
==== Front
BMC Nurs
BMC Nurs
BMC Nursing
1472-6955
BioMed Central London

2338
10.1186/s12912-024-02338-5
Research
Work–family enrichment among parent nurses: a cross-sectional scale development and validation study
Kawakita Toshimi toshimi.kawakita@ompu.ac.jp

1
Hosoda Yasuko 2
1 https://ror.org/01y2kdt21 grid.444883.7 0000 0001 2109 9431 Faculty of Nursing, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 7-6, Hatchonishimachi, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-0095 Japan
2 https://ror.org/01hvx5h04 Graduate School of Nursing, Osaka Metropolitan University, 3-7-30, Habikino, Habikino-shi, Osaka 583-8555 Japan
19 9 2024
19 9 2024
2024
23 6651 2 2024
11 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Work-family enrichment refers to the extent to which experiences in one role improve the quality of life in another role, and the bidirectionality indicates that benefits derived from work can be applied to family and vice versa. Parent nurses, that is, female nurses who are raising preschool children, play a major role at work and in the family. Thus, work-family enrichment is significant for them. The Work-Family Enrichment Scale cannot be generalized to parent nurses. This study was aimed at developing and psychometrically validating a draft Work-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses.

Methods

A questionnaire survey was conducted among 1,090 parent nurses who were randomly sampled from hospitals with more than 200 beds in Japan. The survey evaluated (1) a draft Work-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses, (2) the Japanese version of the Work-Family Enrichment Scale, and (3) the Positive Spillover Scale. The scales were psychometrically evaluated for internal consistency, construct validity, and criterion-related validity.

Results

Data from 503 participants (age, mean ± standard deviation [range] 35.5 ± 4.96 [23–47] years) were analyzed. Results of exploratory factor analysis, the work to family enrichment direction yielded five factors for 23 items: “emotional fulfillment,” “efficiency,” “ability to lead,” “displaying industriousness,” and “self-growth.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.862 to 0.914. In the family-to-work enrichment direction, there were five factors for 28 items: “help-seeking,” “receptiveness,” “expansion of one’s horizon,” “efficiency,” and “emotional fulfillment.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.790 to 0.907. Additionally, the correlation coefficients reporting criterion-related validity were 0.685 and 0.619 with regard to the Japanese version of the Work-Family Enrichment Scale and 0.596 and 0.534 with the Positive Spillover Scale for the Work-to-Family Enrichment Scale and the Family-to-Work Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses, respectively.

Conclusions

The Work-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses has adequate reliability and validity and can be used as an effective measure to assess the positive aspects of work and family roles among female parent nurses.

Keywords

Work-family enrichment
Parent nurses
Scale development
Reliability
Validity
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001691 Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 20K10621 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcBackground

Following the trend of work-family research in the West, research on the relationship between work and family based on positive experiences has increasingly gained popularity in recent years in Japan [1–5]. Research on Japanese nurses showed that the experience of the maternal role led to improved nursing care for patients [6] and that child-rearing experiences were effectively incorporated into nursing. For example, parent nurses leverage their nursing knowledge and personal experiences when providing guidance on breastfeeding [7]. Furthermore, when caring for a patient who is a mother with young children, parent nurses tend to develop a deeper sense of empathy and connection with the patient [8]. Despite encountering conflicts between their roles as nurses and mothers during child-rearing, parent nurses adapt by balancing their responsibilities and emotions. Through this process, they cultivate qualities such as flexibility, self-restraint, expanded perspectives, and resilience, leading to personal growth and self-awareness [9]. These studies have clarified that the relationship between work and family in parent nurses is not only an opposing relationship, such as work-family conflict (WFC) but also a mutually positive influence.

Work-family enrichment (WFE), a concept that is representative of a positive relationship between work and family, is defined as an experience in one role that enhances the quality of life in another role [3]. This construct includes the bidirectional concept of WFE, wherein work experience improves the quality of family roles, and family-to-work enrichment (FWE), wherein the experience of family roles improves the quality of work. A similar concept is Positive Spillover, which refers to experiences in one domain, such as moods, skills, values, and behaviors, being transferred to another domain [10]. WFE is based on spillover but differs from positive spillover because it assumes that resources must not only be transferred to another role but also be successfully applied in ways that result in improved performance or affect for the individual [2]. There are five types of resources: skills and perspectives, psychological and physical resources, social-capital resources, flexibility, and material resources [3].

