Crossover of Engagement Among Academic Staff and Students During COVID-19

References

• De-la-Calle-Durán M-C, Rodríguez-Sánchez J-L. Employee engagement and well-being in times of COVID-19: a proposal of the 5Cs model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(10):5470–5485. doi:10.3390/ijerph18105470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu D, Chen Y, Li N. Tackling the negative impact of COVID-19 on work engagement and taking charge: a multi-study investigation of frontline health workers. J Appl Psychol. 2021;106(2):185–198. doi:10.1037/apl0000866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun S, Goldberg SB, Lin D, Qiao S, Operario D. Psychiatric symptoms, risk, and protective factors among university students in quarantine during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Global Health. 2021;17(15):1–14. doi:10.1186/s12992-021-00663-x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wester ER, Walsh LL, Arango-Caro S, Callis-Duehl KL. Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19-driven remote learning. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2021;22(1):1–11. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joo B-K, Zigarmi D, Nimon K, Shuck B. Work cognition and psychological well-being: the role of cognitive engagement as a partial mediator. J Appl Behav Sci. 2017;53(4):446–469. doi:10.1177/0021886316688780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond IJ, Raymond CM. Positive psychology perspectives on social values and their application to intentionally delivered sustainability interventions. Sustain Sci. 2019;14(5):1381–1393. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00705-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seligman MEP, Steen TA, Park N, Peterson C. Positive psychology progress: empirical validation of interventions. Am Psychol. 2005;60(5):410 421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotera Y, Ting S. Positive psychology of Malaysian university students: impacts of engagement, motivation, self-compassion, and well-being on mental health. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2019;19:227–239. doi:10.1007/s11469-019-00169-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham-Thai N, McMurray AJ, Muenjohn N, Muchiri M. Job engagement in higher education. Pers Rev. 2018;47(4):951–967. doi:10.1108/PR-07-2017-0221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson MA, Lawson HA. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Rev Educ Res. 2013;83(3):432–479. doi:10.3102/0034654313480891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn W. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad Manag J. 1990;33(4):692–724. doi:10.5465/256287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astin AW. Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. J Coll Stud Dev. 1984;40(5):518–529.
   Google Scholar
• Burch GF, Heller NA, Burch JJ, Freed R, Steed SA. Student engagement: developing a conceptual framework and survey instrument. J Educ Bus. 2015;90(4):224–229. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1019821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coetzee SE, Rothmann S. An adapted model of burnout for employees at a higher education institution in South Africa. SA J Ind Psychol. 2004;30(3):29–40. doi:10.4102/sajip.v30i3.157
   Google Scholar
• Moodley P, Singh RJ. Addressing student dropout rates at South African universities. Altern Spec Ed. 2015;17:91–115.
   Google Scholar
• Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Martínez I, Breso E. How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: the mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2010;23(1):53–70. doi:10.1080/10615800802609965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rofcanin Y, Heras ML, Bosch MJ, Wood G, Mughal F. A closer look at the positive crossover between supervisors and subordinates: the role of home and work engagement. Hum Relat. 2019;72(11):1776–1804. doi:10.1177/0018726718812599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westman M. Stress and strain crossover. Hum Relat. 2001;54(6):717–751. doi:10.1177/0018726701546002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couples. Hum Relat. 2005;58(5):661–689. doi:10.1177/0018726705055967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The crossover of work engagement between working couples. A closer look at the role of empathy. J Manag Psychol. 2009;24(3):220–236. doi:10.1108/02683940910939313
   Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. The crossover of daily work engagement: test of an actor–partner interdependence model. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(6):1562 1571. doi:10.1037/a0017525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagenauer G, Volet SE. Teacher–student relationship at university: an important yet under-researched field. Oxf Rev Educ. 2014;40(3):370–388. doi:10.1080/03054985.2014.921613
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Covell K, McNeil JK, Howe RB. Reducing teacher burnout by increasing student engagement. A children’s rights approach. J Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30(3):282–290. doi:10.1177/0143034309106496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen B, McCaughtry N, Martin J, Garn A, Kulik N, Fahlman M. The relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. Br J Educ Psychol. 2015;85(4):519–532. doi:10.1111/bjep.12089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Horn JE, Schaufeli WB, Enzmann D. Teacher burnout and lack of reciprocity. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;29(1):91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01376.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Westman M, Van Emmerik IJH. Position paper advancements in crossover theory. J Manag Psychol. 2009;24(3):206–219. doi:10.1108/02683940910939304
   Google Scholar
