potential to enhance psychological wellbeing by providing opportunities for social inte gration, a sense of ma stery, personal and social recognition, and fulfillment of disp arate psychological and social needs (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Scharlach, 2001, p. 240) Marks (1977) suggests that a theory involving the occupation of multiple roles s hould not view energy as finite but should include the benefits as well as the drawb acks of participation in multiple roles. The role accumulation and role ex pansion (enhancement) hypotheses are consistent with the concept of work-family facilitation proposed by Frone (2003). Frone (2003) proposes work-family facilitation repres ents the extent to wh ich participation at

PAGE 16

work (home) is made easier by virtue of th e experiences, skills, a nd opportunities gained or developed at home (work) (p. 145). Th e scarcity and expans ion theories, taken together, provide a framework for the deve lopment of a comprehensive model of the direct relationships between work and fam ily characteristics and work, family, and individual outcomes. Theory capturing the co mplete work-family experience requires research examining how dimensions of conf lict and facilitation operate together in shaping relevant outcomes (Gry zwacz, Johnson, & Hartwig, 2002). What We Know About Wo rk-Family Facilitation Influenced by the theoretical work of Sieber (1974) and Marks (1977), researchers have begun to explore the benefits associated with performing multiple roles. Particular interest has been placed on identifying work and family factors that may have an effect on the level of facilitation between work a nd family and the effect of work-family facilitation on work and family outcomes, su ch as satisfaction, as well as psychological and physiological well-being. However, as th e research focusing specifically on workfamily facilitation is limited, findings on research related to facilitati on of work and other nonwork roles, such as parental, marital, a nd community, are presen ted as they provide indirect information on the facilitation pr ocess. Also, in some instances, because information on the direct relationship between work-family facilitation and individual, work, and family characteristics and outcomes is not available, findings from research examining work-family balance, work-life ba lance, and work-family fit are presented because they provide indirect information on these relationships. In this section a brief discussion of the relationship between work-family conflict and work-family facilitation

PAGE 17

will be presented, followed by a presentation of the research on the relationship between work-family facilitation and individual, wor k, and family characteristics and outcomes. Relationship Between Work-Family C onflict and Work-Family Facilitation Work-family researchers have examined the primary dimensions of work-family conflict and work-family facili tation, i.e., direction of infl uence (work-to-family versus family-to-work) and type of effect (conflict ve rsus facilitation). Se veral studies provide support for the distinction between work-to-fa mily conflict and fam ily-to-work conflict (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992a, 1992b; Ne temeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) and between work-to-family facilitation and fam ily-to-work facilitati on (Gryzwacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b; Kirchmeyer, 1993; Tiedie et al 1990). More recently the conflict and enhancement perspective have been tied t ogether as a typology. These researchers provide support for the four types of work-f amily effect (work-to-family conflict, workto-family facilitation, family-to-work conf lict, and family-to-work facilitation) (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b; Tiedie, Wortman, Downey, Emmens, Biernat, & Lang, 1990) and that the four dimensions are un iquely related to work outcomes, family outcomes, and individual psychological and physical well-being (Gryzwacz, 2000; Gryzwacz & Marks 2000a, 2000b, Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b, 1993). The literature reveals that work-family conflict and work-family facilitation are not mutually exclusive, but that they occur simultaneously (Kirchmeyer, 1993; Tiedie et al, 1990; Gryzwacz & Marks, 2000a, 2000b; V oydanoff, 2004a, 2004b). In general, the dimensions of work-family conflict and wo rk-family facilitation have been found to be unrelated to each other (Sumer & Kn ight, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). In contrast, some researchers have reported significant

PAGE 18

associations, but these relationship tends to be weak (Sumer & Knight, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004a, Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). For exam ple, Tiedie et al. (1990) examined how women combine perceptions of work a nd family role conflict and enhancement. They found that perceptions of conflict and enhancement were weakly associated. Similar results were reported by Sume r and Knight (2001) and by Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2004). Stephens, Franks, and Atienza (1997) in th eir investigation of the well-being of adult daughters who worked and provided care to their aging parents found these women experienced more positive spillover between their roles as caregiver and work than negative spillover. Brockwood, Hammer and Neal (2003) in a study of dual-earner couples who were caring for both children a nd elderly parents, found that for both men and women, the occupation of one role (care of children, care of parent, or paid work) results in perceived gains (positive work-to-fa mily and family-to-work spillover) in other roles, regardless of their perc eived level of work-family c onflict. Taken together, these results, demonstrate that the assessment of the work-family system encompasses both the positive and negative aspects inherent in th is complex situation, that conflict and facilitation are independent of each othe r, and that they occur simultaneously. Predictors of Work-Family Facilitation Personal characteristics Personal characteristics are defined as individual-based variables such as age, gender, race, education, personality an d attitude. A review of the work-family facilitation literature suggests that demographic variables are included more as a descriptive statistic or a control variable than as an explanatory variable. Those studies that have talked a bout the relationship between demographic variables and work-

PAGE 19

family facilitation report that women report higher positive spillover from work-to-family than men (Gryzwacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002; Gryzwacz and Marks, 2000b; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b); that ethnic minor ities report greater family-to-work facilitation and work-to-family facilita tion than whites (Gryzwacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b), and that work-to-family and family-towork facilitation is higher for those with more education (Gryzwacz & Marks, 2000b; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003). A few studies have examined the conn ection between individual differences and work-family facilitation. There is some evidence that individual differences may predict patterns of work-family facili tation. Few studies have examin ed personality dispositions as predictors of work-family facilitati on. Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2003), for a national sample of men and women, examined the relationship of the Big 5 personality traits and facilitation. They found that extr oversion was related to greater facilitation between roles, neuroticism was related to lower facilitation between work-to-family facilitation, openness was rela ted to greater work-tofamily facilitation, and conscientiousness and agreeability were relate d to greater family-to-work facilitation. Grzywacz and Marks (2000b) also reported th at high levels of neuroticism were associated with less positive spillover fr om work-to-family and high levels of extraversion were associated with greater facilitation betw een roles. Grzywacz and Butler (2003) reported that higher le vels of extroversion were asso ciated with greater work-tofamily facilitation. Wayne, Musisca, and Flees on (2003) suggest that the fact personality traits relate to one direction of facilitation but not the other may reflect differences in the nature of facilitation originating from each domain.

PAGE 20

Sumer and Knight (2001) l ooked at whether there were individual differences in work-family spillover based on attachment styles. Individuals were classified into one of four categories based on attachment style: secure, dismissing, fearful, preoccupied. Sumer and Knight (2001) found that individuals with a secu re attachment style were more likely to experience positive spillover from work-to-family and from family-towork. Wayne, Randal, and Stevens (2003) tested the relation of individual coping strategies (advanced planning, seeking suppor t, goal setting, and positive thinking) and work-family facilitation. The result s showed that all four coping strategies were related to family-to-work facilitation and that coping by planning and seeking support were related to work-to-family facilitation. Kirchmeyer (1992a) examined the relationship between coping strategies and positive and negative nonwork (parenting, community, and recreation) to work spillover. Kirschmeyer f ound that coping was related to more positive spillover from nonwork to work roles. Family characteristics Family role characteristics are defined as family-based variables such as age and number of childre n, household chores, family climate, family support system, employment status of s pouse, family involvement, and family expectations. Little empirical research exists regarding th e relationship between family characteristics and wo rk-family facilitation. A few studies have examined the relati onship between marital status and workfamily facilitation, and those that have re ported such findings are not in agreement. Gryzwacz (2000) found that married individual s reported higher level of positive workfamily spillover. Similar results are reporte d by Gryzwacz, Almeida, & McDonald (2002) and Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson (2003). Bre nnan and Poertner ( 1997), in a study of

PAGE 21

work-family balance of employed parents who gi ve family care to children with serious emotional problems, report that single caregiver s attributed significan tly higher levels of pleasure from their work than married caregivers. Wayne, Randel, and Stevens (2003), in th eir examination of the association between the family characteristics included in their study and work-family facilitation reported that the number of children living at home, hours spent on household responsibilities, hours spen t on childcare responsibilit ies, and family support (instrumental and emotional) were associated with work-family facilitation. They found that the number of children living at home ha d a positive relationship with both directions of work-family facilitation, but that the number of hours spent on childcare was not related to either form of work-family facilitation. The number of hours spent on household responsibilities also showed a posi tive relationship with both directions of work-family facilitation. With respect to fam ily support, both instrumental and emotional support showed a positive relationship with bot h directions of work -family facilitation, with emotional support being the more importa nt predictor of work -family facilitation. Contrary to the above findings, partia l support for the relationship between childcare responsibilities and work-family facilitation is provided by Hill, Hawkins, Martinson, and Ferris (2003). Based on data from the IBM 2001 Global Work and Life Issues Survey, Hill et al. found that responsib ility for childcare was positively associated with work-family fit for men, but was negatively associated with work-family fit for women. In addition, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) tested the relationship between family demands and resources and work-to-fam ily enhancement and family-to-work enhancement. They did not find any support fo r the effect of either work or family

PAGE 22

demands on enhancement, but did find that family-related social support was a positive predictor of family-to-work enhancement. Fo r this sample, lower levels of spouse support and family support were associated with lo wer levels of family-to-work-facilitation. Some research has focused on involvement in specific roles, such as parenting, community, and recreation, and how participatio n in each of these ro les may facilitate the work role or the family role. Kirchmeyer (1993) examined the relationship between nonwork domain involvement (parenting, commun ity, and recreation), time commitments to nonwork, and positive and negative nonwor k to work spillover. Kirschmeyer found that domain involvement correlated positively with positive spillover from nonwork-towork. Kirschmeyer proposes that with in creased levels of domain involvement the benefits of that domain may become more pronounced and the positive side of spillover is heightened. Voydanoff (2004b) looked the relationship between community demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and work-to-family facilitation. She found that a sense of community and support from frie nds had a weak but significant positive relationship with work-t o-family facilitation. The quality of family roles has also been examined as a potential predictor of family-to-work facilitation. It is suggested that family-to-work facilitation is greater when the quality of the multiple roles an individual pa rticipates in within the family are viewed as positive. While there has been little rese arch examining this proposition, some support has been reported. Brockwood, Hammer, and Ne al (2003), in a longitudinal examination of the antecedents and outcomes of positive work-family facilitation, found that childcare role quality was a positive predictor of pos itive family-to-work spillover for both wives

PAGE 23

and husbands. However, parent role quality a nd marital role quality were not significant predictors of positive family-to-work spillover as hypothesized. Work characteristics. Work role characteristics are defined as work-based variables such as number of hours spend in pa id work, organization culture, skill level, job involvement, job responsibilities and work expectations. There is much more research on the relationship between work characteristic s and work-family facilitation than there is on the relationship between family charac teristics and work-family facilitation. Previous research has shown that the number of hours worked per week is associated with work-to-family facilitation. Grzywacz (2000), Grzywacz and Butler (2003), and Voydanoff (2004b), in their examin ations of the relationship between time spent in paid work and work-family facil itation, reported that work hours significantly and positively predicted work-to-family f acilitation. Wayne, Musisca and Fleeson (2004) reported a significant, positive relationship between number of work hours and family-towork facilitation. Similar results were repor ted by Wayne, Randel, a nd Stevens (2003) in their examination of the relationship between organizational time demands, organization support (usage of family friendly benefits), family supportive work culture, and workfamily facilitation. They report that orga nization time demand s significantly and positively predict family-to-work facilitation. They also found that a family supportive work culture was a significant positive predictor of work-to-family facilitation. However, organization support (benefit usage) was not related to work-family facilitation. Several studies have reported on the re lationship between work demands and job role quality and work-fam ily facilitation. Voydanoff (2004a, 2004b), in two different national surveys, examined the relationshi p between work demands and resources on

PAGE 24

work-to-family conflict and work-to-fam ily facilitation. Using data from the 1995 National Survey of Midlife Developmen t in the United States, Voydanoff (2004b) reported that job autonomy and work prid e showed strong positive associations with work-to-family facilitation a nd suggests that psychological rewards such as pride and respect may increase self esteem and gratif ication which may then be transmitted to the family through a positive psychological spill over process contributing to work-to-family facilitation. Using data from the 1997 Na tional Study on the Changing Workforce, Voydanoff (2004a) reported that, having to work extra hours without notice, job insecurity, and work overload had significant negative relationships with work-to-family facilitation. With respect to resources, the availability of time-based family support policies, respect, work autonomy, and l earning opportunity in the workplace had significant positive relationships w ith work-to-family facilitation. Hill et al. (2003), Brockwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), Guest (2001), and Grzywacz and Marks (2000) provide partial su pport for the above findings. Using data from the IBM 2001 Global Work and Life Issues Survey, Hill et al. examined the relationship between job respons ibilities, workload, work re lated travel, use of workfamily programs and work-family fit. He f ound that job workload and job travel were significant, though negative, pred ictors of work-family fit. In addition, the use of one work-family program, flextime, predicted work-family fit. Brockwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), in a longitudinal examination of the work-family facilitation, found that job role quality (jobs that offer security, adequate pay, challe nge, a supportive environment) was a significant positive predictor of positive work-to-family spillover.

PAGE 25

Guest (2001), using data from th e United Kingdom CIPD Survey of Psychological Contract and the State of Empl oyment, examined the relationship between the family climate of work (support balance th rough policies and pract ices), participative work environment, work autonomy and work -family balance. A sample of 1,000 people in the working population were asked whethe r they felt they had the right balance between work and life outside of work. Gues t found that those who report more scope for direct participation in determining work activities and work autonomy reported less imbalance and those who reported a family fr iendly work climate reported a better worklife balance. Clark (2000), fo r a sample of American workers, also found that autonomy over the content of work was associated with better work -life balance. Finally, Grzywacz and Marks (2000) tested the relationship between work demands and resources and work-to-fam ily enhancement and family-to-work enhancement. Although they did not find a ny support for the effect of demands on enhancement, work-related social support and decision latitude were both positive predictors of both forms of work-family e nhancement. For this sample, the lower the level of decision latitude and support, from supervisor and coworkers, lower work-tofamily facilitation was reported. Outcomes of Work-Family Facilitation Researchers have expressed more inte rest in the outcomes of work-family facilitation than they have to its potential predictors. The research on the outcomes of work-family facilitation has produced some insights into the positive side of the connections between work and family life. Research on the outcomes of work-family facilitation often used measures that only assess work-to-family facilitation. This is an

PAGE 26

important limitation because recent conceptual models and research that has included both dimensions of work-family facilitation s uggest that work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation have unique ro le related outcomes (Gryzwacz & Marks, 2000b). Research findings indicate that individua ls with greater work-family facilitation tend to be more satisfied with their lives (job, family, and life) (Crouter, 1984; Edwards and Rothbard, 2000; Brookwood, Hammer, & Neal, 2002; Barnett & Hyde, 2000). Workfamily facilitation has also been found to be associated with better physical health, mental health, and psychological well being (Stephe ns, Franks, & Atienza 1997; Gryzwacz, 2000; Gryzwacz & Marks, 2000b). For exam ple, Hanson, Colton and Hammer (2003), for a sample of corporate and warehouse employees working for a large distribution center, found that positive work-to-family spillover predicted life satisfaction, family satisfaction, and job satisfaction. In their st udy, positive work-family spillover was made up of four dimensions: work-to-family affective spillover, family-to-work affective spillover, work-to-family instrumental spi llover, and family-to-work instrumental spillover. They reported that work-to-family instrumental spillover predicted life satisfaction, that work-to family affective spillover and family-to-work instrumental spillover predicted family satisfaction, and th at work-to-family instrumental spillover predicted job satisfaction. Hansen, Colton, and Hammer (2003) suggest that people are more satisfied with their work if the values, skills, and behaviors they learn ther e are instrumental in helping them fulfill their family demands, and that th e more useful a persons work is in this respect, the better his or he r general well-being. They also propose that people are more

PAGE 27

satisfied with their family if the values, sk ills, and behaviors learned in the family are instrumental in fulfilling their work demands With respect to the relationship between work-to-family affective spillover and family satisfaction, they suggest that the spillover of positive mood from work-to-family results in better interpersonal interactions in the family domain, leading to greater family sa tisfaction. This idea is supported by the work of Edwards and Rothbard (2000). The following review of the consequences of work-family facilitation is grouped into three categories: family related, work related, and psychologi cal/physical well-being, that are discussed in turn. Family Related Outcomes. Research shows that, for both men and women, workfamily facilitation has been shown to have pos itive effects on family life. Work-to-family facilitation has been reported to have a pos itive effect on both family satisfaction and family effort. Research findings indicate that men and women who experience more work-family facilitation tend to be more sati sfied with their nonwor k role. For example, Stephens and Franks (1995), in their examination of the re lationship between positive and negative spillover from the parent caregiver role and the wife ro le, found that positive spillover from the caregiver role to the wife role was significantly related to marital satisfaction; greater positive spillover from car egiver role to wife role was related to higher marital satisfaction. They also found that positive spillover from the wife role to caregiver role was a significant predictor of marital satisfaction. Additional support of the positive relationship between facilitation and family/marital satisfaction is provided by Ti edie et al. (1990) and Brockwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003). Tiedie and her colleagues, for a sample of women with pre-school age

PAGE 28

children, examined the effect of role conflic t and role enhancement on satisfaction with their home role. For this sample, satisfaction w ith parenting was associ ated with level of perceived conflict and enhancement. Wome n who experienced low conflict and high enhancement experienced more parental role satisfaction than women in other combinations of conflict/enhancement perceptions. Brockwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), in a longitudinal examination of th e relationship between positive work-family spillover and family satisfaction found that pos itive work-to-family spillover significantly predicted family satisfaction for both wi ves and husbands. As noted previously, Brookwood, Hammer, and Neal found in this study that role quality wa s related to workfamily spillover. They suggest that positive work-to-family spillover can possibly be increased by making changes to the quality of ones job, such as increasing autonomy or schedule flexibility, thereby in creasing family satisfaction. In addition to examining the relationship between facilitation and family/marital satisfaction, researchers have looked at the re lationship between facilitation and family effort. Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2003), for a national sample of 2,130 men and women, examined the relationship between work-family facilitation, family effort, and family satisfaction. They predicted that work -to-family facilitation would be related to greater family effort and family satisfacti on. They found that work-to-family facilitation was not related to family satisfaction and was negatively related to family effort. Wayne, Musisca and Fleeson suggest that because work -to-family facilitation includes beneficial transfer of skills and behaviors from work to family, that this positive transfer of skills and behaviors made it easier to accomplish fa mily role demands without having to put forth much effort. An unpredicted outcome of this study were a positive relationship