Previous studies on WFE have shown that WFE improves with support from managers, colleagues, and organizational and family members [11] and that WFE is positively associated with work-related [12], family-related [12, 13], health-related [12], and well-being outcomes [14]. Studies involving nurses have also shown that organizational support has a positive impact on WFE [15]. Higher levels of WFEs have been associated with a negative correlation with intention to leave [16, 17]. In a study of mothers, WFE was found to have a positive impact on warmth, consistency, and marital relationships in parenting [18]. Parent nurses constitute a valuable human resource and play a central role as mothers and wives at home and as mentors and leaders in organizations at work. Therefore, WFE, in which each component enhances the other’s quality, is an important concept. However, there is limited research on the quality of parent-nurse WFE [19, 20].

The Work-Family Enrichment Scale (WFES) was originally drafted for students in the United States and tested for reliability and validity among full-time workers [2]. This scale serves as a faithful measure of the WFE theory [3] and is considered the best construct for explaining positive work-family interactions [21, 22]. It consists of nine items measuring enrichment from work to family and another nine items measuring enrichment from family-to-work, each categorized into three factors. An example item is, “My involvement in my work helps me to understand different viewpoints and this helps me a better family member.”

For the sake of parsimony and usability, the scale retained the top three performing items for each of the six dimensions [2], resulting in a concise set of items with high commonality and universality. According to the WFE theory, enrichment from one role to another is promoted when both roles are relevant, have similar requirements and norms, or are salient [3]. Thus, core job characteristics play a crucial role in predicting WFE [2]. However, parent nurses juggle caregiving roles in both work and family domains, which are closely interrelated. Consequently, the WFES [2] may not fully capture WFE for parent nurses.

Additionally, gender and cultural differences pose challenges. Although the WFES was originally developed in the United States [2] and subsequently adapted in various countries [21–27], including Japan [27], studies have shown variations in reliability and validity across cultures. Hara developed the Japanese version of the WFES (J-WFES), revealing a lower correlation coefficient between WFE and FWE, suggesting possible independence between the two constructs. Furthermore, gender differences in WFE scores have been observed in Japan, with women scoring higher despite societal norms dictating traditional gender roles [27, 28], and the results differed from several studies conducted in Europe and the United States [11]. In Japan, although the employment rate of women is gradually increasing, there is still a fixed attitude towards gender roles, in which men work outside the home, and women take care of the family [29, 30]. Even in dual-income households, women often bear the primary responsibility for childcare and housework, leading to significant burdens during the child-rearing period. Despite these challenges, women in Japan tend to report higher WFE scores, possibly indicating their ability to acquire more resources within each role. Given these complexities, it is evident that the WFES [2] may not adequately measure WFE among parent nurses, highlighting the need for the development of new scales tailored to this population.

Creation of the theoretical framework and scale items

The first stage of the study aimed to identify the resources of parent nurses in WFE. According to the WFE theory [8], resources are assets that may be drawn upon when needed to solve a problem or cope with a challenging situation. These resources acquired in one role can also spill over to the other, enhancing the performance of the other [27], which is a crucial driver of the enrichment process [31].

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 parent nurses, and the obtained data were analyzed qualitatively and descriptively. In the realm of WFE, we identified six resources: “care capability,” “ability to lead,” “efficiency,” “emotional fulfillment,” “cultivation of society,” and economic stability. We also found six resources in FWE: “empathy,” “receptiveness,” “expansion of one’s horizon,” “coordination ability,” “help-seeking behavior,” and “emotional fulfillment” [8]. Based on these findings and the literature review, the Work-to-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses (WFES-PN) consisted of 55 items, and the Family-to-Work Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses (FWES-PN) consisted of 62 items.