• Butt HP, Tariq H, Weng Q, Sohail N. I see you in me, and me in you: the moderated mediation crossover model of work passion. Pers Rev. 2019;48(5):1209–1238. doi:10.1108/PR-05-2018-0176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Van Emmerik H, Euwema MC. Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work Occup. 2006;33(4):464–489. doi:10.1177/0730888406291310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. J Vocat Behav. 2005;67:266–289. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westman M, Etzion D. Crossover of stress, strain and resources from one spouse to another. J Organ Behav. 1995;16(2):169–181. doi:10.1002/job.4030160207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilal FG, Channa NA, Gilal NG, Gilal RG, Shah SMM. Association between a teacher’s work passion and a student’s work passion: a moderated mediation model. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:889–900. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S212004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Mierlo H, Bakker AB. Crossover of engagement in groups. Career Dev Int. 2018;23(1):106–118. doi:10.1108/CDI-03-2017-0060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB. Flow among music teachers and their students: the crossover of peak experiences. J Vocat Behav. 2005;66(1):26–44. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westman M, Brough P, Kalliath T. Expert commentary on work–life balance and crossover of emotions and experiences: theoretical and practice advancements. J Organ Behav. 2009;30(5):587–595. doi:10.1002/job.616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikkers JSE, Geurts SAE, Kinnunen U, Kompier MAJ, Taris TW. Personality and social sciences: crossover between work and home in dyadic partner relationships. Scand J Psychol. 2007;48(6):529–538. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00580.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westman M, Vinokur AD, Hamilton VL, Roziner I. Crossover of marital dissatisfaction during military downsizing among Russian army officers and their spouses. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(5):769–779. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warwas J, Helm C. Enjoying working and learning in vocational education: a multilevel investigation of emotional crossover and contextual moderators. Empir Res Vocat Educ Train. 2017;9(11):1–20. doi:10.1186/s40461-017-0055-2
   Google Scholar
• Li Y, Wang Z, Yang L-Q, Liu S. The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: the role of abusive supervision, psychological capital, and team performance. J Occup Health Psychol. 2016;21(2):142–153. doi:10.1037/a0039960
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess LG, Riddell PM, Fancourt A, Murayama K. The influence of social contagion within education: a motivational perspective. Mind Brain Educ. 2018;12(4):164–174. doi:10.1111/mbe.12178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eloff I, O’Neil S, Kanengoni H. Students’ well-being in tertiary environments: insights into the (unrecognised) role of lecturers. Teach High Educ. 2021;2021:1–22. doi:10.1080/13562517.2021.1931836
   Google Scholar
• Moos RH. Context and coping: toward a unifying conceptual framework. Am J Community Psychol. 1984;12(1):1–36. doi:10.1007/BF00896933
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuck B. Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: an integrative literature review. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2011;10(3):304–328. doi:10.1177/1534484311410840
   Google Scholar
• Shuck B, Wollard K. Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the foundations. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2010;9(1):89–110. doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
   Google Scholar
• Gutermann D, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Boer D, Born M, Voelpel SC. How leaders affect followers’ work engagement and performance: integrating leader−member exchange and crossover theory. Br J Manag. 2017;28(2):299–314. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farr-Wharton B, Charles MB, Keast R, Woolcott G, Chamberlain D. Why lecturers still matter: the impact of lecturer–student exchange on student engagement and intention to leave university prematurely. High Educ. 2018;75(1):167–185. doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0190-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3:71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326
   Google Scholar
• Bailey C, Madden A, Alfes K, Fletcher L. The meaning, antecedents, and outcomes of employee engagement: a narrative synthesis. Int J Manag Rev. 2017;19(1):31–53. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(1):89–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim W, Kolb JA, Kim T. The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Hum Resour Dev Rev. 2012;12(3):248–276. doi:10.1177/1534484312461635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks AM. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J Manag Psychol. 2006;21(7):600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
   Google Scholar
• Rana S, Ardichvili A, Tkachenko O. A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: Dubin’s method. J Workplace Learn. 2014;26(3/4):249–266. doi:10.1108/JWL-09-2013-0063
   Google Scholar
• Shuck B, Reio TG. Employee engagement and well-being: a moderation model and implications for practice. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2014;21(1):43–58. doi:10.1177/1523422311431153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axelson RD, Flick A. Defining student engagement. Change. 2011;43(1):38–43. doi:10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
   Google Scholar
• Kahn PE. Theorising student engagement in higher education. Br Educ Res J. 2014;40(6):1005–1018. doi:10.1002/berj.3121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Vergel AIS, Kuntze J. Student engagement and performance: a weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motiv Emot. 2015;39(1):49–62. doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9422-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandernach BJ. Assessment of student engagement in higher education: a synthesis of literature and assessment tools. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2015;12(2):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bowden JL-H, Tickle L, Naumann K. The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach. Stud High Educ. 2021;46(6):1207–1224. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1672647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiber B, Yu D. Exploring student engagement practices at a South African university: student engagement as reliable predictor of academic performance. S Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(5):157–175. doi:10.20853/30-5-593
   Google Scholar
• Floyd KS, Harrington SJ, Santiago J. The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Inform Sci. 2009;12:181–190. doi:10.28945/435