PAGE 29

between family-to-work facilitation and fa mily satisfaction. Wayne, Musisca and Fleeson propose that the positive effect of the transfer of skills and behaviors may be in the role seen as providing the benefits. Work Related Outcomes. Researchers have also reported a positive relationship between work-family facilitation and work domain variables. A recent study by Wayne, Randal, and Stevens (2003) examined the relationship between both directions of facilitation and job satisfaction, organizati on commitment (affective, continuance, and normative), and intentions to leave. They hypothesized that individuals reporting high work-family facilitation would be more satisf ied with their job, more committed to their organization, and less likely to have intent ions to leave and that family-to-work facilitation would not be related to these wo rk outcomes. They found, for a sample of 101 men and women, that work-to-family facilita tion significantly pred icted job satisfaction, continuance commitment, normative commit ment, and negatively predicted turnover intentions, but did not predict affective comm itment and that family-to-work facilitation was not related to any of the work outcome s. Wayne, Randal, and Stevens propose that individuals may assess the degree to which work provides support, status, and renewed energy which helps them in their family role When they attribute their job as providing these positive things to themselves and th eir family, they may have a more positive attitude toward their job a nd organization. Several studie s provide support for their findings, and are summarized below. Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2003), also examined the relationship between work-family facilitation, work effort, and work satisfaction. They predicted that familyto-work facilitation would be re lated to greater job effort and job satisfaction. They found

PAGE 30

that family-to-work facilitation was pos itively related to job effort but not job satisfaction. Unpredicted outcomes of this study was a positive relationship between work-to-family facilitation and both job sati sfaction and job effort. Again, Musisca and Fleeson propose that the positive effect of the transfer of skills and behaviors may be in the role seen as providing the benefits. Fisher-McAuley et al. (2003) in two st udies examined the relationship between work-life balance and the orga nizational outcomes job strain (pressure and threat), job satisfaction, and turnover inten tions (non-work reasons for leaving and work reasons for leaving). They predicted a negative relations hip between work-life balance and job strain and turnover intentions and a positive rela tionship between work-life balance and job satisfaction. The two studies provided partia l support. Study one, comprised of a sample of 603 fitness professionals, f ound that work-life balance had a negative relationship with both measures of job strain and a positive relationship with job satisfaction as predicted. However, work-life balance was not related to both measures of turnover intention; it was negatively related to nonwork related turnover intention but not related to work reasons for leaving. Study two, comprised of 545 managers employed in a variety of organizations, found that work-life balan ce had a negative relationship with both measures of job strain and a positive relationship with job satisfaction. For this sample, life-work balance was not related to either fo rm of turnover intenti ons. Results of this study support the notion that facilitation may be a resource for i ndividuals in handling occupational stressors that lead to strains, including feelings of overall work strain, job satisfaction, and, to some exte nt turnover intentions.

PAGE 31

Kirchmeyer (1992a, 1992b, 1993) investigated the extent to which individuals perceive that the privileges, status secu rity, status enhancement, and personality enrichment associated with parenting, comm unity activities, and recreation enhanced organization commitment and job satisfacti on. Both organization commitment and job satisfaction were positively correlated with parenting, community, and recreation enhancement and several achieved significan ce. She reported that the outcome of multiple participation depended on role type. For her sample, only parenting was a significant predictor of organization commit ment, while community and recreation were significant predictors of job satisfaction. Ki rschmeyer (1992b) suggest s that the type of skills developed outside of work that are us eful at work may vary by nonwork domain. Kirschmeyer (1992a, 1992b) suggests that part icipation in nonwork roles may enhance a persons self esteem, skills, and perspectives and enhance their cap acity to meet work demands and his/her importance to the organi zation. This enriching of personal resources may allow the individual to extend greater loya lty and effort toward organizational goals and create in him/her less vulnerability to the jobs dissatisf ying attributes. Brockwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), in a longitudinal examination of workfamily spillover and job satisfaction found that positive family-to-work spillover significantly predicted job satisfaction for bot h wives and husbands. As noted previously, Brookwood, Hammer, and Neal found in this study that role quality wa s related to workfamily facilitation. They suggest that positiv e family-to-work spillover can possibly be increased by implementation of organizat ional programs to help support parenting efforts, such as parenting classes, day care, and flexible scheduling, leading to increased job satisfaction.

PAGE 32

Psychological and Physical Well-Being. Research has documented the significant relationship between work-fam ily facilitation and psycholog ical and physical well-being. In general, work-family facilitation has been reported to be significantly related to better psychological and physical well-being. In a series of studies of Barnett and he r colleagues, the relationship between the occupancy and quality of multiple roles on psychological distress were examined. Barnett and Marshall (1992), for a sample of 409 wo men practical nurses and social workers, examined positive and negative spillover between employee and parenting role. They examined the relationship between role reward s and role concerns, overall role quality, positive and negative spillover, and psychological distress. They found no negative spillover effects. They found a positive spill over effect from job to parenting. Women with rewarding jobs were protected from the negative mental health affects of troubled relationships with their children. Barnett, Marshall, and Sayer (1992) using the same sample of 409 women discussed above, looked at the job rewards to identify which mitigated the relationship between parent-role quality a nd psychological distress and wh ich parental concerns were buffered by these mitigators. They found that challenging work was the only job reward factor that mitigated parental stress. If employed mothers experience higher reward from challenging work they reported less distress, regardless of their level of disaffection in their relationship with their children. If the reward from challenging work was low, employed mothers who were concerned about disa ffection in their rela tionship with their children reported high psychological distress. They suggest that perhaps women who

PAGE 33

enjoy rewards from challenging work experi ence greater self-esteem and confidence which enables them to cope with stressors in their relationships with their children. Barnett (1994) examined the moderating eff ect of family role quality on job role quality and psychological distress. She found that when parental and marital role experiences are positive there was little rela tionship between job expe riences and distress, but when parental and marital role expe riences are negative there was a stronger relationship between job experiences and dist ress. They suggest that, for men and women dual earner couples, there is little separa tion between home and work, and that what happens in one domain affects what happens in other domains. Several studies have examined the rela tionship between work-family facilitation and mental and physical well-being. For exampl e, in a series of studies using cross sectional data from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS), Grzywacz and his colleagues report work-family facilita tion was related to better mental health, fewer chronic health pr oblems, fewer incidents of binge drinking, and better self-reported well-being. (Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz & Bass, 2003; Grzywacz, Johnson, & Hartwig, 2002; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000a). Grzywacz and Marks (2000a) found that high levels of positive spillover from family to work was associated with lower odds of problem drinking, while high levels of positive spillover from work to family was associated with higher odds of problem drinking. Similar results were reported by Grzywacz, Johnson, and Hartwig (2002), using a subsample of participants in the MIDUS study who also participated in the National Study of Daily Experiences. They propose that family-to-work facilitation is an important family resource that individuals can draw upon to desensitize the meaning and impact of

PAGE 34

enduring and specific forms of work-family tension. Work-to-family facilitation, however, strengthened the association between work-family conflict and binge drinking. They suggest that, given that the strongest known correlates of work-to-family facilitation are decision latitude, perhaps th is effect is capturing some so cial characteristic of jobs (e.g., entertaining clients). Grzywacz (2000) reported that higher work -to-family facilitation and family-towork facilitation were associated with bette r mental health, and that higher family-towork facilitation was significantly related to fewer chronic health problems and better self-reported well-bei ng. He also found that work-to-fam ily facilitation was associated with better physical health. Grzywacz a nd Bass (2003) examine the effects of workfamily facilitation on a variety of health a nd well-being outcomes. They found that higher family-to-work facilitation was associated with lower risk of depression. Additional support for the relationship between facilitati on and depression is provided by Tiedie et al. (1990). For a sample of women, Tiedie et al. found that depression was related to role conflict and role enhancement. For this samp le, depression was associated with level of perceived conflict and enhancement. Wome n who experiences low conflict and high enhancement were less depressed than women in other combinations of conflict/enhancement perceptions. Two other studies provide support for the relationship betwee n facilitation and depression and physical health. Stephens a nd Franks (1995) concluded, based on their examination of the relationship between positive and negative spillover from the parent caregiver and the wife role and caregiver well-being, that positive role sp illover was a significant predictor of physical health and depression. Although they did not find

PAGE 35

support for the effects of positive spillover from caregiver role to the wife role on physical health, positive spillover was signifi cantly related to depression and positive affect. They found that the higher the positive sp illover from caregiver role to wife role, the lower reported depression and the higher reported positive effect. Stephens and Franks (1995) also found positive spillover from wife role to caregiver role was a significant predictor of depression. They propose that the experiences in each of the roles may enhance the caregiver/wifes perceptions of self-esteem and effectiveness in their caregiver/wife role and thereby are less likely to report depressive symptoms. Stephens, Franks, and Atienza (1997), for a sample of 105 employed adult daughter caregivers, found these women both positive and negative experiences in the caregiver role spilled over to affect quality of experiences in the work role. Positive spillover generally was related to caregiver reported depression and positive spillover from work role to caregiver role was a significant predictor of positive affect. Good moods that spread from one role to the othe r was the most often reported type of positive spillover in both directions. Finally, only one study examined the re lationship between facilitation and life satisfaction. Sumer and Knight (2001) found both directions of positive spillover had a significant positive correlation with tw o overall life satisfaction measures. Taken together, these findings indicate that work-family facilitation consistently relates to psychological and phys ical well-being and that the direction of influence is most often to improving psychological and physical well-being.

PAGE 36

Current Study Component of Work-Family Facilitation Defined Because there has been little theoretical research on work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation, only a few s ources of work-family facilitation have been identified. However, most researchers agree th at role experiences, role skills, and role attitudes in one domain facilitate partic ipation in the other domain (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Grzywacz, 2000; Grzyw acz & Marks, 2000b; Kirchmeyer, 1993; Tiedie et.al., 1990, Voydanoff, 2004a). The experi ences encountered in a role refer to the opportunities, information, and resource gains as sociated with a given role. Skill transfer occurs when a skill acquired/used at work ( home) is used in performing family(work-) related activities or responsibilities. Role att itude refers to the emotional gratification, such as an increased sense of meani ng, personal worth, and purpose, received by participation in a role. As such, the follo wing definitions were used to guide scale development in the current study. Work-to-family facilitation is a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the job, job skill s, and emotional gratification from the job facilitate performing family-rel ated responsibilities/activities. Family-to-work facilitation is a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the home, family skills, and emotional gratification from the home facilitate performing work-related responsibilities/activities. Relations With Other Variables Investigating the construc t validity of the work-family facilitation subscales developed in this study calls for a number of predicti ons to be advanced. These

PAGE 37

predictions pertain to the rela tionship between work-to-family facilitation and family-towork facilitation and other wo rk and nonwork constructs. Work Constructs. Research suggests that there is an inverse relationship between work overload and work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation (Hill et al., 2003; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b). Thus, negative correlations between work overload and the work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation scales are predicted. It has been suggested that work-tofamily facilitation and family-to-work facilitation should be positively associated with work autonomy (Guest, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b), time spent in paid work (Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz and Butler, 2003; Voydanoff, 2004b; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004), work schedule flexibility (Voydanoff, 2004b), and job sati sfaction (Brockwood, Hammer, & Neal, 2003; Fisher-McAuley et al., 2003; Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003). Thus, positive correlations between these vari ables and the work-to-family facilitation and family-towork facilitation scales are predicted. Prior research also indicates that work-to-family facilitation is more strongly related to job sa tisfaction than family-to-work facilitation (Wayne, Musisca, & Flees on, 2004; Wayne, Randall, & St evens, 2003). Given these findings, it is predicted that work-to-family f acilitation correlates more strongly with job satisfaction than family -to-work facilitation. Nonwork Constructs. Research suggests that there is not a significant association between the dimensions of work-family conf lict (work-to-family and family-to-work) and work-family facilitation(Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b) and that when a relationship is found that it is a weak relationship (S umer & Knight, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004). Thus, it is pr edicted that there wi ll be no relationship

PAGE 38

between the two dimensions of work-family conflict and work-to-fa mily facilitation, and if a relationship does ex ist, it will be weak. Research suggests that there is an in verse relationship between psychological distress and work-to-family facilitation and fa mily-to-work facilita tion (Gryzwacz, 2000; Stephens & Franks, 1995). Thus, negative corr elations between psychological distress and the work-to-family facilitation and family -to-work facilitation scales are predicted. Prior research also indicates that work-to-fa mily facilitation correla tes more strongly with psychological distress than family-to-work f acilitation (Stephens, Franks, & Atienza, 1997). Thus, it is predicted that work-to-family facilitation correlates more strongly with psychological distress than fa mily-to-work facilitation. It has been suggested that there is an inverse relationship between family-to-work facilitation and parental demands and that pa rental demands is not related to work-tofamily facilitation (Kirchmeyer, 1993). Thus, it is predicted that there will be a negative correlation between family-to-work facilitati on and parental demands and no relationship between work-to-family facilitation and parental demands. For the variables life satisfaction, family satisfaction, number of children living at home, and number of hours sp ent in household chores a posit ive relationship with workto-family facilitation and family-to-work f acilitation has been suggested (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003; Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003). Thus, positive correlations between the work-to-family facilitation and family-to-wo rk facilitation scales and these variables are predicted. Prior research also indicates that family-to-work facilitation is more strongly related to family sa tisfaction than work-to-fam ily facilitation. Thus, it is

PAGE 39

predicted that family-to-work facilitation will correlate more strongly with family satisfaction than work-to-family facilitation.

PAGE 40

METHOD The procedures followed in developing the Work-Family Facilitation Scale closely adhered to those de scribed in the psychometric literature (Cortina, 1993; DeVellis, 1991; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Sc hriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993; Spector, 1992). After construc t definition, these procedures included item generation and judging, examination of di mensionality and intern al consistency, and construct validity assessment. Item Generation and Judging Based on the theoretical framework outlined above and a literature review of previous studies examining work-family f acilitation, two subscales were developed to measure the two dimensions of work-family facilitation, work-to-fa mily facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Procedure The item derivation process was divided into three phases. Phase 1: Review of Literature and Ex isting Work-Family Facilitation Scales Items were collected from an examinati on of previously published sources that were believed to represent the two dimens ions of work-family facilitation and three characteristics of each domain (role experience, role attitude, and role skill). Items for inclusion were selected from the scales used in prior research (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003; Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; MacArthur Foundation Research

PAGE 41

Network on Successful Midlife, National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, n.d.;Small &Riley, 1990; Stephens, Fr anks, & Atienza, 1997; Sumer & Knight, 2001; Voydanoff, 2004; and Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003). Phase 2: Focus Groups To help in the generation of an adequa te pool of items, focus groups were held. The primary goal of focus groups is to learn about participants at titudes and opinions by asking them to respond to a set of focused, structured, open-ended questions. In addition, focus groups provide an opportunity to learn more about participan ts experiences and perspectives that would not be as accessible through the us e of questionnai res. Through group interaction, participants share and co mpare their ideas and experiences. This interaction process provides an opportunity to collect information on how participants themselves understand their similarities a nd differences (Morgan, 1997). Some of the advantages of focus groups ve rsus individual interviews in clude 1) a greater amount of information can be gathered more efficien tly, 2) group synergy fosters more creative thought, ideas, and expressions, and 3) the peer validation that is inhe rent in focus groups can serve as a catalyst to gene rating a broader discussion of th e topic of interest (NassarMcMillan & Borders, 2002). Morgan (1997) states that focus groups can contribute to the creation of survey items in three basic ways. First, focus groups can help the resear cher capture all the domains that need to be measured in the su rvey. The use of focus groups can ensure that the researcher has as complete a picture as possi ble of what is relevant to the topic rather than relying on assumptions of what is rele vant. Morgan notes that although the use of interviews can also provide this kind of insight about the domains that should be

PAGE 42

measured in a survey, focus groups have th e general advantage of providing access to a wide range of perspectives in a short time. Second, in addition to locati ng all of the domains, focus groups are an efficient method for determining the dimensions that make up each of the domains. Focus groups can generate a large number of ideas about the categories of ite ms that are needed in the survey to ensure each of the domains ar e covered (Morgan, 1997). Third, focus groups can assist in the creation of survey items by providing item wording that reflects the researchers intent to survey respondents. Th e group interactions inherent in focus groups provide the researcher with insights on wa ys of expressing an idea that will not only resonate with the potential respondents but will also minimize questions and confusion. Focus group participants. A sample of male and female employees in support and professional positions at the University of Sout h Florida was selected for participation in this study. The sample was selected in the following way. A list of full-time employees who indicated on their W-4 that they were ma rried and/or had at least one dependant or whose personnel record indicated that th ey were married was obtained from the universitys human resources department. Th e list received contained 1,431 names and included the following information: name, employee ID, department ID, department, campus mailing address, salary plan (profe ssional or support sta ff), marital status, number of dependents reported on W-4, and FTE (full-time equivalent). Focus group recruitment procedure. Simple random sampling was used to select subjects. The sample size objective fo r the focus groups was a minimum of 50 participants or until no new informati on was obtained from a minimum of two consecutive focus group sessions. Four ra ndom samples of 100 each were drawn

PAGE 43

approximately one week apart, for a total of 400 subjects. This was done for logistical and planning purposes. Telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of the selected respondents were obtained by a search of the universitys webbased employee director y. If the selected respondents name was not found or if no te lephone number or e-mail address was found, no attempt was made to contact the selected respondent. Initial contact of selected respondents was by telephone. If the respondent did not answer the telephone after two attempts, contact was made by e-mail. If the respondent had voice mail, a voice mail message describing the purpose of the contac t and a return telephone number was left. If the selected respondent did not return the call within five days, a return call was made. If the selected respondent was not reached on the second attempt, contact was made by email. The telephone recruitment script and th e text of the initial contact e-mail are attached as Appendix A. There were two eligibility requirements: 1) have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home and 2) work at least 32 hours per week. These cr iteria were used to ensure that respondents were suitable for th e proposed research st udy. Of the 400 selected participants, 15 were no longer employees of the university, 13 did not have a telephone number or e-mail address liste d in the university directory, 11 were not able to take personal telephone calls during work time, and two did not answer the telephone and did not have voice mail or an e-mail listing. Of the remaining 360, contact was made with 276 (76.9%). The remaining 83 did not reply to telephone and/or e-mail messages. Of the 276 individuals contacted, 122 declined to par ticipate in the study and 81 did not meet the

