Table 1
Fit indices for measurement models.
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | NNFI | CFI | RMSEA | Δχ2 (Δdf) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-factor model | 317.50 | 199 | 1.59 | .97 | .97 | .06 | – |
| 4-factor model: HPWS with job strain | 453.75 | 203 | 2.23 | .94 | .95 | .09 | 136.26 (4)*** |
| 4-factor model: HPWS with job engagement | 459.07 | 203 | 2.26 | .94 | .95 | .09 | 141.58 (4)*** |
| 4-factor model: WFC with job strain | 438.94 | 203 | 2.16 | .95 | .95 | .09 | 121.44 (4)*** |
| 4-factor model: WFE with job engagement | 406.41 | 203 | 2.00 | .95 | .96 | .08 | 88.92 (4)*** |
| 4-factor model: WFC with WFE | 542.69 | 203 | 2.67 | .89 | .93 | .10 | 225.19 (4)*** |
| 4-factor model: job strain with job engagement | 534.43 | 203 | 2.63 | .92 | .93 | .11 | 216.93 (4)*** |
| 3-factor model: WFC with WFE; job strain with job engagement | 746.31 | 206 | 3.62 | .87 | .89 | .15 | 428.81 (7)*** |
| 1-factor model | 1001.93 | 209 | 4.79 | .82 | .83 | .17 | 684.43 (10)*** |
[i] Note: N = 170. HPWS = high-performance work systems; WFC = work-to-family conflict; WFE = work-to-family enrichment; χ2 = Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square; df = degrees of freedom; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; Δχ2 = chi-square difference tests between the five-factor model and alternative models. *** p < .001.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations among variables.
| Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender | – | – | – | |||||||
| 2 | Age | 40.51 | 9.86 | –.14 | – | ||||||
| 3 | Organizational tenure | – | – | –.05 | .55*** | – | |||||
| 4 | High-Performance Work Systems | 3.09 | .53 | –.10 | .00 | .02 | (.94) | ||||
| 5 | Work-to-family conflict | .71 | .55 | –.08 | .06 | .00 | –.25*** | (.88) | |||
| 6 | Work-to-family enrichment | .91 | .56 | –.07 | .01 | –.03 | .39*** | –.15 | (.81) | ||
| 7 | Job engagement | 2.73 | .57 | –.06 | .03 | .03 | .59*** | –.12 | .52*** | (.83) | |
| 8 | Job strain | 1.80 | .46 | –.07 | .07 | .04 | –.55*** | .56*** | –.17* | –.31*** | (.82) |
[i] Note: N = 170. Correlations among variables are provided below the diagonal and Cronbach’s alphas are provided on the diagonal. Absence of means and standard deviations for gender and organizational tenure because the answers were beforehand categorized in the questionnaire. * p < .05, *** p < .001.
Table 3
Fit indices for structural models.
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | NNFI | CFI | RMSEA | ECVI | Comparison | Δχ2 (Δdf) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model A (Model 1): Hypothesized theoretical model HPWS → work-to-family interface → well-being | 391.01 | 202 | 1.94 | .95 | .96 | .07 | 2.42 | Model 1 VS Model 2 | 35.42(1)*** |
| Model B: Hypothesized theoretical model HPWS → well-being → work-to-family interface | 397.79 | 202 | 1.97 | .92 | .93 | .08 | 2.71 | Model 1 VS Model 3 | 73.14(2)*** |
| Model 2: Model 1 + Paths between HPWS and job strain | 355.59 | 201 | 1.77 | .96 | .97 | .06 | Model 2 VS Model 3 | 37.72(1)*** | |
| Model 3: Model 2 + Paths between HPWS and job engagement | 317.87 | 200 | 1.59 | .97 | .98 | .06 | – | – |
[i] Note: N = 170. HPWS = high-performance work systems; χ2 = Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square; df = degrees of freedom; NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; Δχ2 = chi-square difference tests between the five-factor model and alternative models. *** p < .001.
Figure 1
Completely standardized path coefficients for the retained model (model 3). For the sake of clarity, only structural relationships are shown. ** p < .01; *** p < .001.