The second and third stages of the study involved exploring the relationships between these six concepts and the scale items. In the second stage, group interviews were conducted with five individuals who worked as nurses during their child-rearing and held a master’s degree or higher. The group comprised three nursing faculty members and two nursing managers selected through convenience sampling. They were asked to examine the superficial and content validity of the scale’s items, resulting in a consensus on 52 items for WFES-PN and 59 items for FWES-PN.

In the third stage, we examined the validity of the WFES-PN and FWES-PN using the item-level content validity index. Ten participants, selected via convenience sampling, each holding a master’s degree or higher and actively balancing work and parenting responsibilities, rated the relationship between concepts and items on the WFE scales for parent nurses. Consequently, 34 items were selected for WFES-PN, including four related to caregiving, three to coaching, six to leadership, seven to emotional fulfillment, five to industriousness display, and nine to human capital. Similarly, for FWES-PN, 42 items were selected, encompassing seven for empathy, three for tolerance, nine for breadth of vision, eight for coordination, six for help-seeking behavior, and nine for emotional fulfillment [32].

These findings offer a concrete and comprehensible presentation of the theoretical frameworks (Fig. 1) and scale items, facilitating the identification of valuable resources for individuals navigating both work and family roles. The concepts derived provide a detailed depiction of WFE resources [3] without contradicting the original theory. The primary objective of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the WFES-PN and FWES-PN.

Fig. 1 The theoretical frameworks of a) WFES-PN and b) FWES-PN

The terms in the figure represent the resources. The resources obtained by parent nurses in their work or family roles were each categorized into six types, which overlap because of their interaction

Methods

Study design

This study employed a cross-sectional design and referred to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) [33].

Participants and survey method

We defined parent nurses as nurses who care for preschool children, as young children (under 6 years old) are among the strongest deterrents to transitioning into work identities [34]. We randomly selected hospitals in Japan with a minimum of 200 beds and confirmed with facility managers their willingness to participate in the survey and the number of potential participants. The participant pool consisted of 1,090 female nurses, all of whom were raising children under the age of 6 and were employed at 101 cooperating facilities. Nurses on maternity or parental leave were excluded from the study. The candidate participants were given a set of questionnaires by their nurse managers. An anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was used as the survey method, and the completed questionnaires were collected by mail. The survey was conducted between October 2019 and February 2020.

The questionnaire included an outline of the procedure for cooperation with the retest method. Potential participants who consented to the retest were asked to fill in a personal identification password on a postcard and return it. One month later, the questionnaire was resent to those who had agreed to the retest, and the same respondents were verified by the password. A total of 229 participants agreed to the retest.

For the factor analysis, in accordance with COSMIN guidelines, the sample size required for examining structural validity was at least seven times the number of items in the survey.

Survey content

WFES-PN and FWES-PN

We used the 34-item WFES-PN and the 42-item FWES-PN, which we developed based on our theoretical framework. Responses to each item were obtained on a five-point Likert scale from 5 (“Applies”) to 1 (“Does not apply”). A higher score indicated a higher degree of WFE.

WFES

The WFES is used as an external criterion to examine criterion-related validity due to its status as an existing scale. We used the J-WFES that was developed by Carlson [2] and was translated and revised by Hara [27]. The J-WFES, WFE consists of nine items across the three factors (“work to family development,” “work to family affect,” and “work to family capital”). Similarly, Family-to-work enrichment (FWE) consists of nine items across three factors: “family-to-work development,” “family-to-work effect,” and “family-to-work efficiency.” The responses are obtained using a five-point rating scale. The reliability and validity of this scale have been previously verified [27]. This scale was used with the developer’s permission.

Spillover scale

Positive spillover, being akin to WFE, was used as an external criterion to examine criterion-related validity. We used the Spillover Scale developed by Fukumaru [35] with reference to the scales of Pleck [36] and Kopelman [37]. Spillover is the concept that emotions, skills, behaviors, and values in one area of life flow out and affect other areas of life [38]. The scale includes both positive and negative spillovers, and the Positive Spillover Scale was used in this study. The contents consisted of six items, including “I get good stimulation at work, so I can also be energetic at home” and “I feel good at work because I can relax at home.” It includes both directions: from work to home and from home to work. The responses were obtained on a five-point rating scale. This scale was used with the developer’s permission.

Participant characteristics

The participant characteristics evaluated in this study included age, years of nursing experience, children’s age, occupational position, type of employment, place of work, and the presence or absence of night shifts.

Analysis method

For item analysis of the draft WFES-PN, we examined the presence of ceiling and floor effects, determined the kurtosis/skewness, corrected item-total correlation (CITC), and inter-item correlation, and examined the presence or absence of response bias. A ceiling effect was considered present if the mean + 1 standard deviation was 5 or more, whereas a floor effect was considered present if the mean − 1 standard deviation was 1 or less. Additionally, items with kurtosis/skewness of normal distribution exceeding ± 1 and items with a CITC of ≤ 0.30 [39] were used as exclusion criteria. An inter-item correlation of ≥ 0.8 was used as an exclusion criterion.

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using data that had undergone item analysis. The maximum likelihood method was used for factor extraction, along with Promax rotation. This method was selected because the maximum likelihood is an analytical approach that focuses on fitting data to a model, and Promax rotation was chosen owing to the expected correlation between factors. The factorability was confirmed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sample validity and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The eigenvalues, scree plots, and interpretability of the obtained factors were examined to determine the optimal number of factors.

To examine criterion-related validity, the normality of the J-WFES [27] and the Positive Spillover Scale [35] was confirmed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. If normality was confirmed, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated; if not, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used.

Cronbach’s α coefficient was calculated to examine internal consistency. Approximately 1 month after the collection of the first completed questionnaire, stability was examined by analyzing responses to the second questionnaire from 229 respondents who consented to the retest. In the test-retest method, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated after confirmation of normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test.

Throughout this study, p < 0.05 was adopted as the significance level. IBM SPSS Ver. 24 and IBM SPSS Amos Ver. 24 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Participants

In total, 538 questionnaires were collected (response rate: 49.4%), and questionnaires with missing values were excluded. A total of 503 valid responses (valid response rate: 46.1%) were analyzed. The average age of the participants was 35.5 ± 4.96 years, and the average duration of work experience was 9.9 ± 5.41 years. Additional characteristics of the participants are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants

Variable	n = 503	
n (%)	
Employment Status	Full-time Regular	284 (56.5)	
Part-time Regular	175 (34.8)	
Non-Regular	  41 (8.2)	
Others	    3 (0.6)	
Work Placement	Ward	341 (67.8)	
Outpatient	114 (22.7)	
Others	  43 (8.5)	
No answer	    5 (1.0)	
Position	Staff	472 (93.8)	
	Manager	  28 (5.6)	
	Others	    3 (0.6)	
Night shift	Yes	250 (49.7)	
	No	253 (50.3)	

Examination of scale reliability and validity

Item analysis

No floor effect was observed on the 34 draft WFES-PN, and one item with a ceiling effect was deleted. Three items were deleted after a review of skewness and kurtosis. One item with a CITC < 0.30 was deleted. No items were deleted based on inter-item correlations; finally, 29 items were included in the draft WFES-PN.

No floor effect was observed in the 42-item draft FWES-PN, and two items with a ceiling effect were deleted. Three items were deleted after a review of skewness and kurtosis. None of the items had a CITC < 0.30. In the inter-item correlations, a correlation of at least 0.8 was observed between “#28: My involvement in my family teaches me how to use my time efficiently, and this helps me be a better nurse” and “#30 My involvement with my family helps me develop a planned response attitude, and this helps me become a better nurse.” It was assumed that #30 was included in #28; therefore, #28 was excluded. This resulted in the 31-item draft of the FWES-PN.

Exploratory factor analysis

WFES-PN

Exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood method and Promax rotation) was performed on the draft WFES-PN’s 29 items derived from item analysis and revealed a KMO measure of 0.933. Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated a significant difference (χ2 = 8168.109, df = 253, p < 0.001). Five factors with eigenvalues ≥ 1 were identified, with a cumulative contribution rate of 65.15%, justifying the retention of five factors. Items with high loadings on multiple factors or with loadings below 0.40 were excluded. Consequently, the WFES-PN was finalized with 23 items distributed over five factors (refer to Table 2). The inter-factor correlations ranged from 0.439 to 0.667.

Table 2 Factor loadings on the WFES-PN n = 503

#	Items
E.g.: Each item contained a specific phrase in the blank space:
“My involvement in my work _____, and this helps me be a better family member.”	Factors	
1	2	3	4	5	
Factor 1: Emotional Fulfilment (Cronbach’s α = 0.899)	
29	Gives me a sense of accomplishment,	  0.987	- 0.047	- 0.088	- 0.084	  0.048	
28	Helps me feel positive,	  0.886	  0.007	  0.044	- 0.124	- 0.017	
27	Stimulates me,	  0.742	  0.036	  0.007	  0.036	- 0.074	
31	Helps me feel motivated by the approval of others,	  0.641	  0.001	 0.064	  0.079	  0.037	
33	Helps me feel like a participating member of society,	  0.625	  0.066	-0.017	  0.105	- 0.028	
30	My patients’ appreciation makes me happy,	  0.524	- 0.038	  0.128	  0.172	  0.000	
34	Distracts me from my family’s stress,	  0.494	  0.026	  0.032	  0.028	  0.139	
Factor 2: Efficiency (Cronbach’s α = 0.914)	
14	Helps me learn how to use my time efficiently,	- 0.039	  0.925	- 0.085	- 0.020	  0.084	
15	Helps me learn to work systematically,	  0.121	  0.901	- 0.077	  0.021	- 0.043	
16	Helps me learn to prioritize my work,	- 0.015	  0.859	  0.047	  0.040	- 0.058	
13	Helps me learn to deal with multiple issues,	- 0.049	  0.637	  0.257	- 0.032	  0.011	
Factor 3: Ability to Lead (Cronbach’s α = 0.889)	
8	Helps me gain explanatory skills tailored to various subjects,	- 0.012	- 0.030	  0.950	- 0.018	- 0.036	
6	Gives me experience explaining diverse subjects,	- 0.026	- 0.053	  0.815	  0.037	  0.066	
10	Helps me learn teaching by observing the reactions,	  0.073	  0.079	  0.750	  0.088	  0.035	
1	Helps me learn communication skills,	  0.057	  0.046	  0.704	  0.039	- 0.065	
Factor 4: Displaying Industriousness (Cronbach’s α = 0.875)	
37	Helps me convey the importance of work,	- 0.025	  0.045	- 0.073	  0.892	- 0.010	
36	Helps me display a sense of fulfillment,	  0.109	- 0.036	- 0.006	  0.848	- 0.061	
35	Helps me display how hard I am working,	  0.213	- 0.058	- 0.015	  0.703	- 0.003	
38	Helps me convey the importance of life,	- 0.180	  0.062	  0.098	  0.636	  0.152	
Factor 5: Self-growth (Cronbach’s α = 0.862)	
50	Gives me the opportunity to deepen my nursing perspective,	- 0.066	  0.006	- 0.001	- 0.014	  0.930	
51	Gives me the opportunity to deepen my identity,	  0.135	- 0.026	- 0.088	- 0.018	  0.867	
52	Helps me grow as a person,	  0.217	  0.041	  0.040	  0.027	  0.558	
49	My patients teach me how to be a family member,	- 0.031	- 0.001	  0.141	  0.111	  0.498	
Total (23 items) (Cronbach’s α = 0.862)	
Correlation between factors	1	2	3	4	5	
Factor2	  0.439					
Factor3	  0.540	  0.598				
Factor4	  0.654	  0.439	  0.510			
Factor5	  0.667	  0.451	  0.570	  0.602	-	
Eigenvalue	10.369	  2.405	  1.364	  1.390	  1.129	
Explained variance (%)	43.390	  9.189	  4.804	  4.072	  3.802	
Cumulative variance (%)	43.390	52.579	57.383	61.455	65.257	
Factor extraction method: Maximum likelihood method; rotation method: Promax rotation