PAGE 44

eligibility criteria. Sixty-one of the 74 selected participants eligible to participate agreed to attend one of the focus groups. Confirmation of scheduled pa rticipation and an informed consent form were sent by campus mail or by e-mail prior to the scheduled session. The day before each focus group, participants were cont acted by telephone or e-mail to remind them of their scheduled participation. If pa rticipants did not show up fo r their scheduled focus group session, contact was made by telephone or by e-mail and they were offered the opportunity to reschedule if they so desi red. A copy of the acknowledgement letter, acknowledgement e-mail, and informed cons ent are attached as Appendix B. Focus group sessions Twelve focus groups were held, with five to seven individuals scheduled to participate in each session. Of the 61 subj ects who agreed to participate in a focus group, 36 participate d. The size of the focus groups ranged from two to five participants. Because no new materi al was obtained in the last four sessions, no additional focus groups were scheduled. Sixt y-nine percent of the sample were women and 86% were married. Forty-seven percent of the sample were support staff and 53% were professional staff. Each focus group session followed the same procedure and consisted of introductions, a brief description of the purpos e of the study, confirma tion of participants consent to audiotape the discussion, review of focus group groundrules and instructions for participation, asking questions, and cl osing. A copy of the discussion guide is attached as Appendix C. Participants were asked to respond to four questions: (1) When you hear the words work-family balance, what comes to mind? (2) What sorts of job experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform your family-related

PAGE 45

responsibilities? (3) What sorts of family experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform your work-related re sponsibilities? (4) Of all the things we discussed on the topic of work and family making it easier for you to perform your responsibilities in the other domain, which one thing has been the most benefit to you? The questions were asked in the same order for each focus group. Key points were recorded on a flip chart and at the end of each session key ideas that emerged were reviewed with participants a nd they were provided the opportun ity to describe additional situations or experiences were the work and/ or family role facilitated the other role. Following each focus group session, the audiotape of the session was transcribed. A master transcript that combined all of the sessions was prepared following the last session. Phase 3: Rating by Expert Judges To ensure content adequacy (validity) of the two work-family facilitation subscales, to reduce the pool of items to a manageable number, and to categorize each item into one of the three dimensions (role at titude, role experience, and role skill) of work-family facilitation, the items resulting fr om the literature re view and generated based on qualitative data gathered in the focus groups were reviewed by a panel of researchers involved in research in the fiel d of work-family life. Five faculty members from other universities were asked to judge the items for repres entativeness and to classify each of the items into one of the th ree dimensions of work -family facilitation: role attitude, role experience, or role skill. Four of the five judges returned completed rating forms. Two judges have been active in the study of work and family life since the late seventies to early eightie s and two judges entered the fi eld in the mid-nineties. In

PAGE 46

addition, the judges have simila r, but different, areas of specialization. Two judges are interested in work-family linka ges, ones research interest s focus on the sociology of the family, and the others focuses on ca reer and adult life development. Judges were given rating forms and instru ctions concerning how to complete the forms. The rating form included the construct definitions and the de finition of the three dimensions of work-family facilitation. The ra ting form instructions asked the judges to rate each work-family facilita tion item on a 1 to 5 likert-type magnitude scale. The judges were asked to evaluate each item as not representative, so mewhat representative moderately representative very representative or completely representative of the definitions. The judges were also asked to ca tegorize each item as belonging to one of the three dimensions of work-family facilitation: role experience role skill, or role attitude Finally, the judges were asked to provide fee dback on how to improve the clarity and/or conciseness of each item. A copy of the rati ng forms and instructions concerning how to complete them are attached as Appendix D. Four of the five subject matter experts returned completed rating questionnaires. Dimensionality and Internal Consiste ncy and Construct Validity Assessment Participants A sample of male and female employees in staff and professional positions at the University of South Florida were selected for participation in this study. A list of employees who worked at least 32 hours per week (.80 FTE) and had indicated on their W-4 that they were married or had at least one dependant was obtained from the universitys human resources department. Th e list received contained 2,020 names and included the following information: name, de partment, campus mailing address, salary

PAGE 47

plan (professional or support) marital stat us, and number of de pendents reported on W-4. Because a large sample size was desired, all employees on the list were included in this study. Procedure A letter (Appendix E) was sent to all pa rticipants stating how their names were obtained and explaining the na ture of the study. The letter explained that participation was entirely voluntary and that their employe r would not have access to their response. Participants were told that the survey would take about 40 minutes to complete and were asked to complete the survey on their own a nd return the completed survey document and informed consent via campus mail within 20 days. A follow-up reminder, emphasizing the importance of the study and of a high rate of response, was sent within 30 days after the initial mailing to those participants who had not returned a questionnaire or who had not indicated to the researcher that they woul d not be participating in the research study. The follow-up reminder was sent via e-mail to participants with access to e-mail and a letter was sent to those w ithout access to e-mail. A copy of the letter and e-mail are attached as Appendix F. A total of 176 questionnaires were return ed, a response rate of 8%. Upon receipt of returned questionnaires, the demographic da ta were reviewed to determine eligibility. There were three eligibility requirements: 1) married or living as married, had at least one child under the age of 18 living at home, or both 2) work at least 35 hours per week, and 3) provide complete data on all measures de scribed below. These criteria were used to ensure that respondents were suitable fo r the proposed research study. Of the 176 questionnaires returned, 166 became usable fo r further analysis. Of the 166 respondents,

PAGE 48

116 were women, 139 were married, and 119 had children under th e age of eighteen living at home. The mean age of the sample was 43; the mean age of men and women was 45 and 42 respectively. The sample mean tenure with the organization was 8 years, and the mean tenure in their current position was 5 years. Seventy-seven percent of the sample was white, 10% was Blac k, 8% was Hispanic, and the rest was Asian or Pacific Islander and other. Twenty-ei ght percent of the sample ha d graduate or professional degrees, 11% had completed some graduate level or professional school coursework, 27% had undergraduate degrees 23% had completed some undergraduate coursework, and the rest had a high school e ducation or less. Forty-nine percent of the sample held supervisory positions. Thirty-one percent of the sample held professional positions, 30% held managerial or administrative positions, and the rest held clerical (22%), technical (12%) or semi-skilled/unskilled (6%) positions. Instruments The questionnaire included in this su rvey included over 150 items, including 69 work-family facilitation items. Subjects re sponded to the 69 work -family facilitation items. These items were responded to along a 7-point strongly disagree-strongly agree response scale. The other measures include d in the questionnaire are listed below, accompanied by a brief description of the m easures and instruments used in their assessment. Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrians ( 1996) scales which measure work-family conflict and family-work conflict were used to measure these two aspects of respondents level of conflict between work and family roles (see Appendix G). Both the work-family

PAGE 49

conflict and family-work conf lict scales are composed of five items each. Respondents were asked to respond on a 7point likert scale, ranging fr om strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Items were summed to re flect individual scores for the work-family conflict and family-work conflict measures. A hi gh score represents a high level of workfamily (family-work) conflict. Acceptable leve ls of reliability have been reported for both scales ranging from .88 to .89 for the work-f amily conflict scale and from .83 to .89 for the family-work conflict scale (Netemeyer Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). The alphas for the present study were.89 and .86, respectively. Work Role Overload Work role overload was measured using a five item subscale of the Organizational Role Stress Scale devel oped by Pareek (1983) (see Appendix H). Respondents were asked to respond on a 7-poi nt likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agr ee (7). High scores on the role overload scale represent high levels of role overload. The role overload scal e has retest reliability of .73 (Pareek, 1983). The alpha for the present study was .90. Autonomy Autonomy was measured using the thr ee autonomy items from Hackman and Oldhams (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (see Appendix I). Respondents were asked to respond on a 7-point likert scale. One question asked responden ts to rank the extent to which they have decision latitude on their j ob and responses range from very little (1) to very much (7). The two other questions ask respondents to indicate how accurate the statements are in describing their job and re sponses range from very inaccurate (1) to

PAGE 50

very accurate (7). A high score on the scale represents a high level of autonomy. The alpha for the present study was .72. Work Hours The number of hours worked per week wa s assessed by asking respondents to record the standard number of hours worked pe r week, whether at thei r place of work or at home, and the time spent each day commuting to and from work. The sum of these two items provides an index of the total number of hours devoted to job related activities. Home Chores The number of hours spent on home chores per week was measured by adding together the number of hours listed for each of the following: hours per week spent on household chores (e.g., planning meals, food preparation and clean-up, cleaning), hours per week spent on household maintenance (e.g., yard work, household repairs), and hours per week spent on household shopping (e .g., groceries, household supplies). Parental Demands Parental demands was measured by asking respondents to record the number of hours per week spent on child care activiti es (e.g., chauffeuring children, attending functions with children, daily care of children). Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction was measured using fi ve items from Hackman and Oldhams (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (see Appendix J). Three questions asked respondents how satisfied they are with thei r job on a 7-point likert scal e, ranging from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7). Two questions asked respondents to indicate their agreement with statements about how satisfied others are with the same job. A high

PAGE 51

score on the scale represents a high level of job satisfaction. The alpha for the present study was .80. Family Satisfaction Family satisfaction was measured using a modified version of the 20 item general family satisfaction scale developed by Carv er and Jones (1992). Because the scale was developed as a measure of satisfaction with one s family of origin, items were reworded to measure satisfaction with ones family of procreation (see Appendix K). Carver and Jones (1992) report acceptable levels of reliab ility, coefficient alpha of .95, and satisfactory temporal stability of the scor es, test-retest correl ation of .88. Respondents were asked to respond on a 7-poi nt likert scale, ranging from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7). A high score on the scale represents a high level of family satisfaction. The alpha for the present study was .90. Life Satisfaction Life satisfaction was measured using a five item satisfaction with life scale developed by Diener, Emmons, Larson, and Griffin (1985) (see Appendix L). Respondents were asked to respond on a 7-poi nt likert scale, ranging from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7). A high score on the scale re presents a high level of life satisfaction. Acceptable le vels of reliability have be en reported, ranging from .82 to .88 (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000; Diener, et al., 1985; Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003; and Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996) and acceptable test-retest reliability (.82) (Diene r, et al., 1985). The alpha for the present study was .89.

PAGE 52

Psychological Distress Psychological Distress was measured us ing the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (see Appendix M) Developed by the National Institute on Mental Health (Radloff, 1975), the Center fo r Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale was designed to measure depressive symp toms in the general population. Respondents were asked to report the frequency of occurr ence in the previous month of 20 symptoms, such as feeling sad, having restless sleep, or not feeling hopeful about the future. The 20 item scale has been used in previous work-fam ily research and has an acceptable level of reliability, ranging from .88 to .90 (Googins & Burden, 1987; Kandel, Davies, & Raveis, 1985; and Radloff, 1975). The al pha for the present study was .89. Demographic Variables Demographic information was gathered in order to gain an un derstanding of the characteristics of the sample (see Appendix N) Gender was measured by responses to a dichotomous item coded 0 for male and 1 fo r female. Marital status was assessed by responses to a dichotomous item coded 0 for married/living as married and 1 for single. Age, children living at home, age of children living at home, tenure in current position, and tenure in organization were measured with single open-ended items. For data analysis purposes, children liv ing at home was coded as 0 = no children living at home and 1 = children under the age of 18 living at home. Ethnicity was measured by a five category scale (1 = Asian or Pacific Islande r, 2 = Black, 3 = Hispanic, 4 = White, 5 = Other). Type of position (supervisory or nonsupervisory) was assessed by responses to a dichotomous item coded 1 for supervisory and 2 for nonsupervisory. Education was measured by a five category scale (1 = hi gh school graduate, 2 = some college, 3 =

PAGE 53

college graduate, 4 = some graduate or pr ofessional school, and 5 = graduate or professional degree). Occupational leve l was measured by a six category scale (1 = professional, 2 = managerial or administrative, 3 = clerical or sales, 4 = technical, 5 = semi-skilled or unskilled, and 6 = other).

PAGE 54

RESULTS Item Generation and Judging Phase 1: Literature Review A review of existing scales focused on id entifying items for inclusion that were felt to capture the domain elements of the cons tructs as previously discussed. Some items required slight wording modificatio ns to fit the likert-type form at used in this analysis. A total of 71 items was collected in this phase of item generation. Of these, 34 items reflected work-to-family facilitation and 37 ite ms reflected family-to-work facilitation (see Appendix O). Phase 2: Focus Groups The master transcript was reviewed and, by counting the frequency with which certain themes emerged during focus group se ssions, common themes were identified. The most common themes were selected to de velop into quantitative indices. Consistent with prior research, three ge neral indices of work-family facilitation emerged: role experiences, role skills, and role attitu des (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000; Grzywacz, 2000; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000b; Tiedie et.a l., 1990; Voydanoff, 2004a). Examples of how work facilitates participation in the fam ily focused on the useful skills and attitudes acquired at work and having a supportive work environment. For example, one participant spoke about attit udes acquired at work and put to use in the home: When I come home and I feel satisfied or proud of something, I think that that reflects in my attitude with the kids.

PAGE 55

A student advisor explained how her work had taught her and her family lessons that paid off in the home: Working here has given my family an awful lot of different experience in terms of the types of people that they meet . I have learned a lot about mutliculturalism and diversity and how to interact with different diverse groups of people. Examples of facilitation from family to work focused on the supportive nature of family relationships and the useful skills and attitudes that are acquired at home and put to use in other settings, including work. For example, a set designer spoke about how his supportive family relationship made the occas ional inconveniences of the job easier to handle: I think your family support you, you know as far as believing in what you are doing. Especially my wife helps me. If there is an issue I am dealing with at work I discuss it with her and she will give me her ideas and opinions. A supervisor explained how her family had taught her lessons that paid off on the job: Parenting skills are also good supervisor y skills. Learning how to talk to someone in private instead of yelling at them in front of their friends, how to correct them without demeaning them, protecting their feelings. Thirty-eight items were generated such that a total of 108 items served as the initial pool of statements. Of these, 54 ite ms each were generated to reflect work-tofamily facilitation and family-to-work facili tation. Twenty-three ro le attitude, 22 role experience, and 9 role skill items reflect ed family-to-work and work-to-family facilitation. Phase 3: Rating by Expert Judges A consensus estimate of interrater agreement for judges ratings of representativeness and of assigning items into categories was used. Consensus estimates

PAGE 56

are useful when different levels of the ra ting scale represent a lin ear continuum of the construct, but are ordinal in nature, such as the likert scale used by the judges in rating the representativeness of facilitation items. Consensus estimates are also useful as a measure of interrater reliability when data ar e nominal in nature and different levels of the rating scale represent qualitati vely different idea, as is th e case with the expert judges categorization of work-family facilitation ite ms. A typical guideline for evaluating the quality of interrater reliab ility based on percent agreemen t is that percent agreement should be 70% or greater (Stemler, 2004). For the judges ratings of representati veness, a modification of the percent agreement method for calculating consensus estimates was utilized. The method included adjacent scoring categories on the rating scale (i .e. as long as the ratings did not differ by more than one point above or below the othe r judges, the judges were said to have reached consensus). As noted by Stemler ( 2004), this method is beneficial because it relaxes the strict criterion that the judges ag ree exactly. While this approach can lead to inflated estimates of interrater reliability if there is a limited number of categories to choose from, it is an acceptable method is th e number of categories to choose from is greater than four. There was little agreement among th e four judges on ratings of the representativeness of items, with percent agreement re aching only 37%. When three judges at a time were considered, the values were not much higher, ranging from 33% to 48%. When two judges at a time were consider ed, the values were higher, but, with one exception, did not reach 70%. Judge 1 and J udge 2 percent agreement was 86%. Values for the other two judge combina tions ranged from 30% to 68%.

PAGE 57

Because there were only three categories for judges to choose from in categorizing items, a simple percent agreemen t was calculated based on exact agreement, e.g., all judges had to categorize the item the same. As with the judges ratings of representativeness, there was little agreement among the four judges in categorizing the items, with percent agreement reaching only 30%. When three judges at a time were considered, the values were not much higher, ranging from 30% to 58%. When two judges at a time were considered, the values were higher, but, with two exceptions, did not reach 70%. Judges 1 and 2 and Judges 1 and 3 percent agreement was 74% and 75% respectively. Values for the other two judge combinations ranged from 35% to 65%. Only when two judges (Judge 1 and Judge 2) were considered did the percent agreement with respect to item represen tativness and categorization surpass 70%. Therefore, only the ratings of Judge 1 and Judge 2 were used for item reduction purposes. Those items that these two judges rated as very repres entatives or completely representative of the construc t definition and classified th e same were retained. This analysis reduced the pool to 69 items: 32 from a total of 54 work-to-family facilitation items (8 role attitude, 17 role experience, and 7 role skill) and 37 from a total of 54 family-to-work facilitation items (8 role atti tude, 23 role experience and 6 role skill). Finally, the comments received from all four judges were reviewed and several items were reworded. Appendix O lists the 108 ite ms included in the final questionnaire distributed to study participants, and in cludes the classification of each item. There are several possible reasons for th e lack of agreement among the subject matter experts. First, as noted by Gwet (2001), the subject sample, in this case items, should be representative of the target subject universe, in this case the proposed

PAGE 58

dimensionality of work-family facilitation. The selection of items to include on the subject matter expert rating scales may have b een biased. In particul ar, not all items from the scales used in previous research were included in order to prevent significant redundancy in items. Perhaps those items that were excluded from this study may have been better exemplars of the dimensionality of work-family facilita tion and resulted in higher inter-rater agreement. Second, the lack of inter-ra te agreement suggests that the raters did not have a common interpretation of the constructs of interest. As noted by Stemler (2004), consensus estimates of inter-rater reliabi lity are based on the assumption that raters should be able to come to exact agreement about how to apply the various levels of a scoring choices to the items. A lack of traini ng on how to interpret th e constructs or items and on how to use the rating sc ale could have led to this lack of agreement. The procedure followed to obtain subject matter expe rt ratings and classification of items was not an interactive process. The subject matter experts may not have been provided sufficient information to ensure that they had a common interpretation of the definitions provided of the two components of work-family facilitation and the three dimensions of facilitation within each compone nt, leading to a lack of agre ement. In addition, the raters were also not afforded the opportunity to seek clarification on how to use the rating scale. Some of the raters may have been more expe rienced in the use of the rating procedures, leading to a lack of agreemen t. Additional training on the co nstructs to ensure a common interpretation and on the use of the rating s cale to ensure a common usage of the scale may have resulted in higher inter-rater agreement.