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz-García A, Villena-Martínez D. Influences of learning approaches, student engagement, and satisfaction with learning on measures of sustainable behavior in a social sciences student sample. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):541. doi:10.3390/su13020541
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes C. COVID-19 and the opportunity to design a more mindful approach to learning. Prospects. 2020;49(1–2):69–72. doi:10.1007/s11125-020-09492-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Donnison S, Penn-Edwards S. Focusing on first year assessment: surface or deep approaches to learning? Int J First Year High Educ. 2012;3(2):9–20. doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i2.127
   Google Scholar
• Aharony N. The use of deep and surface learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76(4):851–866. doi:10.1348/000709905X79158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrendon L, Deffayet S, Baker AC, Kolb D. Enhancing deep learning: lessons from the introduction of learning teams in management education in France. J Manag Educ. 2011;35(3):324–350. doi:10.1177/1052562910368652
   Google Scholar
• Fourie CM. Deep learning? What deep learning? S Afr J High Educ. 2003;17(1):123–131. doi:10.4314/sajhe.v17i1.25201
   Google Scholar
• Fullan M, Langworthy M. Towards a new end: new pedagogies for deep learning. Collaborative Impact; 2013. Available from: http://www.newpedagogies.nl/images/towards_a_new_end.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Olpak YZ, Korucu AT. Investigation of the relationship between learning approaches and academic engagement of teacher candidates. J Learn Teach Digit Age. 2016;1(1):55–62.
   Google Scholar
• West L, Halvorson D. Student engagement and deep learning in the first-year international relations classroom: simulating a UN security council debate on the Syrian crisis. J Political Sci Educ. 2019;17(2):173–190. doi:10.1080/15512169.2019.1616298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan SJ, Chan CW, Tanner JA. Diverse assessment and active student engagement sustain deep learning: a comparative study of outcomes in two parallel introductory biochemistry courses. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2014;42(6):474–479. doi:10.1002/bmb.20824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. J Sch Health. 2004;74(7):262–273. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth G, Assor A, Kanat-Maymon Y, Kaplan H. Autonomous motivation for teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. J Educ Psychol. 2007;99(4):761–774. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tikkanen L, Pyhӓltӧ K, Soini T, Pietarinen J. Crossover of burnout in the classroom—is teacher exhaustion transmitted to students? Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 2021;9(4):326–339. doi:10.1080/21683603.2021.1942343
   Google Scholar
• Wirtz N, Rigotti T, Otto K, Loeb C. What about the leader? Crossover of emotional exhaustion and work engagement from followers to leaders. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(1):86–97. doi:10.1037/ocp0000024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Sixma HJ, Bosveld W, Van Dierendonck D. Patient demands, lack of reciprocity and burnout: a five-year longitudinal study among general practitioners. J Organ Behav. 2000;21(4):425–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tayfur O, Arslan M. The role of lack of reciprocity, supervisory support, workload and work–family conflict on exhaustion: evidence from physicians. Psychol Health Med. 2013;18(5):564–575. doi:10.1080/13548506.2012.756535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munyon TP, Breaux DM, Rogers LM, Perrewé PL, Hochwarter WA. Mood crossover and relational reciprocity. Career Dev Int. 2009;14(5):408–427. doi:10.1108/13620430910989825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza NB, King RB. The social contagion of student engagement in school. Sch Psychol Int. 2020;41(5):454–474. doi:10.1177/0143034320946803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson LTB, Rothmann S, Van de Vijver FJR. A model of work-related well-being for educators in South Africa. Stress Health. 2006;22(4):263–274. doi:10.1002/smi.1098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns RA, Machin MA. Investigating the structural validity of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales across two samples. Soc Indic Res. 2009;93(2):359–375. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9329-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright TA, Hobfoll SE. Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: an examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. J Bus Manag. 2004;9(4):389–406. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Cilliers F, Flotman A-P. The psychological well-being manifesting among master’s students in Industrial and Organisational Psychology. SA J Ind Psychol. 2016;42(1):a1323. doi:10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson IT, Cooper CL. Full engagement: the integration of employee engagement and psychological well-being. Leader Organ Dev J. 2010;31(4):324–336. doi:10.1108/01437731011043348
   Google Scholar
• Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2013;83(1):10–28. doi:10.1159/000353263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandel M, Vescovelli F, Ruini C. Beyond Ryff’s scale: comprehensive measures of eudaimonic well-being in clinical populations. A systematic review. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017;24(6):O1524–O1546. doi:10.1002/cpp.2104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rusu PP, Colomeischi AA. Positivity ratio and well-being among teachers. The mediating role of work engagement. Front Psychol. 2020;11(1608):1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01608
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sonnentag S, Binnewies C, Mojza EJ. Staying well and engaged when demands are high: the role of psychological detachment. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(5):965–976. doi:10.1037/a0020032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jak S, Oort FJ, Dolan CV. Measurement bias in multilevel data. Struct Equ Modeling. 2014;21(1):31–39. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.856694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell BA, Ferron JM, Kromrey JD. Cluster size in multilevel models: the impact of sparse data structures on point and interval estimates in two-level models. Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings [Section on Survey Research Methods]. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex; 2008:1122–1129. Available from: http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2008/Files/300933.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke P. When can group-level clustering be ignored? Multilevel models versus single-level models with sparse data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(8):752–758. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060798
