How is the Workaholism scale scored?

It is multidimensional: score each facet as the mean of its items, and report facet-level reliability. Use a total score only if the original validation supports it.

Where do I find the full validated items?

In the original publication cited on this page - always administer the validated item wording rather than paraphrases.

How reliable is the Workaholism (DUWAS, Schaufeli, Shimazu & Taris) scale?

Reported reliability: WE alpha 0.79; WC alpha 0.75. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach's alpha of .70+ is acceptable, .80+ good, and .90+ excellent for established measures.

Home › Scale Atlas › HR & Work › Workaholism (DUWAS, Schaufeli, Shimazu & Taris)

Workaholism (DUWAS, Schaufeli, Shimazu & Taris)

HR & WorkReliability: WE alpha 0.79; WC alpha 0.753 sample items

About this scale

A 10-item Dutch Work Addiction Scale measuring two dimensions: working excessively (WE, behavioural) and working compulsively (WC, cognitive). Captures the negative compulsion side of intense work, in contrast to engagement.

Sample item(s)

“I seem to be in a hurry and racing against the clock. (WE)”

“I feel that there's something inside me that drives me to work hard. (WC)”

“I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called it quits. (WE)”

Reliability

Reported internal consistency: WE alpha 0.79; WC alpha 0.75. As a rule of thumb, Cronbach’s α ≥ .70 is considered acceptable, ≥ .80 good, and ≥ .90 excellent for established measures.

Notes

Pair with UWES-9 to test discriminant validity (engagement vs. workaholism).

Source & citation

Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009): Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 320–348.

Schaufeli, Shimazu & Taris (2009): DUWAS. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 320–348.

Source. Scale details are summarised from the publication cited above. Always consult the original source for the full item set, scoring, and permission to use.

How to administer & score it

All 10 items are typically rated on a Likert-type agreement scale (check the original article for the exact anchors — keeping them unchanged preserves comparability with published findings). This instrument is multidimensional: score each facet separately (the mean of its items) and only use a total score if the original validation supports one. Reporting facet-level results is usually more informative and is what reviewers expect. Include at least one attention check in longer surveys, and randomise item order within the scale block to reduce position effects.

In the original validation, reported internal consistency was WE alpha 0. Always re-estimate reliability in your own sample: report Cronbach's α (and, if you run CFA/SEM, composite reliability and AVE). An α noticeably below the published range usually signals a translation issue, careless responding, or a mis-scored reverse-coded item — not necessarily a bad scale.

Adapting this scale? A 5-point validity checklist

Keep the response anchors. Changing a 7-point scale to 5 points changes the psychometrics; only do it with a reason you can defend.
Translate properly. Use forward and back translation with bilingual reviewers, and pilot the translated version before full data collection.
Change the referent, not the meaning. Adapting "my organisation" to "my university" is fine; rewording items until they measure something else is not.
Report every change. Reviewers accept adaptations that are documented and justified; silent modifications are a rejection risk.
Re-test validity. After any adaptation, re-check reliability and discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker, HTMT) — our reliability & validity guide walks through the thresholds.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use the Workaholism scale in my research for free?
Most academic scales are free for non-commercial research use with proper citation, but permission terms belong to the original authors/publisher — check the source article (cited above) and request permission where indicated.

Do I need the full item wording?
Yes — always work from the original publication's item set rather than paraphrases, so your instrument matches the validated version. This page summarises the scale; the citation above is the authoritative source.

How do I build a questionnaire with this scale?
You can assemble it (with consent text, demographics, and attention checks) in the free SmartForm builder, then verify reliability live as responses arrive, and test your full model in SmartSEM.

Use it in your research

Need to check the reliability or psychometrics of this scale in your own data? Use the free DrAIStudio research tools:

Cronbach’s alpha calculator All statistical calculators Search the full Scale Atlas Academic writing humanizer