PAGE 59

Finally, in general, it is expected that raters from one professional group will agree among themselves to a greater extent than if they are included in a group with raters from different professional groups (Gwet, 2001). However length of experience and area of specialization may have an impact on inter-rater agreement. As previously mentioned, in the current study, raters may have been more like to classify an item as representative (or not repres entative) of work-family fac ilitation based on the knowledge and experience they have due to the number of years they have been studying the interrelationship between work and family life. The two raters who reached 86% agreement on the representativeness of items and 74% agreement on the categorization of items have been active in the study of work and family life from th e late seventies to early eighties. The other two ra ters entered the field in the mid-nineties. In addition, the raters have similar, but di fferent, areas of specialization. For example, although the two raters who reached agreement both are interest ed in work-family linkages, ones research interests focus on the sociology of the fam ily while the others focuses on career and adult life development. These rater specific ch aracteristics may have c ontributed to a lack of agreement between the rate rs. Rater selection techniques that take into account rater specific characteristics may have resulted in higher rater agreement. Dimensionality and Internal Consistency The Work-Family Facilitation Scale was analyzed in two ways. First, item analysis was conducted on each subscale a nd the total scale to examine internal consistency and homogeneity (i.e., alpha coeffici ents, correlations of each item with its assigned subscale and with the total scale, and su bscale intercorrelations). Second, factor

PAGE 60

analysis was conducted to determine whether the work-to-family f acilitation and familyto-work facilitation subscales were tapping two distinct di mensions of facilitation. Item Analysis The purpose of item analysis is to identify those items that measure the same construct and eliminate those items that do not measure the same construct (DeVellis, 1991; Spector, 1992). Standard psychometric analysis showed that the items on the Work-Family Facilitation Scale were highly re liable internally, both for the total scale (alpha = .98) and for the two subscales (wor k-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation, alpha = .96). The correlation between the two subscales was .73. The 69 items included in the Work-Family Facilitation Scale had item-total correlations ranging from .36 to .78, with 88% of the items having an item-total correlation greater than .50. The mean score on items ranged from 3.5 to 5.8. Examination of what alpha would be if an item was deleted showed that the deletion of any item would not improve alpha. Factor Analysis An exploratory factor analysis of the correlation matrix using principle factor analysis procedures with squared multiple correlation (SMC) communality estimates and oblique rotation was conducted. Factor analys is was performed to determine the factor structure and to determine wh ether addition items should be deleted. While a particular number and pattern of relationships was expected, which would support using confirmatory factor analysis (Rummel, 1988), the inability of the subject matter experts to reach agreement in categorizing the items, pa rticularly into the experience and attitude dimensions, led to a decision to use exploratory factor analysis to detect the structure of

PAGE 61

the data. Common factor analysis was chosen because it is more appropriate when the objective of the analysis is to extract a small number of fact ors to account for the intercorrelations among the observed variables to identify the latent dimensions that explain why the variables are correlated w ith each other (Rummel, 1970). The squared multiple correlation for each variable was used as it is the best estimate for initial commonalities both theoretically and empi rically (Rummel, 1970). In addition, an oblique rotation method was used because the item analysis showed that the components of work-family facilitation we re correlated at .73 and a co rrelation between the latent variables under examination wa s expected (Rummel, 1970). Four criteria were used to determine the number of factors to be extracted for the final factor solution: (a) Kaisers criterion (eigenvalues greater than 1.0), (b) scree test (examination of a plot of eigenvalues for noticeable drops), (c) percen tage of total variance explained, and (d) interpretability of the solu tion, using factor lo adings greater than or equal to .40 (Rummel, 1970). Bryant and Yarnold (1995) recommends th at the subjects-to-variables ratios should be no lower than 5 to 1 to have conf idence in the results of factor analysis. Because sample size was only 161, the maximum nu mber of items that could be retained for examination of the dimensionality of th e work-family facilitation scale was 32. To maintain a high level of internal consistenc y, the 30 items with th e highest correlations with the total scale were reviewed in conj unction with the 15 items from each of the subscales with the highest correlations with the total subscale. Items were selected for inclusion in additional explorat ory factor analysis procedur es if they were among the 30 highest correlations with the total scale and they were among the 15 highest correlations

PAGE 62

with their respective subscale. This process resulted in 26 items, 13 from each subscale. The work-to-family facilitation items repres ented each of the proposed dimensions as follows: 6 role skill items, 5 role experience it ems, and 2 role attitude items. The familyto-work facilitation item s represented each of the proposed dimensions as follows: 5 role skill items, 6 role experience item s, and 2 role attitude items. The 26 items were subjected to principle factor analysis procedure as described above to determine the impact of deletion of items on the factor structure and to determine if addition items should be dele ted. For both subscales, Kaisers criterion suggested that one factor was extracted, scree test suggested that one to four factors be retained, and percenta ge of variance explained suggest ed that after one factor was extracted the remaining vari ance was due to random error. The factor pattern and structure matrices of the one, two, and three factor solutions were examined. Tables 1, 2, and 3 present the pattern and structure coeffici ents from this exploratory factory analysis for the work-to-family facilitation subscale a nd Tables 4, 5, and 6 present the pattern and structure coefficients from th is exploratory factory analys is for the family-to-workfacilitation subscale. For the work-to-family facilitation items, a comparison of the results indicated that the one factor solution provided the most meaningful interpretation of the data. Although, for the most part, items loaded on onl y one factor for the two and three factor solutions, the factors were uninterpretable as the experience, skill, and attitude items did not cluster together. The one factor soluti on accounted for 61.37% of the total variance. For the family-to-work facilitation subscal e, a comparison of the results indicated that the two factor solution pr ovided the most meaningful interpretation of the data. The

PAGE 63

role experience and role att itude items had high loadings ranging from .52 to .84, on one factor, while the role skill items had high loadings, ranging from .48 to .95, on the other factor. The two factor solution accounted fo r 46.23% of the total variance, with the experience/attitude factor accounting for 24.86% and the skill factor accounting for 21.38% of the variance in the data. For the 26-item total scale, Kaisers cr iterion suggested th at two factors be retained, a scree test indicated that two to four factors be retained, and percentage of variance explained indicated that after two factors were extr acted the remaining variance was due to random error. Factor analysis of two, three, and four factor solutions were examined. A comparison of the results indicate d that the two factor solution provided the most meaningful interpretati on of the data, with the majority of the work-to-family facilitation items loading on one factor and the majority of the family-to-work facilitation items loading on the other factor. Tables 7, 8, and 9 present the pattern and structure coefficients from this ex ploratory factory analysis. The 13 items of the work-to-family f acilitation subscale had high loadings, ranging from .42 to .93, on one factor while the 13 items of the family-to-work facilitation subscale had high loadings, ra nging from .58 to .90, on the other factor. One item loaded equally on both factors and was de leted from further analysis. The two factor solution accounted for 53.49% of the total vari ance, with the work-to-family facilitation factor explaining 27.31% and the family-to-wo rk facilitation factor explaining 26.18% of the variance in the data. Coefficient alpha of the work-to-family facilitation subscale was.95 and item-whole correlations ranged from .65 to .86 with a mean of .76. Coefficient alpha of the family-to-work s ubscale was .95 and item-whole correlations

PAGE 64

Table 1. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients fo r the Initial 13-Item Work-to-Family Facilitation Subscale, One F actor Solution Item Factor 1 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.88 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.86 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for comple ting family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Ro le skills) 0.86 WFF26 The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experienc es) 0.84 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities he lps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colto n, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.82 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.77 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enab led me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.7 7 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work he lps me to more effectively accomplish fam ily tasks (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.76 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handl ing my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) 0.75 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by us ing behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L. & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.75 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.73 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better because I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) 0.70 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values requir ed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.66

PAGE 65

Table 2. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients fo r the Initial 13-Item Work-to-Family Facilitation Subscale, Two F actor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L. & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.99 -0.14 0.87 0.69 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better be cause I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) 0.91 -0.19 0.75 0.57 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.87 0.02 0.89 0.76 WFF26 The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.67 0.20 0.84 0.77 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.62 0.14 0.73 0.66 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.58 0.21 0.76 0.70 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.46 0.34 0.75 0.73 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handl ing my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) -0.12 0.91 0.64 0.81 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) -0.13 0.83 0.56 0.72 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) -0.02 0.80 0.65 0.79 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.05 0.76 0.69 0.80 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.32 0.59 0.82 0.86 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills) 0.36 0.54 0.81 0.69 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 66

Table 3. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients fo r the Initial 13-Item Work-to-Family Facilitation Subscale, Three Factor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) 0.73 0.12 0.00 0.81 0.61 0.52 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.71 -0.12 0.16 0.73 0.47 0.52 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.65 0.15 0.04 0.78 0.61 0.54 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.56 0.42 -0.12 0.77 0.72 0.50 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.48 0.36 0.15 0.82 0.78 0.68 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills) 0.46 0.30 0.22 0.79 0.75 0.70 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.32 0.26 0.31 0.68 0.67 0.67 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.00 0.80 0.17 0.64 0.92 0.70 WFF26 The learning experiences that I ha ve at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.13 0.73 0.09 0.67 0.87 0.65 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.11 0.55 0.17 0.58 0.73 0.60 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C. Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.31 -0.07 0.66 0.66 0.57 0.80 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better because I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) -0.04 0.20 0.66 0.50 0.61 0.77 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) -0.02 0.34 0.63 0.60 0.75 0.85 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 67

Table 4. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 13-Item Family-to-Work Facilitation Subscale, One F actor Solution Item Factor 1 FWF23 The learning experiences that I have in my family life he lp me effectively perform my work responsibilities. (Role experi ences) 0.85 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (H anson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role ski lls) 0.84 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work re sponsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 200 3, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.82 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.80 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.79 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. ( Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) 0.79 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.79 FWF13 The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colt on, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.77 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L B., 2003) (Role skills) 0.74 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with pe rsonal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.73 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have ma de me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, rew orded). (Role attitudes) 0.73 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to inte ract more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0 .66 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel th at I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes)Attitude 0.63

PAGE 68

Table 5. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 13-Item Family-to-Work Facilitation Subscale, Two Factor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.84 0.03 0.86 0.60 FWF23 The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.82 0.10 0.89 0.66 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) 0.70 0.08 0.76 0.56 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.69 0.10 0.75 0.57 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.58 0.31 0.79 0.70 FWF13 The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L ., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.53 0.30 0.74 0.67 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) Attitude 0.52 0.16 0.63 0.52 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) -0.07 0.95 0.58 0.90 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.13 0.79 0.67 0.88 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) 0.17 0.70 0.65 0.82 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.32 0.54 0.69 0.76 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) 0.32 0.49 0.65 0.71 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0.25 0.48 0.57 0.65

PAGE 69

Table 6. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 13-Item Family-to-Work Facilitation Subscale, Three Factor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.89 -0.01 0.03 0.90 0.58 0.55 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.72 0.10 0.13 0.87 0.65 0.63 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) 0.64 0.31 -0.06 0.81 0.68 0.53 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.48 0.14 0.30 0.74 0.64 0.67 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) 0.43 0.39 0.01 0.69 0.67 0.53 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) 0.03 0.68 0.11 0.53 0.77 0.59 FWF23 The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.04 0.66 0.27 0.62 0.87 0.74 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stev ens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) Attitude 0.12 0.63 -0.05 0.49 0.67 0.45 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.25 0.58 0.10 0.67 0.80 0.64 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.03 0.14 0.69 0.53 0.62 0.80 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) -0.04 0.41 0.56 0.55 0.77 0.82 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0.42 -0.15 0.51 0.63 0.46 0.66 FWF13 The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.24 0.27 0.37 0.64 0.68 0.70 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 70

Table 7. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Family Facilitation Scale, Two Factor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills) 0.93 -0.09 0.87 0.47 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.89 -0.01 0.88 0.52 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.87 0.01 0.87 0.53 WFF26 The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.84 0.02 0.85 0.53 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.79 -0.02 0.78 0.46 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.75 0.03 0.77 0.48 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in ha ndling my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) 0.74 0.02 0.76 0.47 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.73 0.13 0.81 0.58 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.71 0.09 0.77 0.52 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.65 0.18 0.76 0.57 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.60 0.21 0.73 0.58 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better be cause I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) 0.50 0.30 0.68 0.60 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize va lues required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.42 0.40 0.66 0.65 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) -0.09 0.90 0.45 0.85 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) -0.10 0.87 0.42 0.81 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.00 0.82 0.50 0.82 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsib ilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L ., & Hammer, L. B., 2003 reworded) (Role skills) 0.00 0.80 0.48 0.80

PAGE 71

Table 7. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Family Facilitation Scale, Two Factor Solution (Continued) Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) -0.02 0.76 0.44 0.75 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.12 0.72 0.55 0.79 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) 0.09 0.67 0.49 0.72 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.26 0.63 0.64 0.78 FWF13 The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.22 0.62 0.60 0.76 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0.08 0.62 0.45 0.66 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.19 0.59 0.55 0.71 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) Attitude 0.10 0.58 0.45 0.64 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 72

Table 8. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Family Facilitation Scale, Three Facto r Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills) 0.87 -0.07 0.07 0.88 0.40 0.53 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.86 0.16 -0.21 0.81 0.46 0.35 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.84 0.01 0.06 0.89 0.46 0.55 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) 0.80 0.17 -0.17 0.79 0.47 0.38 WFF26 The learning experiences that I ha ve at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.75 -0.03 0.18 0.84 0.44 0.59 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.73 -0.09 0.29 0.85 0.42 0.65 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.71 0.05 0.07 0.77 0.43 0.49 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.63 0.19 0.06 0.76 0.53 0.52 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C. Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.61 0.00 0.25 0.75 0.43 0.59 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.44 0.02 0.42 0.69 0.45 0.68 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.43 0.39 0.06 0.65 0.63 0.51 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.04 0.90 -0.09 0.42 0.87 0.40 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.01 0.88 0.01 0.44 0.89 0.48 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) 0.06 0.75 0.06 0.47 0.82 0.49

PAGE 73

Table 8. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Family Facilitation Scale, Three Facto r Solution (Continued) Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.13 0.62 0.17 0.53 0.77 0.57 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L. & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) -0.04 0.59 0.28 0.40 0.72 0.56 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) -0.08 0.58 0.41 0.44 0.76 0.67 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0.11 0.55 0.10 0.44 0.66 0.46 FWF13 The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.20 0.52 0.20 0.57 0.72 0.59 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.07 0.29 0.61 0.56 0.65 0.81 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better because I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) 0.29 0.00 0.58 0.62 0.45 0.75 FWF23 The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.03 0.41 0.56 0.56 0.73 0.80 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) -0.07 0.35 0.56 0.42 0.61 0.70 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.51 -0.12 0.53 0.76 0.41 0.76 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.05 0.31 0.51 0.49 0.60 0.70 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) Attitude -0.04 0.30 0.50 0.39 0.54 0.63 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 74

Table 9. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Famil y Facilitation Scale, Four Factor Solution Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 WFF18 My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills) 0.85 -0.08 0.04 0.18 0.86 0.38 0.51 0.30 WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) 0.83 0.21 -0.26 0.12 0.80 0.47 0.35 0.26 WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.80 -0.04 0.06 0.25 0.86 0.43 0.54 0.38 WFF26 The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.80 0.07 0.09 -0.09 0.87 0.46 0.56 0.07 WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.79 0.00 0.19 -0.11 0.88 0.44 0.62 0.06 WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) 0.72 0.10 -0.15 0.34 0.73 0.44 0.39 0.45 WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my work responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) 0.65 0.26 0.00 -0.04 0.77 0.55 0.51 0.14 WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibilities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.62 -0.10 0.12 0.41 0.71 0.37 0.50 0.51 WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) 0.60 -0.04 0.23 0.12 0.74 0.41 0.58 0.26 WFF24 The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.58 -0.09 0.48 -0.09 0.79 0.42 0.73 0.08 WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) 0.45 -0.04 0.42 0.09 0.68 0.43 0.67 0.24

PAGE 75

Table 9. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Famil y Facilitation Scale, Four Factor Solution (Continued) Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) 0.03 0.92 -0.07 -0.01 0.41 0.89 0.46 0.24 FWF03 Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) -0.03 0.81 0.08 0.14 0.40 0.88 0.55 0.38 FWF06 I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) 0.06 0.74 0.09 0.02 0.45 0.82 0.55 0.26 FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) 0.15 0.63 0.17 -0.05 0.53 0.78 0.60 0.19 FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Han son, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) 0.01 0.63 0.27 -0.17 0.42 0.74 0.59 0.07 FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) 0.06 0.46 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.64 0.50 0.35 FWF13 The increased competen ce I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) 0.15 0.38 0.28 0.25 0.53 0.68 0.64 0.45 FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.08 0.16 0.67 0.11 0.55 0.61 0.83 0.31 FWF23 The learning experiences th at I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) 0.03 0.27 0.64 0.13 0.54 0.69 0.84 0.35 FWF24 The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) -0.07 0.22 0.63 0.11 0.41 0.57 0.74 0.29 FWF22 The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) 0.05 0.20 0.56 0.10 0.48 0.57 0.72 0.29

PAGE 76

Table 9. Factor Analysis Pattern and Structure Coefficients for the Initial 26-Item Work-Famil y Facilitation Scale, Four Factor Solution (Continued) Pattern Structure Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 WFF22 My interactions with my family are better because I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) 0.37 0.03 0.53 -0.16 0.66 0.46 0.73 0.02 FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) Attitude 0.00 0.25 0.52 -0.05 0.40 0.53 0.65 0.14 FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) -0.10 0.43 0.50 0.16 0.41 0.72 0.73 0.38 WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) 0.32 0.19 0.17 0.48 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.62 Note: values in bold indicate item loads on factor. Values in bold and italics indicates factor could load on more than one fac tor loading > 0.40 criteria.

PAGE 77

ranged from .61 to .82 with a mean of .74. Th e correlation between the two subscales was .69. Because excessive redundancy within each subscale was undesirable and the subscales showed high internal reliability, it was decided that there was little advantage to retaining all of the 25 items. C onsequently, the 8 items with the highest factor loadings representing the three dimensions (role expe rience, role skill, and role attitude) of facilitation were retained for subsequent analysis. The 16 items were subjected to principle factor analysis procedure as described above to determine the impact of deletion of items. A comparison of the results of the 26 item and the 16 item factor analysis solutions showed that the subscales and total scale had essentially the same prope rties as the subscales and 26 items scale. The one-factor solution best described the work-to-family facilitation data and the two factor solution best described the family-to-work facilitati on data. The 8 items of the work-to-family facilitation subscale had high loadings, rangi ng from .47 to .89, on one factor while the 8 items of the family-to-work facilitation s ubscale had high loadings, ranging from .60 to .91, on the other factor. The two factor so lution accounted for 56.05% of the total variance, with the work-to-family facilitati on factor explaining 28.62% and the family-towork facilitation factor explaining 27 .42 % of the variance in the data. The final version of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale consisted of two subscales, work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilit ation, each with three role experience items, three role skill items and two role attitude items. Items for this version of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale are presen ted in Table 10. Subsequent analysis suggested that the final version of the Work-Family F acilitation Scale has

PAGE 78

Table 10. The Work-Family Facilitation Scale Work-Family Facilitation Subscale 1. My job develops skills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities. (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded) 2. I am better able to perform my family responsibilities as a result of skills acquired at work. (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003) 3. The skills that I have developed at work help me perform my family responsibilities. 4. The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. 5. My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful in my family life. (Sumer, & Knight, 2001, reworded) 6. The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities. (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003) 7. Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities. 8. My interactions with my family are better because I have felt good about myself at work. Family-Work Facilitation Subscale 1. Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003) 2. The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. 3. I am better able to perform my work responsibilities as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003, reworded) 4. Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) 5. The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. 6. The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. 7. The positive characteristics I have developed at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded) 8. I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) substantial reliability. Coefficient alpha of the workto-family facilitation subscale was.94 and item-whole correlations ranged from .65 to .86 with a mean of .78. Coefficient alpha of the family-to-work subscale was .92 and item-whole correlations ranged from .61 to .82 with a mean of .73. The two subscales of the work-family facilitation scale were moderately correlated (.59), which, in conjunction with the results of the exploratory factor analysis, sugges ts some distinctiveness between the two subscales.

PAGE 79

Construct Validity Assessment Descriptive Information Zero-order correlations were employe d to study the ge neral pattern of relationships between demogr aphic characteristics and th e work-family facilitation subscales. The demographic variables included age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital status, children under the age of 18 livi ng at home, tenure in position, tenure in organization, occupational le vel, and type of position. Th e mean, standard deviation, range and correlation with each direction of work-family facilitation are reported in Table 11. Only one demographic variable, ethnicity, was significantly and it was negatively correlated with work-to-family facilitation ( r = -16 p < .05). with ethnic minorities reporting greater work-to-family facilitation than whites. However, the finding with respect to ethnicity s hould be interpreted with caution given the small number of subjects in the sample that were members of a minority group (38 of 166). The remaining demographic variables correlations with work -to-family facilitation ranged from .02 to .14, and six of the nine were in a nega tive direction. The demographic variables Table 11. Demographic Variables Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Correlation with Work-Family Facilitation Variable Mean Std Dev Range Correlation With Correlation With Work-to-Family Family-to-Work Facilitation Facilitation Age 43.18 9.47 22 to 71 .03 .06 Gender .70 .46 0 to 1 -.07 .07 Ethnicity 3.60 .84 0 to 1 -.16* -.04 Education 3.24 1.35 1 to 5 -.07 -.10 Marital Status .16 .37 0 to 1 -.02 .05 Children at Home .71 .45 0 to 1 .05 -.04 Work Type 2.33 1.24 1 to 6 .02 .01 Position Type 1.50 .50 1 to 2 -.04 .02 Position Tenure 4.85 5.71 .13 to 32.66 -.14 -.03 Organization Tenure 8.04 7.21 .13 to 32.66 -.05 .01 N= 161 p < .05

PAGE 80

Table 12. Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, and Internal Consistency Variable Mean Std Dev Range Internal Consistency Home Chores 19.67 10.75 2 to 58 N/A No. of Children 1.17 .99 0 to 5 N/A Parental Demands 10.07 13.32 0 to 60 N/A Work Hours 50.06 8.25 36.25 to 77.50 N/A Work Schedule Flexibility 4.48 1.61 2 to 8 .67 Work-Family Conflict 18.27 7.25 5 to 35 .89 Family-Work Conflict 15.90 6.42 5 to 35 .86 Work Overload 16.79 6.98 5 to 35 .90 Work Autonomy 16.25 3.87 3 to 21 .72 Job Satisfaction 21.89 6.36 5 to 35 .80 Family Satisfaction 119.30 14.45 67 to 140 .90 Life Satisfaction 24.16 6.66 8 to 35 .89 Psychological Distress 30.65 9.04 20 to 73 .89 Work-to-Family Facilitation 34.39 9.62 8 to 56 .94 Family-to-Work Facilitation 39.33 8.37 8 to 56 .92 N=161 were not significantly correlated with family -work facilitation, with correlations ranging from .01 to .10, and four of the te n were in a negative direction. The mean, standard deviation, range, and internal consistency estimates for the work and non-work constructs included in th is study are reported in Table 12. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbachs alpha for each measure. One of the scales, work schedule flexibility, had internal consistenc y less than the .70 significance guidelines suggested by Nunnally (1978) for explorat ory research. The internal consistency estimates for the other variables were within the acceptable range for survey research,ranging from .72 (work autonomy) to .94 (work-to-family f acilitation). Becasue the work schedule flexibility scale consisted of only two items, the low reliability of this scale could be due to the scale being too shor t or because the items have very little in common (Nunnally, 1978).

PAGE 81

Correlations The zero-order correlations between all study variables are reported in Table 13. Work constructs Negative correlations were predic ted between work overload and the work-to-family facilitation and family-towork facilitation scales. The correlation between work overload and family-to-work facilitation was significant and in the predicted direction (r = -.15, p < .05). It was predicted th at work autonomy, time spent in paid work, work schedule fl exibility, and job satisfacti on would positively correlated with the work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation scales. Two of the eight correlations pertaining to these predictions were si gnificant. Work autonomy and job satisfaction (r= .15, p < .05 and r = .36, p < .01, respectively) was significantly correlated with work-to-family facilitation, as predicted. Nonwork Constructs Work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict were predicted to be unrelated to work-to-family facilitati on and family-to-work f acilitation, or if there was a relationship, it would be weak. This prediction was supported. Of the four correlations pertaining to thes e predictions, two were signif icant, and those relationship was weak. Work-family conflict was significantly correlated with family-to-work facilitation ( r = -.16, p < .05) and family-work conflict wa s significantly correlated with work-to-family facilitation ( r = .15, p < .05). Psychological distress was predicted to be negatively related to the work-tofamily facilitation and family-to-work fac ilitation scales. Of the two correlations pertaining to this prediction, one was signifi cant. Psychological dist ress was significantly correlated with family-to-work facilita tion and in the pred icted direction ( r = -.16, p < .05).

PAGE 82

Table 13. Correlations Between Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 Work-to-Family Facilitation 2 Family-to-Work Facilitation .59** 3 Home Chores -.01 .06 4 No. of Children .11 .05 .14 5 Parental Demands -.06 .001 .12 .43* 6 Work Hours -.11 -.02 -.07 .06 -.003 7 Work Schedule Flexibility -.13 -.06 .09 -.003 .07 .22** 8 Work-Family Conflict -.04 -.14 -.04 .12 .02 .30** .19** 9 Family-Work Conflict .16* -.01 .08 .21** .04 .06 .09 .61** 10 Work Overlaod .02 -.15* .11 .04 -.03 .14 .13 .39** .28** 11 Work Autonomy .15* .01 .05 -.10 -.08 -.12 -.16* -.13 .02 .01 12 Job Satisfaction .36** .07 -.03 .08 -.06 .07 -.19** -.02 -.001 -.08 .34** 13 Family Satisfaction .02 .21** -.07 -.14 -.20** .03 -.03 -.22** -.34** -.02 .14 .10 14 Life Satisfaction .22** .17** -.07 -.16* -.15* -.03 -.10 -. 19** -.21** -.13 .19** .34** .48** 15 Psychological Distress -.13 -.16* .07 .05 .09 -.11 -.04 .13 .22** .07 -.12 -.17* -.48** -.54** N = 161 p < .05 ** p < .01

PAGE 83

Parental demands was predicted to be negatively related to family-to-work facilitation and to be unrelat ed to work-to-family fac ilitation. Partial support was provided for these predictions. The correlati on between parental demands and work-tofamily facilitation was not significant, however the predicted relationship between parental demands and family-to-wo rk facilitation wa s not supported. Number of children living at home, numbe r of hours spent in household chores, life satisfaction, and family satisfaction were predicted to be positively correlated with the work-to-family facilitation and family-t o-work facilitation scales. Of the eight correlations pertaining to these predictions three were significant. The positive correlations pertaining to th e predictions between life sa tisfaction and work-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation were significant ( r = .22, p < .01 and r = .17, p > .05, respectively) and family satisfaction was significantl y correlated with family-towork facilitation ( r = .21, p < .01). Correlational Tests Three predictions were made regarding the strength of the relationship between work-family facilitation a nd job satisfaction, psychologi cal distress, and family satisfaction. Specifically, it was predicted that work-to-family facilitation would be more strongly related with job satisfaction and psychological distress than family-to-work facilitation and that family-to-work facil itation would be more strongly related with family satisfaction than work-to-family faci litation. To test these predictions, t tests between dependent correlati ons (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p 56-57) were performed. One of the three predictions regarding the streng th of the relationships described above was supported by the results of the t-tests between correlations. Work-to-family facilitation

PAGE 84

was more highly correlated with job satisfac tion than was family-towork facilitation, t (158) = 2.231, p < .05.

PAGE 85

DISCUSSION Summary As the research on work and family life has evolved there has been a growing interest in examining not only work-family c onflict, but also work -family facilitation. A measure of work-family facilitation is notic eably absent. This study reports on the design and validation the Work-Family Facilitation Scal e, which consists of short, self-report measures of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. To this end, eight-item subscales of work-t o-family facilitation and fam ily-to-work facilitation were developed. Dimensionality and Internal Consistency The work-family facilitation scale was designed to measure two types of facilitation, work-to-family and family-to-wo rk. Each domain of work-family facilitation was also theorized to consist of three dimens ions, role skills, role experience, and role attitude. Content validation of the items developed to capture the two domains of facilitation was conducted using methods suggested by Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian (1996). The results of scale refineme nt (item analysis and exploratory factor analysis) confirmed the reliability of the scores on the facilitation subscales and provide support for two domains of facilitation. The inte rnal consistency of the two subscales of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale was good, indi cating that the items were satisfactory related with each other in te rms of measuring facilitation. In addition, the Work-Family

PAGE 86

Facilitation Scale appears to tap two distin ct forms of facilitation: work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilita tion. As noted by Frone (2003), integrative research on work-family facili tation clearly shows that it is important to distinguish between the two directions of influence, bot h types of work-family facilitation must be examined. These results contribute to estab lishing the discriminate validity of the measure. Results support previous findings that facilitation from work to family and from family to work are two separate c onstructs that occur simultaneously. However, the results did not support th e proposed three dimensions (skill, experience, and attitude) of facilitation. The family-to-work facilitation subscale appears to tap two dimensions, one capturing the transf er of skills from the family to work and the other capturing the expe rience encountered in the family and the emotional gratification received by part icipation in the family. Because experience and attitude are highly related to each other, in the sense that an individuals experiences have a significant impact on his or her attitude to ward self and personal worth, it may be difficult to capture these latent variable s as separate dimensions of facilitation. The work-to-family facilitation subscale appears to tap one dimension. Because the items for the two subscales were simila r in wording and structure, it would be expected that the same dimensions would ha ve emerged. The reasons the work-to-family facilitation scale did not show the same dimensions as the family-to-work facilitation scale may be because there was restriction in range in use of the response categories. An examination of mean score of the items on each subscale, showed that for the work-tofamily facilitation subscale, the mean scor e for 27 of the 32 items was between 4.1 and 4.8, within the neither agree nor disagree respon se range of the scale. This was not the

PAGE 87

case for the family-to-work faci litation scale, in which over half of the items the mean score was greater than 5, slight ly agree to agree. This suggest s, that for this sample, in general, work is not perceived as facilit ating participation in the family role. Construct Validity Assessment The results from construct validation efforts provide some limited support for the newly developed measure. For work constr ucts and nonwork constructs, some of the relationships obtained provide partial evid ence of construct validity. Ten of the 26 predicted relationships were supported. With respect to the findings regarding the relationship between work-family conflict and work-family fac ilitation, the work-family facilitation subscales were, in general, unrelated to work-f amily conflict. Only one signi ficant relationship was found: there was a weak, positive corr elation between family-work conflict and work-to-family facilitation. Perhaps, for this sample, indivi duals experiencing more family-work conflict are more cognizant of and rely on the skills, experiences, an d attitudes associated with their work role to facilitate their family life. The lack of a relationship between workconflict and work-facilitation provides support fo r the belief that conf lict and facilitation are independent of each other and that they can occur simultaneously. In addition, these results contribute to demonstrating the di scriminant validity of the measure. With respect to the relationship betw een work constructs and work-family facilitation, only three of the te n predicted relationships were significant. Consistent with prior research, work overload was inversel y related to family-to-work facilitation (Voydanoff, 2004a). Individuals who reported lo wer overall work overload also tended to have higher levels of family-to-work facili tation. This suggests that the more family

PAGE 88

facilitates ones abilities to participate in their work role the better able they are to manage work overload. In addition, consistent with prior rese arch, work autonomy and job satisfaction had a positive correlation with work-tofamily facilitation (Brookwood, Hammer, & Neal, 2003; Fisher-McAuley et al. 2003; Voydanoff, 2004a 2004b), providing additional support for construct validity. These results demonstrate that individuals who report higher overall work autonomy and job satisfac tion also tend to have higher levels of work-to-family facilitation. This expands on the work by Brookwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), who studied four dimensions of j ob quality (job security, pay, challenge, and supportive environment) and the work by Gr ywacz and Marks (2000a), who studied two dimensions of job quality (decision latitude a nd pressure at work). Thus, as suggested by Brookwood, Hammer, and Neal (2003), work-t o-family facilitation can possibly be increased by making changes to the quality of ones job, such as increasing autonomy. For the relationship between work-family facilitation and nonwork constructs, four of the 12 predicted relationships were si gnificant. Consistent with previous research, psychological distress was inversely related to family-to-work facilitation (Gryzwacz, 2000; Stephens & Franks, 1995), life satisfac tion had a positive relationship with both work-to-family facilitation and family-towork facilitation (Hanson, Colton, & Hammer, 2003; Wayne, Randal, & Stevens, 2003), and family satisfaction had a positive correlation with family-to-wo rk facilitation (Wayne, Mu sisca, & Fleeson, 2003). These results contribute to the growing ev idence that there are unique correlates of each direction of work-fam ily facilitation. Work-to-family facilitation was related to job satisfaction, while family-to-work was not In addition, family-to-work facilitation

PAGE 89

was related to family satisfaction, while work-t o-family facilitation was not. These results are consistent with previous research and provides suppor t for the proposal of Wayne, Randal, and Stevens (2003), that when individua ls make attributes about the benefits of one role to the other, this primarily results in a more positive affect and behavioral investment in the role seen as providing the benefit. Consistent w ith previous research, work autonomy was related to work-to-fam ily facilitation and adding to the existing research family to work facilitation was not related to work autonomy. Previous research has not examined this relationship. These resu lts contribute to the evidence that there are different correlates for each direction of facilitation. In addition, this study adds to the existing research on the correlates of family to work facilitation. Prev ious research has not examined the relationship between work overload and family to work facilitation. As noted previously, because work overload tends to lead to both psychological and physic al unavailability at home and has a negative effect on the quality of the family role, then family-to-work facilitation may be less likely to occur. Finally, this study contributes to the re search by providing additional support for the relationship between fac ilitation and life satisfaction. Consistent with the study by Sumer and Knight (2001), both directions of facilitation had a significant positive correlation with life satisfaction. The lack of support for work hours and wo rk-schedule flexibility may be due to the characteristics of the participants wo rk organization. For example, according to discussions with the universitys personnel office, for most support positions at the university, overtime is prohibited (employees ar e required to take time off at a later date),

PAGE 90

and while having a policy allowing for flexible work schedules, very few units have approved flexible work schedule on a permanent basis. Because 51% of the sample held non-supervisory positions, it is possible that there is a rest riction in range for responding to the work hours and work schedule flexib ility items, which may have resulted in deflated correlations (Nu nnally, 1988). For instance, for work hours (number of hours spent in work activities in the work place and at home plus time spent per week commuting), for this sample there is a la rge response range, 36.25 to 77.5 hours, with a mean of 50.06 and standard deviation of 8.25. Examination of the present samples reported work hours shows that 70% of the s ubjects reporting fewer than 50 work hours per week, indicating that only a portion of the potential rang e is used, mostly in the middle with a few extremes. With respect to the predicted positive relationships between family-to-work facilitation and the work cons tructs job satisfac tion and work autonomy, contradictory results have been reported in the facilita tion research. For work autonomy, none of the studies reviewed specifically examined th e relationship between work autonomy and family-to-work facilitation. S upport for this prediction was dr awn from research on workfamily fit, which found work autonomy had a positive correlation with work-family fit. With regard to job satisfaction, while some researchers have report a positive relationship between family-to-work facilitation and job satisfaction (Brookwood, Hammer, & Neal, 2003), others have not found such support (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003; Wayne, Randal, & Stevens, 2003). Additional research is required to examine further whether and how work autonomy and job satisfaction are related to family-to-facilitation.