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich BL, Lepine JA, Crawford ER. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad Manag J. 2010;53(3):617–635. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.51468988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais MA, Lenderking WR, Baer L, et al. Development and initial validation of a brief mental health outcome measure. J Pers Assess. 1999;73(3):359–373. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7303_5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equ Modeling. 2004;11(3):320–341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reise SP, Bonifay WE, Haviland MG. Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. J Pers Assess. 2013;95(2):129–140. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaufeli WB, Van Dierendonck D, Van Gorp K. Burnout and reciprocity: toward a dual-level social exchange model. Work Stress. 1996;10(3):225–237. doi:10.1080/02678379608256802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B. Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull. 1989;105(3):456–466. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loiacono E, Wilson EV. Do we truly sacrifice truth for simplicity: comparing complete individual randomization and semi-randomized approaches to survey administration. AIS Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2020;12(2):45–69. doi:10.17705/1thci.00128
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Ann Rev Psychol. 2012;63(1):539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs J, Kember D, Leung DYP. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: r-SPQ-2F. Br J Educ Psychol. 2001;71(1):133 149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q. 1995;6(2):219 247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 8th ed. Muthén & Muthén (Original work published 1998); 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Kenny DA, Kaniskan B, McCoach DB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res. 2015;44(3):486–507. doi:10.1177/0049124114543236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish D, An J, Hancock GR. The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cut-offs in latent variable models. J Pers Assess. 2018;100(1):43–52. doi:10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olckers C, Van Zyl LE. Psychometric properties of the psychological ownership questionnaire. Aust J Psychol. 2019;71(2):127–136. doi:10.1111/ajpy.12232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Wang X. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2020. doi:10.1002/9781119422730
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao X, Lynch JG Jr, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consum Res. 2010;37(2):197–206. doi:10.1086/651257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nezlek JB. Multilevel Modeling for Social and Personality Psychology. Sage; 2011. doi:10.4135/9781446287996
   Google Scholar
• Thomas SL, Heck RH. Analysis of large-scale secondary data in higher education research: potential perils associated with complex sampling designs. Res High Educ. 2001;42(5):517–540. doi:10.1023/A:1011098109834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paccagnella O. Centering or not centering in multilevel models? The role of the group mean and the assessment of group effects. Eval Rev. 2006;30(1):66–85. doi:10.1177/0193841X05275649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grewal R, Cote JA, Baumgartner H. Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Mark Sci. 2004;23(4):519–529. doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005;31(6):874–900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan-Thomas A, Dudau A. Of possums, hogs, and horses: capturing the duality of student engagement in elearning. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2019;18(4):564–580. doi:10.5465/amle.2018.0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jena LK, Pradhan S, Panigrahy NP. Pursuit of organisational trust: role of employee engagement, psychological well-being and transformational leadership. Asia Pacific Manag Rev. 2018;23(3):227–234. doi:10.1016/j.apmrv.2017.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gable SL, Haidt J. What (and why) is positive psychology? Rev Gen Psychol. 2005;9(2):103–110. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrowsmith J, Parker J. The meaning of “employee engagement” for the values and roles of the HRM function. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2013;24(14):2692–2712. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.763842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon K, Park J. The life cycle of employee engagement theory in HRD research. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2019;21(3):352–370. doi:10.1177/1523422319851443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James P, Hudspeth C. How do you take learning beyond the classroom in an interdisciplinary first-year seminar? New Dir Teach Learn. 2017;151(151):79–95. doi:10.1002/tl.20250
   Google Scholar
• Shuck B, Algaraja M, Rose K, Owen J, Osam K, Bergman M. The health-related upside of employee engagement: exploratory evidence and implications for theory and practice. Perform Improv Q. 2017;30(3):165–178. doi:10.1002/piq.21246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulton CA, Hughes E, Kent C, Smith JR, Williams HTP. Student engagement and wellbeing over time at a higher education institution. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers SA. Using leader–member exchange theory to explain students’ motives to communicate. Commun Q. 2006;54(3):293–304. doi:10.1080/01463370600878008
   Google Scholar
• Rindfleisch A, Malter AJ, Ganesan S, Moorman C. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. J Mark Res. 2008;45(3):261–279. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar