Working while studying at university: The relationship between work benefits and demands and engagement and well-being

Work-based demands. We assessed time-, strain-, and behaviour-based work demands, and the number of hours worked, all of which can affect performance and satisfaction in another domain (Kirchmeyer, 1992). Time-based demands were assessed using a 6-item scale devised specifically for the study. We used the one time-based demand item created by Kirchmeyer (1992; work “Demands time from me that could be spent on my studies”) and created five additional items that tapped the same construct (e.g., “I spend a lot of time thinking about work” and “I often run out of time to get everything done because of my work”). Alpha for this scale was .74, and in support of validity, it was unrelated to enrichment and related positively with strain-based demands. Strain-based demands were assessed using the 4-item Strain-based Demands Subscale (“My job tires me out so that I feel drained”), and behaviour-based demands were assessed using the 3-item Behaviour-based Demands Subscale (work “Makes it hard to adjust back to the way I must act at university”). Both subscales were taken from Kirchmeyer’s (1992) Negative Spillover Scale. Kirchmeyer reported alphas of > .79 for the total Negative Spillover Scale, and demonstrated that the subscales were independent and related to other constructs in the expected directions. Alphas in our study were .81 and .80, respectively.
Work-university facilitation. This was measured with the 5-item Work-School Facilitation Scale (Butler, 2007). A sample item was “Having a good day at work makes me a better university student”. The original scale had an alpha of .85, and validity was supported

by correlations with other school-based constructs, such as satisfaction (Butler, 2007). Alpha in our sample was .73.

Work-university conflict. This was assessed using the 5-item Work-School Conflict Scale (Butler, 2007). A sample item was “Because of my job, I go to university tired”. Butler (2007) reported good reliability ( = .88) and validity (negative associations with facilitation, effort, and school attendance). Alpha with our sample was .82.