PAGE 91

Although the predicted significant negativ e correlation betw een psychological distress and work-to-family facilitation was not found, the relationshi p between these two variables was, as previous ly noted, in the predicted direction and approached significance. Additional resear ch is required to further examine this relationship. As stated previously, existing measures of work-to-family facilitation and familyto-work facilitation have varied widely in terms of reliability and validity, potentially affecting the predictive validity of these scal es. The measures developed in the present study have some distinct advantages over work -to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation scales used in previous research. First, some studies have used two to three item measures of the constructs (Stephens, Franks, & Atienza, 1997;Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b). It is widely held that such measures suffer from poor reliability and ma y not adequately assess the domain of the construct (Nunnally, 1978; Schriesheim et al ., 1993). The measures developed here are multi-item, exhibit adequate levels of internal consistency, and assess the domain of some commonly agreed on aspects of work-to-fa mily facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Second, other studies have used measures th at have not been subjected to rigorous scale development (Brookwood, Hammer, & Neal, 2003; Voydanoff, 2004a, 2004b). Although these measures do seem to possess ad equate content and in ternal consistency, they have not been scrutinized as rigorously with respect to construct validity as the work-to-family facilitation and family-to-wo rk facilitation subscal es presented here. Furthermore, the coefficient alpha estimates of these other work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation m easures were generally lower than the coefficient alpha

PAGE 92

estimates of the work-facilitation subscales developed in this study. For example, Wayne, Musisca, and Fleeson (2004) reported alpha estimates of .72 and .68 for four-item measures of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Grzywacz (2000) reported alpha estimates of .70 and .73 for four-item measures of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. As stated above, coefficient alpha of .94 for work-to-family facilitation and .92 for family -to-work facilitation were found in this study. Limitations and Future Research The study presented here is not without lim itations. First, all measures relating to variables other than work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation in this study were of a self report nature, and this study was nonexperimental in design. Because only experiments can offer evidence of causali ty, all that can be concluded from this study is that the work-to-family facilitation a nd family-to-work facilitation are related to these work and nonwork constructs at one poi nt in time. A second limitation is that the measures of the variables studied were fr om the same questionnaire which leaves the findings open to the standard criticism associat ed with most self-report survey research, that one is simply correlati ng one part of a questionnaire with another. As noted by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992a), the magnit ude of the relationships may be inflated because of common method variance. Response c onsistency effects may also be present, because of general personality dispositions, which could cause an inflation in the magnitude of the relationships (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). A more rigorous study should involve multiple methods to gather data, such as subjects completi ng diaries detailing the frequency with which certain events or act ivities occur over a given period of time;

PAGE 93

having both the subject and spouse or othe r family member completing comparable surveys on such family characteristics as family support or division of household responsibilities; and supervisors providing data on work variables such as decision latitude and organization support. An additional limitation based on the characteristics of the sample may be bias associated with nonresponse. As noted previ ously, the response rate was only 8%. As noted by Donald (1960, cited in Fowler, 1988), one clear generalization for mail surveys is that people who have a particular interest in the subject matter of the research are more likely to return questionnaires than those w ho are less interested in the subject matter. Therefore, the subject matter of this research may not have been of interest to this sample and could have biased the results. Future research needs to further establish the discriminant validity of the scales, i.e., that work-family facilitation does not co rrelate significantly with variables from which it should differ, such as work-family c onflict. In addition, validation of the scales across numerous occupations and organizati ons is needed to determine validity generalization, i.e., that the relationships re ported in this stu dy between work-family facilitation and the work and non-work va riables are the same across studies and populations. It is hoped that further valida tion will lend confidence to the use of the scales, as well as add to the generalizability of work-to-fam ily facilitation and family-towork facilitation research. Future research should also explore additional antecedents of work-family facilitation. Research on the antecedents of facilitation is sorely missing. The lack of support for the predicted relationship between work-family facilitation and parental

PAGE 94

demands, number of children living at home, and number of hours spent in household chores may be due to the measurement of these constructs. For example, parental demands and number of hours spent in house hold chores was based on the participants self-reported number of hours engaged in each activity. Future research should focus on better measures of intrafamily functioning in order to examine whether and how role responsibilities and demands are rela ted to work-family facilitation. In order to compete successfully in th e job market, organizations may need to develop personnel strategies a nd policies that enhance fam ily facilitating work. This involves identifying the mechanisms by which sk ills, experiences and attitudes transfer to enhanced work life. Rather than focusing on parental demands or age and number of children, future research should focus on the relationship between other family characteristics and facilitation. Several resear chers have outlined the characteristics of strong, healthy families. For example, S tinnett and DeFrain (1985) identified six strengths that are present in healthy fa milies: 1) commitment, 2) appreciation, 3) communication, 4) time together 5) spiritual wellness, and 6) coping with crisis.Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, and Wilson (1983) outlined seven marital and family strengths: 1) family pride, 2) family support, 3) cohesion, 4) adaptability, 5) communication, 6) religious orientation, and 7) social support. Atte ntion should be paid to how certain family and marital strengths are associated with le vels of facilitation between family and work. In addition, other family characteristic s that should be considered include employment status of spouse, blended fam ilies, responsibility for grandchildren, and responsibility for aging parents. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2000

PAGE 95

there were approximately 28.3 million dual earner families with their own children under the age of 18, while there were approxima tely 16.7 million families with children under the age of 18 where only the husband or wi fe was employed (2001, Table 2). In addition, there has been an increase in the number of single parents who maintain families. In 2000 the number of families maintained by women was 12.7 million, while the number of families maintained by men was 3.5 million (U.S Census Bureau, 2001, Table P063). In addition, 2000 U.S. Census data shows that 42% of grandparents (over 2 million) are responsible for their own grandchildren under 18 years of age, over 1.3 million of which are in the paid labor fo rce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table PCT018). Finally, increasingly adult child ren are being called upon to provide some sort of care and support to aged parents (Barber, 1980). In order to identify the family characteristics that lead to enhanced work life, research on the dynamics of work and family life needs to include an examination of the different family types a nd the family network structures (extended network, family of origin network, and conjugal network) in the different family types. Future research should also include a dditional personal traits. Research has demonstrated that personality traits such as extroversion and neuroticism are related to facilitation between the work and family roles (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000b; Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2003), that there are differences in faci litation based on attachment style (Sumer & Knight, 2001), and that copyi ng strategies are diffe rentially related to facilitation (Wayne, Randal, & Stevens, 2003). However, there has been no research on the relationship between facilita tion and such personal traits as hardiness, work ethics, gender role attitude, and temperament. As proposed by Grzywacz and Marks (2000b), different individual characteristics may modera te the effect of contextual factors on

PAGE 96

work-family interactions, and hence facilitation. If the goal is to understand the negative and positive interactions in the work-fam ily interface, knowledge of how individual characteristics account for the propensity of individuals to experien ce or report work and family conflict or facilitation is needed. Finally, future research is needed to fo cus on identifying work role experiences in different vocations that may contribute to facilitation. As noted by Greenhaus and Powell (in press), studies suggest that many indi viduals experience work -family facilitation, however they do not necessarily indicate th e types of role expe riences that produce positive experiences and outcomes in the role. If work characteristics of certain occupations lend themselves to increased or decreased facilitation and conflict, then identifying those work characteristics ma y be useful in the design of workplace interventions intended to increase facilita tion and reduce conflict. For example, role experiences and skills transferred from occ upations in the hospitality industry may be quite different from role experiences and sk ills transferred from occupations in the engineering field.

PAGE 97

LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(4) 411-420. Alpert, D., & Culbertson, A. (1987). Daily hassles and coping strategies of dualearner and nondual-earner women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11 359-366. Aryee, 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. Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & C onley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12 39-53. Barber, C. E. (1980). Adult children and ag ed parents: proposals for strengthening family relationships in later life. Family Perspective, 14 (4), 111-117. Barnett, R. C. (1994). Home-to-work sp illover revisited: a study of full-time employed women in dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 647656. Barnett, R. C. (1998). Toward a revi ew and reconceptualization of the work/family literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 124(2), 125-158. Barnett, R. C. (1999). A new work-lif e model for the twen ty-first century. The Annals of the American Academy 562, 143-158. .Barnett, R. C., & Chen, Y. (1997). Ge nder, highand low-schedule control housework tasks, and psychological dist ress: a study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Family Issues, 18 (4), 403-428. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. ( 2001). Women, men, work, and family: an expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781-796. Barnett, R. C., & Marshall, N. L. (1992) Worker and mother roles, spillover effects, and psychological distress. Women and Health. 18(2), 9-40.

PAGE 98

Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., & Sayer, A. (1992). Positive-spillover effects from job to home: a closer look. Women and Health, 19 (2/3), 13-41. 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 475491. Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute. Brennan, E. M., & Rosenzweig (1990). Women and work: toward a new developmental model. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 71, 524-533. Brockwood, K. J., Hammer, L. B ., & Neal, M. B. (2003, April). An examination of positive work-family facilitation among dual-earner couples in the sandwiched generation Paper presented at the 18th annual conferences of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. ( 1995). Principal-component analysis and exploratory and confirmatory f actor analysis. In Grimm, L. G. & Yarnold, P. R., (Eds.) Reading and understanding multivariate statistics Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: do life role values make a difference? Journal of Management, 26(5) 10311054. 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. Carver, M. D., & Jones, W. H. (199 2). The family satisfaction scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 20(2) 71-84. Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultu res and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 348-365. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coeffici ent alpha? An examination of theory and application. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1) 98-104. Coser, L., & Coser, R. L. (1974). Greedy Institutions. New York: Free Press.

PAGE 99

Crouter, A. C. (1984). Spillover from fam ily to work: The negative side of the work-family interface. Human Relations, 37 425-442. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: theory and application. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, Inc.. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment. 49(1), 71-75. Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 178-199. Emmons, C., Biernat, M., Tiedje, L. B., Lang, E. L., & Wortman, C. B. (1990). Stress, support, and coping among women prof essionals with preschool children. In J. Eckenrod & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. 61-94). New York: Plenum Press. Families and Work Institute (2002). Generation and gender in the workplace New York: American Business Collaboration. Fisher-McAuley, G., Stanton, J. M., Jo lton, J. A., & Gavin, J. (2003, April). Modeling the relationship between work/l ife balance and org anizational outcomes Paper presented at the 18th annual conferences of the Societ y for Industrial a nd Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Fowler, F. J. (1988). Survey research methods Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., & Scharlach, A. E. (2001). Families and work: new directions in the tw enty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press. Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Work and Family Allies or Enemies?: what happens when business professionals confront life choices? New York: Oxford University Press. Frone, M. R. (2003), Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992a). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflic t: testing a model of th e work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 65-78. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992b). Prevalence of work-family conflict: are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 723-729.

PAGE 100

Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociologi cal Review, 25 483-496. Googins, B., & Burden, F. (1987). Vulnerab ility of working parents: balancing work and home roles. Social Work, 32, 295-300. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (in pres s). When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review. Grzywacz, J. G. (2000). Work-family sp illover and health during midlife: is managing conflict everything? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(4), 236-243. Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work-family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor-force. Family Relations, 51, 28-36. Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. (2003). Wo rk, family, and mental health: testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 248-262. Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. (2003, April). Job characteristics, individual resources, and work to family facili tation: a test of preliminary theory Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Grzywacz, J. G., Johnson, D., & Hartwig, A. (2002). Work-family linkages and problem drinking among adults: evide nce from a large diary study. Paper presented at the Research on Families, Workplace, and Co mmunities Conference, San Francisco, CA. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000a). Family, work, work-family spillover, and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 336-348. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000b). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological perspective on the co rrelates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111-126. Guest, D. E. (2001). Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Paper presented at the 2001 ENOP Symposium, Paris, France. Gwet, K. (2001). Handbook of interrater reliability. Gaithersburg, MD: STATAXIS Publishing Co. Hackman J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Publishing Co. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E., & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dualearner couples: within-individual and cr ossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 185-203.

PAGE 101

Hammer, L. B., & Neal, M. B. (2003, April). Sandwiched generation caregivers: prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes. Paper presented at the 18th annual conferences of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B. (2003, April). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale of work-family positive spillover. Paper presented at the 18th annual conferences of the Societ y for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Martinson, V., & Ferris, M. (2003). Studying working fathers: comparing fathers and mothers work-family conflict, fit, and adaptive strategies in a global high-tech company. Fathering, 1 (3), [On-line] Available: http://findarticles.com/fathering/Oct, 2003. Kandel, D. B., Davies, M., & Raveis, V. H. (1985). The stressfulness of daily social roles for women: marital, occupational and household roles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26(1), 64-78. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992a). Nonwork particip ation and work atti tudes: a test of scarcity vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45 (8), 775-795. Kirchmeyer, C. (1992b). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: challenging the common view of conflictridden domain relationships. Basic and Appied Social Psychology, 12 (2), 231-249. Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Nonwork-to-work spil lover: a more balanced view of the experiences and coping of professional women and men. Sex Roles, 28 (9/10), 531-552. Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1999). Di fferent strategies for managing the work/non-work interface: a test for unique pathways to work outcomes. Work and Stress, 13(1) 59-73. Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & C onnolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32 198-215. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996) Discriminate validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development, (n.d.). The Midlife Development Inventory MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1988). Interrole conflict, family support and marital adjustment of employed mother s: A short term, longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9 241-250.

PAGE 102

Marks, S. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: so me notes on human energy, time, and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921-36. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Planning focus groups. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Nassar-McMillan, S. C. & Border, L. D. (2002). Use of focus groups in survey item development. The Qualitative Report, 7(1) [On-line] http://www.nova.edu/ssss/ QR/QR7-1/index.html. Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., Hitt, M. A., & Moesel, D. (1990). Politics, lack of career progress, and work/home conflict: stress and strain for working women. Sex Roles, 23(3/4) 169-185. Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400-410. Nunnally, J. S. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Nunnally, J. S., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1989). Marital and family strengths. In Families: what makes them work? (pp. 93-110). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pareek, U. (1983). Organizational Role Stress. In Goldstein, L. D. and Pfeiffer, Jr. W. (Eds.) The 1983 annual for facilitators, trainers, and consultants San Diego, CA: University Associates, Inc. Radloff, L. (1975). Sex differences in de pression: the effects of occupational and marital status. Sex Roles, 1(3), 249-265. Rummel, R. J. (1988). Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T.A., Gardner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theore tical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19(2) 385-417.

PAGE 103

Schultz, J. B., Chung, Y. L., & Henderson, C. G. (1989). Work/family concerns of university faculty. In E. B. Goldsmith (Ed.), Work and family: Theory, research, and applications Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578. Small, S. A., & Riley, D. (1990). Toward a multidimensional assessment of work spillover into family life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (1), 51-61. Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: an introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stremler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9 (4), [On-line] Available: http:/ /PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v9&n=4. Stephens, M. A., & Franks, M. M. (1995) Spillover between daughters roles as caregiver and wife: interference or enhancement? Journal of Gerontol ogy: Psychological Sciences 50B (1), 9-17. Stephens, M. A., Franks, M. M., & A tienza, A. A. (1997). Where two roles intersect: spillover between pa rent care and employment. Psychology and Aging, 12 (1), 30-37. Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1986) Secrets of strong families. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Sumer, H. C. & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 653-663. Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identi ties and psychological well-being: a reformulation and test of th e social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48 174-187. Thoits, P. A. (1999). Identity structures and psychological well-being: gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 236-256. Thomas, L. T. & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (1), 6-15. Tiedie, L. B., Wortman, C. B., Downey, G., Emmons, C ., Biernat, M., & Lang, E. (1990). Women with multiple roles: role-c ompatibility percepti ons, satisfaction, and mental health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 63-72.

PAGE 104

United States Census Bureau (2001). P063. Age of own children under 18 years in families and subfamilies by living arrangemen ts by employment status of parents. Data Set: Census 2000 Suupplementary Survey Su mmary Tables [On-line] Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. United States Census Bureau (2001). PCT018. Grandparents responsible for own children hunder 18 years by employment status of grandparents in households. Data Set: Census 2000 Supplementary Survey Summ ary Tables. [On-line] Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. United States Census Bureau (2001). Table 2. Families by presence and relationship of employed members and fam ily type, 1999-2000 annual averages. Data Set: Census 2000 Supplementary Survey Su mmary Tables. [On-line] Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. Voydanoff, P. (2004a). The effects of work demands and resources on work-tofamily conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398-412. Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N., & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: re lationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,64 (6) 108-130 Wayne, J. H., Randel, A. E., & Stevens, J., (2003, April). Individual, work, and family correlates of work-family facilitation. Paper presented at the 18th annual conferences of the Society for Industria l and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

PAGE 105

Appendices

PAGE 106

Appendix A. Focus Group Recruitment Materials Focus Group Telephone Recru itment Screening Script Hello. My name is Sheila Holbrook, a gradua te student in the I ndustrial/Organizational Psychology program of the University. I am working on my dissertation. My dissertation topic is the development and initial valid ation of a scale to measure work-family facilitation. I am going to be bringing toge ther some people like you who work at the University for small group discussion to talk about work and family life. An audiotape will be made of the session. Afte r the session the audiotape will be kept in a secure location and will not be made available to anyone. A transcript will be made of the discussion. Your name will not be included in the transcript. The audiotape will be erased as soon as the transcript has been completed. The transcript will be used by me to assist in the development of items to include on the work-family facilitation scale. Some of the statements you make may also be included in my dissertation or a future paper submitted for publication as examples of work-family f acilitation. If used in my dissertation or published paper, it will be presented in such as way that it will not be personally identifiable. However, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed for information you share in the discussion group, as I will have no control ov er the other participants. All participants will be asked at the beginning of the session to respect the privacy of fellow participants by not repeating anything discussed by others during the session. Would you be interested in partic ipating in one of these discussion groups? Must be Yes or terminate. Eligibility requirements: work at least 35 hours per week a nd have at least one child under the age of 18 liv ing in their home. Screening Questions Name: _____________________________________ Work Phone: _______________ Department: ___________________________________________________________ Mail Point: ____________________________________________________________ I do have a couple of things that I need to check on. 1. Sex (by aural observation) 2. Do you have children under the age of 18 living at home? Must be Yes or terminate

PAGE 107

Appendix A (Continued) 3. During the average week, how many hours do you work? Must be 32 hours or more or terminate. 4. What about your age? Are you in your 20s, 30s, 40s, . .? 5. Marital Status? Invitation I would like you to come for a discussion regarding work and family life. Your participation is voluntary and you can withdr aw from the project at any time. This discussion will be held at ________ on ___________ at ________ and will last approximately 2 hours. I am interested in your opinions and experien ces with respect to work and family life. Would you be willing to participate? I will be mailing you an informed consent form prior to the session for your review. I will discuss the informed consent form with you in more detail on __________. Focus Group E-Mail Recruitment Hello. My name is Sheila Holbrook, a gradua te student in the I ndustrial/Organizational Psychology program of the University. I am working on my dissertation. My dissertation topic is the development and initial valid ation of a scale to measure work-family facilitation. I am going to be bringing toge ther some people like you who work at the University for small group discussion to talk about work and family life. I am contacting you to see if you would be interested in par ticipating in one of these discussion groups. I have scheduled several times on campus to hold discussion groups. It would take approximately 1 hour of your time, perh aps a little more depending on how the discussion progresses. I am interested in your opinions and experien ces with respect to work and family life. Would you be willing to participate? I would appreciate your calling me at ____________. In anticipation of your assistance, I extend my sincerest appreciation.