The first factor, comprising seven items, was called “Emotional Fulfillment.” When involvement in work results in positive emotions and self-motivation, it helps the individual to be a better family member. The second factor consisted of four items; it was named “Efficiency” because it showed that people develop the ability to plan and prioritize multiple issues through work. The third factor comprised four items; it was named “Ability to Lead” because it showed that people developed coaching skills as they guided various people. These second and third factors indicate that work involvement leads to the acquisition or refinement of skills, knowledge, behaviors, or perspectives that contribute to being a better family member. The fourth factor, consisting of four items, was named “Displaying Industriousness” because it showed that the diligent appearance of the nurses communicated to their families that their work was rewarding and that they were doing their best. The fifth factor consisted of four items; it was named “Self-growth.” Involvement in work promotes levels of psychosocial resources, such as deepening identities and personal growth, which helps individuals become better family members.

After exploratory factor analysis, WFES-PN was composed of five factors: “emotional fulfillment,” “efficiency,” “ability to lead,” “displaying industriousness,” and “self-growth.” In the theoretical framework of WFE for parent nurses, six concepts were identified: [ability to care], [coaching], [leadership], [emotional fulfillment], [displaying industriousness], and [human capital]. However, items related to [ability to care] and [coaching] were integrated. Considering that parent nurses assume leadership roles in their workplace and that the “ability to lead” encompasses care capacity and coaching, we determined that this integration was interpretable and that the five-factor structure was appropriate.

FWES-PN

A similar exploratory factor analysis of the 31-item FWES-PN draft yielded a KMO measure of 0.941, with Bartlett’s test showing a significant difference (χ2 = 8921.487, df = 378, p < 0.001). The analysis discerned five factors with eigenvalues ≥ 1 and a cumulative contribution rate of 58.6%, affirming the selection of five factors. Items with loadings below 0.40 were omitted, culminating in a 28-item FWES-PN across five factors (refer to Table 3). Inter-factor correlations varied between 0.282 and 0.671.