PAGE 108

Appendix B. Focus Group Acknowledgement Letter, Acknowledgement E-Mail, and Informed Consent Focus Group Acknowledgement Letter Dear : I write to confirm your particip ation in a focus group as a part of my dissertation project for the purpose of gathering informati on from you regardi ng your opinions and experiences with respect to work and family life. As I mentioned when we spoke, my dissertation topic is the development and initi al validation of a scale to measure workfamily facilitation. The things you say in res ponse to the questions I will be asking will be recorded and analyzed by me to identify major themes that will form the basis for questions on the work-family facilitation sc ale. Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw from the project at any time. The focus group will be held at ________ on ___________ at ________ and will last approximately one hour. I am enclosing an informed consent form fo r your review prior to the session. I will discuss the informed consent form with you in more detail on If you have any questions concerning this surv ey, please do not hesitate to contact me at _____________ or my major professor, Dr. Car not Nelson, Department of Psychology, _____________. In anticipation of your assistance, I extend my sincerest appreciation. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Focus Group E-Mail Acknowledgement I write to confirm your particip ation in a discussion group as a part of my dissertation project for the purpose of gathering inform ation from you regarding your opinions and experiences with respect to work and family life. As I mentioned when we spoke, my dissertation topic is the development and initi al validation of a scale to measure workfamily facilitation. The things you say in res ponse to the questions I will be asking will be recorded and analyzed by me to identify major themes that will form the basis for questions on the work-family facilitation sc ale. Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw from the project at any time. The discussion group will be held in the ________________________ on ________________ at 12:00 and will last approximately one hour.

PAGE 109

Appendix B (Continued) I am attaching an informed consent form fo r your review prior to the session. I will discuss the informed consent form with you in more detail at the discussion group session. If you are not able to attend the discussion group on the date/time noted above, additional sessions are scheduled (also at noon ) on the following dates/locations: If you have any questions concerning the discussion group, please do not hesitate to contact me at ____________ or my major professo r, Dr. Carnot Nelson, Department of Psychology, _____________. Thank you for your time and effort. E-mail sent if individual did not show up duri ng scheduled time and who requested that I contact them via e-mail rather than by telephone. I am sorry you were not able to participat ion in the discussion group schedule on March 24 as a part of my dissertation project for the purpose of gathering information from you regarding your opinions and expe riences with respect to work and family life. If you were not able to attend because of work or family responsibilities that arose that prevented your participation, I do have additional discussion sessions scheduled and, if you are available to participate in one of the sessions it would be greatly appreciated. Sessions are scheduled to begin at noon on the following dates and locations: I hope that you will be able to attend one of these sessions. Informed Consent Social and Behavioral Sciences University of South Florida Information for People Who Take Part in Research Studies The following information is being presented to help you decide wh ether or not you want to take part in a research study. Please read this carefully. If you do not understand anything, ask the person in charge of the study. Title of Study: Development and Initial Valid ation of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale Principal Investigator: Sheila K. Holbrook Study Location(s): University of South Florida, Tampa Campus

PAGE 110

Appendix B (Continued) You are being asked to participate because you are a full-time employee (working at least 35 hours per week) and have at least one child under the age of 18 living in your home. General Information about the Research Study The purpose of this research study is to deve lop and validate self-repo rt scales of workfamily facilitation and family-work facilitation. Plan of Study You are being asked to participate in two part s of the study. For the first part of the study you are being asked to participate in a di scussion group. You will be asked about work and family life balance and positive influences work and/or family has on the other domain. The discussion session will take approximately one hour. An audiotape will be made of the session. A transcript will be made of the discussion will be made from the audiotape. The audiotape will be erased as s oon as the transcript has been completed. The transcript will be used by me to assist in the develo pment of items to include on the work-family facilitation scale. Some of the st atements you make may also be included in my dissertation or a future paper submitted for publication as examples of work-family facilitation. If used in my dissertation or pub lished paper, it will be presented in such as way that it will not be personally identifiabl e. All participants will be asked at the beginning of the discussion session to respect the privacy of fellow participants by not repeating anything discussed by others during the session. For the second part of the st udy you are being asked to comple te a survey and to provide feedback regarding the survey content (i.e ., readability, item clarity) It will take approximately 30 minutes of your time to complete the second part of the study. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study By taking part in this research study you may increase your overall understanding of how your job experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform your family-related responsibilities and/or how fa mily experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform yo ur work-related re sponsibilities. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed for information you share during the discussion session, as I will have no control over partic ipants once they leave the meeting room.

PAGE 111

Appendix B (Continued) Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board and its staff, and other individuals acting on behalf of USF, ma y inspect the records from this research project. The results of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with data from others in the pub lication. The published re sults will not include your name or any other information that would personally identify you in any way. The audiotape made of the discussion session will be kept in a secure location and will not be made available to anyone. A transcript will be made of the discussion. Your name will not be included in the transcript. The audiotape will be erased as soon as the transcript has been completed. Your comment s and answers to questions asked during the discussion session will only be id entified by a tracking number. Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study Your decision to participate in this research study is comple tely voluntary. You are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits you are en titled to receive, if you stop taking part in the study. Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this rese arch study, contact Sheila Holbrook at _______________ or Dr. Carnot Nelson at ________________. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or have had read and e xplained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers.

PAGE 112

Appendix B (Continued) I understand that I am being asked to pa rticipate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, unde r the conditions indicated in it. I have been given a signed copy of this informed consent form, which is mine to keep. _________________________ _______________________ _________ Signature of Participant Printed Name of Participant Date Investigator Statement I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above re search study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the subject signing this consent form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in participating in this study. _________________________ ________________________ __________ Signature of Investigator Printe d Name of Investigator Date

PAGE 113

Appendix C. Focus Group Discussion Guide Thank individuals for participating. Introductions of purpose: My dissertation topi c is the development and initial validation of a scale to measure work-family facilita tion. The things you sa y in response to the questions I will be asking will be recorded and analyzed by me to identify major themes that will form the basis for questions on the wo rk-family facilitation scale. Participation is voluntary and you can withdraw from the project at any time. Discussion of informed consent: You are agr eeing to participate in a discussion group in connection my dissertation project, the develo pment of a scale to measure work-family facilitation. You will be as ked about work and family life balance and positive influences work and/or family has on the other domain. The discussion session will take approximately two hours. An audiotape will be made of the session. After the session the audiotape will be kept in a secure location and will not be made available to anyone. A transcript will be made of the discussion. Your name will not be included in the transcript. The audiotape will be erased as s oon as the transcript has been completed. The transcript will be used by me to assist in the develo pment of items to include on the work-family facilitation scale. Some of the st atements you make may also be included in my dissertation or a future paper submitted for publication as examples of work-family facilitation. If used in my dissertation or pub lished paper, it will be presented in such as way that it will not be personally identif iable. However, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed for information you share in the discussion, as I will have no control over participants once you leave this room. I ask that you all resp ect the privacy of your fellow participants by not repeating anything discussed by others during the session. Groundrules: Only one person speaking at a time. No side conversations. Everyone participates. No one person dominates the conversation. No judgments are made about any comments made. Instructions: If the group runs out of things to say, just remember that what I am interested in how work and family life influence each other and I want to hear as many different things as possible. If your experience is a little different from what others ar e saying, then that is exactly what I want to hear from you. You may think your experience is different from everyone elses, but you may find that the same thing has happened to other pe ople but no one else would have mentioned it if some one didnt start the ball rolling.

PAGE 114

Appendix C (Continued) I need to hear as many different things from as many of you as time allows. There really arent right or wrong answers in this area if there were, Id go to experts and theyd tell me the answers. Instead, Im here to learn from your experiences. Opening question: Tell us your name, where you work, and one thing youd like us to know about your spouse or child one thing that they do that makes you smile. Introductory question: When you hear the words work-famil y balance, what comes to mind? Key questions: 1. What sorts of job experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform your family-rela ted responsibilities? 2. What sorts of family experiences, skills or attitudes have made it easier for you to perform your work-rela ted responsibilities? Ending question: Of all the things we discussed on the topic of work and family making it easier for you to perform your responsibilities in the other domain, which one thing has been the most benefit to you? Summary question: Summarize key questions and big ideas that emerged from the discussion. Is this an adequate summary? Final question: Have we missed anything?

PAGE 115

Appendix D. Subject Matter Expert Instructions and Rating Scale The purpose of this questionnaire is to de termine what component of work-family facilitation is being described by various stat ements. Beginning on the next page is a list of statements that can be classified as e xpressing or measuring work-to-family facilitation (work facilitating family) or family-to-work facilitation (family facilitating work). The statements come from existing work-family facilitation and positive spillover scales, items that were constructed based on a revi ew of the literature and items that were constructed based on focus groups held with men and women who are employed full time and have at least one child unde r the age of 18 living in their home. I be lieve that you can help advance knowledge of the intersection of work and fam ily by indicating the degree to which each statement is concerned with wo rk-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. I appreciate and thank y ou in advance for your participation. INSTRUCTIONS: For each of the statements which appear on the following two pages: A. Carefully reach each statement. B. Decide on the extent to which the statem ent refers to the component of workfamily facilitation you are being asked to rate. C. For each statement, circle the number th at indicates the extent to which the statement reflects the co mponent of work-family facilitation you are rating. Use the following response scale: 1 = not at all representative 2 = somewhat representative, 3 = moderately representa tive, 4 = very representative, and 5 = completely representative. Please read and rate all of the statements, being careful not to omit or skip any. Now, begin on the next page. Please remember to rate each statement carefully and not omit or skip any. Use the definition of work-f amily facilitation component at the top of each page in making your rating fo r that page. Thanks again. [One definition will appear on the tope of each page, followed by the response categories and the work-family facilitation items. Work-to-Family Facilitation : Role facilitation in which th e experiences in the job, job skills, and emotional gratification from th e job facilitate performing family-related responsibilities/activities. Family-to-Work : Role facilitation in which the experi ences in the home, family skills, and emotional gratification from th e home facilitate performing wo rk-related responsibilities/ activities.] 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all representative Somewhat representative Moderately representative Very representative Completely representative

PAGE 116

Appendix E. Letter to Selected Respondents and Informed Consent Letter to Selected Respondents Dear USF Staff: You are invited to participate in an research study that looks at work and family issues which staff deal with on a daily basis. W ith the assistance of the Division of Human Resources, you have been selected for this study. All individual da ta obtained in this study will remain confidential. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your decision to participate or not participate will have no effect on your employment status at USF. I would appreciate your taking approximately 40 minutes of your time to complete the attached survey. Please return the complete d questionnaire in the envelop in which you received the materials using the attached ma iling label; this will ensure confidentiality. If you have any questions concerning this surv ey, please do not hesitate to contact me at _______________ or Dr. Carnot Nelson, De partment of Psychology, _______________. The completed questionnaire should be returned no later than ____________. In anticipation of your assistance, I extend my sincerest appreciation. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Sheila K. Holbrook Graduate Student Industrial/Organiza tional Psychology Department of Psychology Informed Consent Social and Behavioral Sciences University of South Florida Information for People Who Take Part in Research Studies The following information is being presented to help you decide wh ether or not you want to take part in a minimal risk research st udy. Please read this carefully. If you do not understand anything, ask the pers on in charge of the study.

PAGE 117

Appendix E (Continued) Title of Study: Development and Initial Valid ation of the Work-Family Facilitation Scale Principal Investigator: Sheila Holbrook Study Location(s): University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida You are being asked to participate because you are a full-time employee (working at least 35 hours per week) and have at least one child under the age of 18 living in your home. General Information about the Research Study The purpose of this research study is to deve lop and validate self-repo rt scales of workfamily facilitation and family-work facilitation. Plan of Study You are being asked to complete a survey a nd return it through intercampus mail to the principal investigator. It will take approxima tely 40 minutes of your time to complete the survey. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study Taking part in this research st udy may not benefit you personally. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study I do not anticipate your experien cing any negative effects as a result of your participation in the study. Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board and its staff, and other individuals acting on behalf of USF, ma y inspect the records from this research project. The results of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with data from others in the pub lication. The published re sults will not include your name or any other information that would personally identify you in any way. I do not ask for your name, so the information you provide will be anonymous.

PAGE 118

Appendix E (Continued) Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study Your decision to participate in this research study is comple tely voluntary. You are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of benefits you are en titled to receive, if you stop taking part in the study. Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this re search study, contac t Sheila Holbrook, ______________ or Dr. Carnot Nelson at ______________. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Divi sion of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or have had read and e xplained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. I understand that I am being asked to pa rticipate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, unde r the conditions indicated in it. _________________________ _________________________ __________ Signature of Participant Printed Name of Participant Date Please return the signed informed consent with the completed questionnaire. A signed copy of this informed consent form, which w ill be yours to keep will be returned to you through intercampus mail. Investigator Statement: I certify that participants have been provided with an informed consent form that has been approved by the University of South Fl oridas Institutional Re view Board and that explains the nature, demands, risk s, and benefits involved in pa rticipating in this study. I further certify that a phone number has b een provided in the event of additional questions. _________________________ _________________________ ____________ Signature of Investigator Printe d Name of Investigator Date

PAGE 119

Appendix F. Follow-up Letter a nd E-Mail to Participants Dear USF Staff: You recently received an invitation to particip ate in my graduate research study regarding work and family issues by completing a wo rk and family characteristics survey. If you work full time and have at least one ch ild under the age of 18 living at home, your response to my survey will contribute to th e success of my graduate research project. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you have not had an opportunity to comple te the survey, I would appreciate it if you would do so within the next few days and retu rn it to me, along with the signed informed consent form, by campus mail to: Sheila K. Holbrook, Department of Psychology, PCD 4118G. It will only take approximately 40 minut es of your time to complete the survey. If you have misplace the survey you receive d, please let me know by calling me at ________________ or sending me an e-mail at _________________ and I will send you another survey. If you prefer, I can send it to you via e-mail as a word document that you can complete, save, and return to me via e-mail. If you have any questions concerning this surv ey, please do not hesitate to contact me at ______________ or Dr. Carnot Nelson, Depa rtment of Psychology, ___________. The completed questionnaire should be re turned no later than January 15, 2005. In anticipation of your assistance, I extend my sincerest appreciation. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely,

PAGE 120

Appendix G. Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict Scales Work-Family Conflict Scale (Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian, 1996) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Family-Work Conflict Scale (Netemeyer, Boles, and McMurrian, 1996) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. The demands of my work interfere with my home and family life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my job puts on me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Due to work-related duties, I have to make changes to my plans for family activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 121

Appendix H. Work Role Overload Scale Work Overload (Pareek, 1983) Each of the statements below is some thing a person might say about his or her work role. You are to indica te your own personal feelings about your work role by marking how much you agree with each of the statements. Circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: How much do you agree w ith the statement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. My work load is too heavy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The amount of work that I have to do interferes with the quality I want to maintain. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I have been given too much responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. There is a need to reduce some parts of my role. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I feel overburdened in my work role. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 122

Appendix I. Work Autonomy Scale Autonomy (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) The following question asks you to describe you r job as objectively as you can. Try to make your description as accurate and objective as you possibly can. You are to circle the number which is the most accurate descript ion of the job you are rating. How much autonomy is there in the job? That is, to what extent does the job permit a person to decide on his or her own how to do the work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very little; the job gives a person almost no personal say about how and when the work is done. Moderate autonomy; many things are standardized and not under the control of the person, but he or she can make some decisions about the work. Very much; the job gives the person almost complete responsibility for deciding how and when the work is done. Listed below are two statements which coul d be used to describe a job. You are to indicate whether each statemen t is an accurate or an inaccura te description of the job you are rating. Please try to be as objective as you can in deciding how accurately each statement describes the job regardless of your ow n personal feelings about that job. Circle the number beside each stat ement based on the following scale: How accurate is the statement in describing the job you are rating? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Inaccurate Mostly Inaccurate Slightly Inaccurate Uncertain Slightly Accurate Mostly Accurate Very Accurate 1. The job denies a person any chance to use his or her pers onal initiative or discretion in carry ing out the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The job gives a person considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how he or she does the work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 123

Appendix J. Job Satisfaction Scale Job Satisfaction (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) Each of the statements below is something that people might say about his or her job. Please indicate how satisfied you are with each aspect of your job listed below. Circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: How satisfied are you with this aspect of your job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Slightly Dissatisfied Neutral Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1. The amount of personal growth and development I get in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The amount of challenge in my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Now please think of the other people in your organization who hold the same job as you. If no one has exactly the same job as you, think of the job which is most similar to yours. Please think about how accurately each of the st atements describes the feelings of those people about the job. Once again, please circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: How much do you agree w ith the statement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. Most people on this job are very satisfied with the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. People on this job often think of quitting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 124

Appendix K. Family Satisfaction Scale Family Satisfaction (Carver and Jones, 1992) Now please indicate how you persona lly feel about your family. Each of the statements below is something a person might say about his or her family. You are to indicate your own personal feelin gs about your family by marking how much you agree with each of the statements. Circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: How much do you agree w ith the statement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. In their treatment of one another, my family is consistent and fair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I would do anything for a member of my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I have a good time with my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 I always feel my family supports me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My family is one of the least important aspects of my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. I always know what I can and cannot get away with at my house. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I am never sure what the rule are from day to day. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. My family is one of the least important aspects of my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I will do anything necessary for any member of my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. This is too much conflict in my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. I usually feel safe sharing myself with my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. I am happy with my family just the way it is. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Members of my family treat one another consistently. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. There is a great deal about my family that I would like to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 125

Appendix K (Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 15. With my family I can rarely be myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I am very unhappy with my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. I am deeply committed to my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I often find myself feeling dissatisfied with my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. My family always believes in me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I find great comfort and satisfaction in my family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 126

Appendix L. Life Satisfaction Scale Life Satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larson, and Griffin, 1985) Now please indicate how you pers onally feel about your life. Each of the statements below is something a person might say about his or her life. You are to indicate your own pers onal feelings about your lif e by marking how much you agree with each of the statements. Circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: How much do you agree w ith the statement? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Neutral Agree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly 1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I am satisfied with my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 127

Appendix M. Psychological Distress Scale Psychological Distress (Radloff, 1977) Below is a list of the ways you might have felt or behaved. Please tell me how often you have felt this way during the past week. Circle the number next to each statement, based on this scale: 1 2 3 4 Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day) Some or a little of the time (1 2 days) Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3 4 days) Most or all of the time (5 7 days) 1. I was bothered by things that usually dont bother me. 1 2 3 4 2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor. 1 2 3 4 3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends. 1 2 3 4 4 I felt that I was just as good as other people. 1 2 3 4 5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. 1 2 3 4 6. I felt depressed. 1 2 3 4 7. I felt that everything I did was an effort. 1 2 3 4 8. I felt hopeful about the future. 1 2 3 4 9. I thought my life had been a failure. 1 2 3 4 10. I felt fearful. 1 2 3 4 11. My sleep was restless. 1 2 3 4 12. I was happy. 1 2 3 4 13. I talked less than usual. 1 2 3 4 14. I felt lonely. 1 2 3 4 15. People were unfriendly. 1 2 3 4 16. I enjoyed life. 1 2 3 4 17. I had crying spells. 1 2 3 4 18. I felt sad. 1 2 3 4 19. I felt that people dislike me. 1 2 3 4 20. I could not get going. 1 2 3 4

PAGE 128

Appendix N. Demographic Information 1. Age: _____ 2. Sex: ____ Male ____ Female 3. Ethnicity: ____ Asian or Pacific Islander _____ Black ____ Hispanic _____ White ____ Other 4. Marital Status: ____ Married/living as married ____Separated/divorced ____ Widowed ____ Single 5. a. How many children do you have living in your home? ____ b. Age(s) of children living in your home __________________________ 6. Level of education: ____ High school graduate ____ Some college or less ____ College graduate ____ Some graduate or prof essional school ____ Graduate or professional degree 7. What kind of work do you do? ____ Professional ____ Manage rial or administrative ____ Clerical or sales ____ Technical ____ Semi-skilled/unskilled ____ Other 8. Indicate the type of position you currently hold: ____ Supervisory ____ Non-supervisory

PAGE 129

Appendix N (Continued) 9. How long have you been in your current position? _____ yrs. _____ mos. 10. How long have you been working for our current organization? ___ yrs. ___ mos.

PAGE 130

Appendix O. Item Generation Items Identified in Literature Review. Family-to-Work Facilitation Wayne, Randel, & Stevens (2003) 1. Talking with someone at home helps me deal with challenges at work. 2. Spending time at home helps to relie ve the stress I feel from work. 3. My family energizes me so I can t ackle the challenge s of my work. 4. I feel more confident at work when I feel that I am being successful at home. 5. Having a successful day at home puts me in a good mood to better handle my work responsibilities. Sumer, H. C. & Knight, P. A. 2001 6. Quality of my job performance improves if I am satisfied with my home life. Stephens et al 1997 7. Knowing that my family is being well cared for puts you in a good mood at work (reworded). 8. I have had more positive f eelings about myself at work because I have felt good about myself at home. 9. I have had greater confidence in myself at work because I have been able to handle my family responsibilities well. 10. The positive characteristics I exhibit at home have made me feel better about myself at work (reworded). Stephens and Franks, 1995 11. My effectiveness in handling my family responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at work. The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d. 12. Talking with someone at home helps me deal with problems at work. 13. My home life helps me relax and feel ready for the next day's work. 14. The love and respect I get at home makes me feel confident about myself at work. 15. Providing for what is needed at home makes me work harder at my job. Marks & MacDermid, 1996 16. I am a better worker because of my family life. Kirchmeyer, 1992 17. My family gives me ideas that can be applied on the job. 18. My home life develops skills in me that are useful at work. 19. My family life shows me ways of seei ng things that are helpful at work. 20. My family life provides me with c ontacts who are helpful for my work.

PAGE 131

Appendix O (Continued) 21. My family gives me support so I can face the difficulties at work. 22. My family experiences help me understand people at work better. 23. Talking with someone at home makes disappointments on the job seem easier to take. 24. Spending time with my family help s me forget problems at work. 25. My home life energizes me so I can t ackle the challenges of my job. Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003 26. The increased competence I gain through family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. 27. Successfully performing tasks in my family life helps me to more effectively accomplish tasks at work. 28. I am better able to perform at my job as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. 29. Abilities developed in my family life help me in my job. 30. When things are going well in my family life, my outlook regarding my job is improved. 31. Values that I rely on to fulfill my family responsibilities make it easier to meet the demands of my job. 32. Values that I learn through my family experiences assist me in fulfilling my work responsibilities. 33. In meeting my job demands, I utilize values developed in my family life. 34. Carrying out my work responsibilitie s is made easier by using behaviors performed as part of my family life. 35. Behaviors required in my family life lead to behaviors that assist me at work. 36. I often have a positive attitude at wo rk as a result of my family life. 37. Having a good day with my family impr oves my frame of mind at work. Work-to-Family Facilitation Wayne, Randel, & Stevens 2003 1. Talking with someone at work helps me deal with challenges at home. 2. Spending time at work helps to relie ve the stress I feel from home. 3. My job energizes me so I can tack le the challenges of my family. 4. I feel more confident at home when I f eel that I am being successful at work. 5. Having a successful day at work puts me in a good mood to better handle my family responsibilities. 6. Having a good day on my job makes me a better family member when I get home. Voydanoff, 2004 7. I have more energy to do things with my family because of my job (reworded). 8. I am in a better mood at home because of my job (reworded).

PAGE 132

Appendix O (Continued) Sumer and Knight (2001) 9. My job develops skills in me that are useful at home. 10. My job shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful outside of work. 11. Quality of my home life improves if I am satisfied with my job. Stephens et al 1997 12. I have had more positive feelings about my self in my family life because I have felt good about myself at work. (Reworded) 13. I have had greater confidence in myself in fulfilling my family responsibilities because I have been able to handle my job responsibilities well (reworded). Small & Riley, 1990 14. My job helps me have a better relati onship with my family (reworded). 15. I am a better family member because of my job. (reworded). 16. Having a job makes it easier for me to get my household chores done. The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d. 17. The things I do at work help me deal with personal and practi cal issues at home. 18. The skills I use on my job are useful for things I have to do at home. 19. The things I do at work make me a more interesting person at home. 20. Having a good day on my job makes me a better companion when I get home. Kirchmeyer, (1992) 21. My job gives me access to certain facts/in formation that can be used to improve my home life. Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B. (2003) 22. The increased competence I gain through work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities. 23. Successfully performing tasks at work he lps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks. 24. I am better able to perform my family res ponsibilities as a resu lt of skills acquired at work. 25. Abilities developed at work help me in my family life. 26. Values that I rely on to fulfill my work responsibilities make it easier to meet my family responsibilities. 27. Values that I learn through my work experi ences assist me in fulfilling my family responsibilities. 28. In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work. 29. Carrying out my family responsibilitie s is made easier by using behaviors performed at work. 30. Behaviors required by my job lead to behavi ors that assist me in my family life.

PAGE 133

Appendix O (Continued) 31. When things are going well at work, my outlook regarding my family responsibilities is improved. 32. I often have a positive attitude toward my family as a result of my job. 33. Having a good day at work improves my frame of mind concerning family responsibilities. 34. The skills that I have developed at my job help me perform my family responsibilities. Items Developed Based on Focus Group Content Analysis Family to Work Facilitation 38. The skills that I have developed at home help me perform my j ob responsibilities. 39. The skills I use at home are useful for things I have to do at work. 40. The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibilities. 41. Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities 42. The things I do at home make me a more interesting person at work. 43. The things I do at home help me to deal with personal and pr actical issues at work. 44. The diversity of my family li fe helps me deal with pers onal and practical issues at work. 45. My home life gives me access to resources that can be used to improve my work life. 46. My home life gives me access to certain facts/information that can be used to improve my work life. 47. My family shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful at work. 48. The stability that I get from my family lif e helps me focus on the demands of my job. 49. The respect I get in my fam ily life makes me feel confid ent about myself at work. 50. The relationships I have in my family lif e help me deal with problems at work. 51. Sharing experiences that I have at work with family helps improve my outlook regarding my job. 52. Having a good time with my family after work makes me a better employee when I go to work. 53. Having a good day at home makes me a be tter employee when I get to work. 54. My family life helps me in d ealing with people at work. Work-to-Family Facilitation 35. The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. 36. Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities.

PAGE 134

Appendix O (Continued) 37. The diversity of my work pl ace helps me deal with persona l and practical issues at home. 38. The benefits available to me at work make if easier to manage my family responsibilities. 39. Talking with coworkers helps me deal with problems at home. 40. My work experiences help me understand my family better. 41. My job gives me access to resources that can be used to improve my family life. 42. My effectiveness in handling my work re sponsibilities ha s enabled me to be more effective at home. 43. My coworkers give me ideas that can be applied out side of work. 44. My contacts with people at work help me to interact better with diverse people outside of work. 45. I get ideas from my job that can be applied at home. 46. Having a job helps me to better appreciat e the time I spend with my family. 47. The stability that I get from work helps me focus on my family responsibilities. 48. The respect I get at work ma kes me feel confident about myself outside of work. 49. The respect I get at work makes me feel confident about myself at home. 50. The relationships I have at work help me deal with problems at home. 51. Spending time at work helps me forget problems at home. 52. Sharing experiences that I have at home with my coworkers helps improve my outlook regarding my family life. 53. The positive characteristics I exhibit at work have made me feel better about myself at home. 54. My coworkers give me support so I can tack le the challenges of my family life.

PAGE 135

Appendix P. Items Included on Questionnaire Family-to-Work Facilitation FWF01 Carrying out my work responsibil ities is made easier by using behaviors performed as part of my family life. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) FWF02 Values that I learn through my fa mily experiences assist me in fulfilling my work responsibilities.(Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) FWF03 Abilities developed in my family lif e help me in my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) FWF04 The skills that I have developed in my family life help me perform my work responsibilities. (Role skills) FWF05 Having a successful day with my fa mily puts me in a good mood to better handle my work responsibilities. (Wa yne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) FWF06 I am better able to pe rform my work responsibilit ies as a result of skills acquired through my family responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role skills) FWF07 Talking with a family member helps me deal with problems at work. (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d. reworded) (Role experiences) FWF08 Having a good day with my family improves my frame of mind about my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) FWF09 I often have a positive at titude toward my work as a result of my family life. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) FWF10 Knowing that my family is being we ll cared for puts me in a good mood to take care of work responsibilitie s. (Stephens et al 1997, re worded) (Role attitudes) FWF11 My family life develops skills in me that are useful at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992, reworded). (Role skills) FWF12 My family life gives me access to certai n facts/information that can be useful in performing my work responsibil ities. (Role experiences) FWF13 The increased competence I gain thro ugh family activities helps me fulfill my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C ., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role experiences) FWF14 The relationships I have in my family life help me to interact more effectively with people at work. (Role experiences) FWF15 My family life provides me with contacts who are helpful for my work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992). (Role experiences) FWF16 My interactions at work are bette r because I have felt good about myself at home. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) FWF17 My family gives me support so I can face the difficulties at work. (Kirchmeyer, 1992) (Role experiences)

PAGE 136

Appendix P (Continued) FWF18 Values that I rely on to fulfill my fa mily responsibilities make it easier to meet the demands of my job. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) FWF19 Talking with my family makes disa ppointments at work seem easier to take. (Kirchmeyer, 1992) (Role experiences) FWF20 The love and respect I get from my family makes me feel confident about myself at work. (The Midlife Develo pment Inventory, n.d.). (Role attitudes) FWF21 Talking with someone in my family helps me deal with challenges at work. (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded) (Role experiences) FWF22 The things I do at home help me to d eal with personal and practical issues at work. (Role experiences) FWF23 The learning experiences that I have in my family life help me effectively perform my work responsibi lities. (Role experiences) FWF24 The positive characteristics I have deve loped at home have made me feel better about my work. (Stephens et al., 1997, reworded). (Role attitudes) FWF25 My family experiences help me unders tand people at work better. (Kirchmeyer, 1992). (Role experiences) FWF26 The relationships I have in my family life help me deal with problems at work. (Role experiences) FWF27 The respect I get in my family life makes me feel confident about handling my work responsibilities (Role experiences) FWF28 My family shows me ways of seeing things that are helpful at work. (Role experiences) FWF29 The stability that I get from my family life helps me focus on the demands of my job. (Role experiences) FWF30 The things I do in my family life help me in performing my work responsibilities. (Role experiences) FWF31 My family life gives me access to re sources that are helpful in my work life. (Role experiences) FWF32 Values developed at home help me in handling my work responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) FWF33 Behaviors required in my family life l ead to behaviors that assist me at work. (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003) (Role skills) FWF34 Values developed in my family life help me to meet th e demands of my job. (Role experiences) FWF35 Having a good time with my family after work makes me a better employee when I go to work. (Role experiences) FWF36 I fell more confident in performing my work when I feel that I am successful in my family life. (Wayne, Randel, & Stev ens, 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes) FWF37 When things are going well in my fam ily life, I have a better outlook about my work responsibilities. (Hanson, G. C ., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded) (Role attitudes)

PAGE 137

Appendix P (Continued) Work-to-Family Facilitation WFF01 Talking with someone at work helps me manage challenging family responsibilities at home (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded). (Role experiences) WFF02 Behaviors required by my work lead to behaviors that assist me in my family life (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role skills) WFF03 Having a good day at work improves my frame of mind about taking care of family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF04 I get ideas from my work that ca n be applied in my family life. (Role experiences) WFF05 My job shows me ways of seeing th ings that are helpful in my family life (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role experiences) WFF06 Values developed at work help me in handling my family responsibilities. (Role attitudes) WFF07 My work experiences help me unders tand my family better. (Role experiences) WFF08 I fell more confident in performing fam ily responsibilities when I feel that I am successful at work (Wayne, Randel, & Stevens, 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF09 My contacts with people at work he lp me to interact more effectively with people outside of work. (Role experiences) WFF10 In meeting my family responsibilities, I utilize values required at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) WFF11 Carrying out my family responsibil ities is made easier by using behaviors performed at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) WFF12 My coworkers give me ideas that can be applied in my family life. (Role experiences) WFF13 My effectiveness in handling my wo rk responsibilities has enabled me to be more effective at home. (Role experiences) WFF14 My coworkers give me support so I ca n tackle the challenges of my family life. (Role experiences) WFF15 The stability that I ge t from work helps me focus on my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) WFF16 I am better able to perform my family responsibi lities as a result of skills acquired at work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) WFF17 The relationships I have at work he lp me deal with problems at home. (Role experiences) WFF18 My job develops sk ills in me that are useful for completing family responsibilities (Sumer & Knight, 2001, reworded). (Role skills)

PAGE 138

Appendix P (Continued) WFF19 Successfully performing tasks at work helps me to more effectively accomplish family tasks (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role skills) WFF20 My work gives me access to resources that are useful in my family life. (Role experiences) WFF21 When things are going well at work, I have a better outlook about my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF22 My interactions with my family ar e better because I have felt good about myself at work. (Role attitudes) WFF23 The benefits availabl e to me at work make if easier to manage my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) WFF24 The increased competence I gain th rough work activities helps me fulfill my family responsibilities (Hanson, G. C ., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003). (Role experiences) WFF25 The skills I use at work are useful for things I have to do at home (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role skills) WFF26 The learning experiences that I have at work help me more effectively perform my family responsibilities. (Role experiences) WFF27 The skills that I have developed at work he lp me perform my family responsibilities. (Role skills) WFF28 Having a successful day at work puts me in a good mood to better handle my family responsibilities (Wayne, Rande l, & Stevens, 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF29 Having a good day at work makes me a better companion when I am with my family (The Midlife Development Inventory, n.d., reworded). (Role experiences) WFF30 I often have a positiv e attitude toward family responsibilities as a result of my work (Hanson, G. C., Colton, C. L., & Hammer, L. B., 2003, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF31 I am in a better mood at home to pa rticipate in family activities because of my work (Voydanoff, 2004, reworded). (Role attitudes) WFF32 Talking with coworkers helps me deal with problems at home. (Role experiences)

PAGE 139

About the Author Sheila Holbrook received a Bachelors Degree in Psychology, with a minor in Womens Studies, from the University of S outh Florida in 1988, graduating cum laude. She earned her Masters Degree in indus trial/organizational psychology from the University of South Florida in 1998. Ms. Holbrook has worked at the Universi ty of South Florida for over 25 years in various administrative positions were she has been involved in designing and implementing pay for performance, performance management and organizational development, and change initiatives.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001670365
003 fts
005 20051216093323.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051118s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001233
035
(OCoLC)62300873
SFE0001233
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
BF121 (Online)
1 100
Holbrook, Sheila K.
0 245
Development and initial validation of the work-family facilitation scale
h [electronic resource] /
by Sheila K. Holbrook.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 139 pages.
Includes vita.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The benefits of occupying multiple roles have typically been overlooked. One reason for this oversight is the lack of a well-established scale measuring work-family facilitation. This study developed and validated short, self-report scales of work-to-family facilitation and family-to-work facilitation. Based on conceptualizations of work and family facilitation presented in current research content domains and definitions of the constructs are presented. Work-to-family facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the job, work skills, and emotional gratification from work makes participation in the family easier. Family-to-work facilitation is defined as a form of role facilitation in which the experiences in the family, family skills, and emotional gratification from family makes participation in work easier. Advocated procedures were used to develop the scales and test dimensionality and internal consistency.
590
Adviser: Carnot E. Nelson.
653
Work-family facilitation.
Job satisfaction.
Family satisfaction.
Life satisfaction.
Work overload.
Work autonomy.
Psychological distress.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1233