Table 3 Factor loadings on the FWES-PN n = 503

#	Items
E.g.: Each item contained a specific phrase in the blank space:
“My involvement in my family _____, and this helps me be a better nurse.”	Factors	
1	2	3	4	5	
Factor 1: Help-seeking (Cronbach’s α = 0.901)	
49	Helps me find support resources that I can use when I need help,	  0.880	  0.075	- 0.072	- 0.020	- 0.050	
48	Helps me learn help − seeking from the people around me,	  0.818	  0.075	- 0.075	  0.076	- 0.130	
47	Helps me reflect on the sharing of childcare and housework,	  0.792	- 0.023	  0.011	- 0.040	  0.100	
46	Reminds me of the importance of not taking on childcare and housework alone,	  0.754	  0.073	  0.098	- 0.066	- 0.142	
45	Helps me share my situation with others,	  0.743	  0.011	- 0.063	  0.165	- 0.125	
36	Helps me use my support resources effectively	  0.699	- 0.127	  0.055	- 0.107	  0.228	
44	Gives me experiences in objective self − reflection,	  0.440	- 0.070	  0.173	  0.021	0.248	
Factor 2: Receptiveness (Cronbach’s α = 0.907)	
11	Helps me to be more accepting of others,	- 0.071	  0.841	  0.149	- 0.102	- 0.059	
15	Makes me more receptive,	- 0.001	  0.839	- 0.119	- 0.058	  0.135	
8	Helps me see others’ perspectives,	  0.002	  0.827	  0.028	- 0.126	  0.107	
9	Improves my intuitions about others’ feelings,	  0.096	  0.813	- 0.198	- 0.086	  0.225	
14	Helps me learn patience,	  0.099	  0.522	  0.022	  0.234	  0.049	
7	Gives me family topics you can relate to,	- 0.030	  0.503	  0.355	  0.124	- 0.184	
4	Helps me relate to the change in life as my family grows,	  0.078	  0.471	  0.025	  0.268	  0.006	
Factor 3: Expansion of one’s horizon (Cronbach’s α = 0.878)	
19	Gives me first experiences, such as children’s events,	- 0.082	- 0.065	  0.881	- 0.072	  0.029	
20	Helps me learn about my children’s growth and development,	  0.034	- 0.169	  0.697	- 0.069	  0.190	
18	Allows me to engage with people from all walks of life,	  0.005	  0.106	  0.636	- 0.054	- 0.068	
24	Helps me gain a new perspective by noticing the differences in values of couples,	  0.072	  0.057	  0.632	- 0.034	  0.039	
27	Expands my knowledge of and interest in the future of Japan and the world,	- 0.073	  0.144	  0.611	  0.118	- 0.088	
25	Increases my knowledge of support systems for childcare and nursing care,	- 0.054	  0.100	  0.550	  0.168	- 0.033	
26	Heightens my awareness of the social responsibilities of parenting,	  0.188	  0.082	  0.507	- 0.013	  0.062	
21	Helps me learn to look at others from a parent’s perspective,	  0.229	- 0.159	  0.496	  0.017	  0.242	
Factor 4: Efficiency (Cronbach’s α = 0.860)	
32	Teaches me to deal with multiple issues,	- 0.049	- 0.113	- 0.086	  1.023	  0.110	
28	Teaches me how to use my time efficiently,	- 0.011	- 0.083	- 0.025	  0.841	  0.134	
34	Teaches me to anticipate and respond to unforeseen events,	  0.153	  0.064	  0.117	  0.599	- 0.115	
Factor 5: Emotional fulfillment (Cronbach’s α = 0.790)	
54	Makes me happy due to my family’s love,	- 0.140	  0.198	  0.025	  0.065	  0.700	
56	Distracts me from work stress,	- 0.020	  0.077	  0.019	  0.110	  0.625	
59	Helps me have a more relaxing time,	  0.037	  0.173	  0.113	  0.064	  0.461	
Total (28 items) (Cronbach’s α = 0.949)	
Correlation between factors	1	2	3	4	5	
Factor2	  0.550					
Factor3	  0.671	  0.602				
Factor4	  0.589	  0.631	  0.614			
Factor5	  0.523	  0.380	  0.514	  0.282	-	
Eigenvalue	12.006	  2.104	  1.638	  1.497	  1.160	
Explained variance (%)	41.221	  6.116	  4.123	  4.223	  2.916	
Cumulative variance (%)	41.221	47.447	51.460	55.683	58.600	
Factor extraction method: Maximum likelihood method; rotation method: Promax rotation

The leading factor, “Help-Seeking,” includes seven items that reflect on the propensity to request assistance, childcare, and sharing housework through their family, which facilitates work performance. The second factor consisted of seven items; it was named “Receptiveness” because it showed that people acquired tolerance, an attitude of considering others’ feelings, and perseverance through their family life. The third factor consisted of eight items; it was named “Expansion of One’s Horizon” because it showed that people developed perspectives on children’s growth and development and, as mothers, realized the social responsibility of raising children and expanded their knowledge from their interest in the future of Japan and the world through their family life. The fourth factor, again labeled “Efficiency,” with three items, underscores time management and proactive responses to unexpected events in family life. In oblique rotations such as the Promax method, the factor pattern matrix can produce loadings that exceed 1 [40] ; therefore, item #32 is not an inappropriate solution. These second, third, and fourth factors denote instances where family involvement leads to the acquisition or refinement of skills, knowledge, behaviors, or perspectives beneficial for nursing practice. The fifth factor, “Emotional Fulfillment,” has three items signifying that family engagement provides relaxation and positive emotions, contributing to improved nursing performance.

Following exploratory factor analysis, FWES-PN was delineated into five factors: “help-seeking,” “receptiveness,” “expansion of one’s horizon,” “efficiency,” and “emotional fulfillment.” In the theoretical framework of FWE for parent nurses, six concepts were identified: [empathy], [tolerance], [breadth of vision], [coordination], [help-seeking], and [emotional fulfillment]. However, items related to [empathy] and [tolerance] were integrated. Given their conceptual similarity, we deemed this integration interpretable, concluding that the five-factor structure was appropriate.

Both WFES-PN and FWES-PN consisted of five factors, with two factors (“Emotional Fulfillment” and “Efficiency”) being common to both.

Examination of criterion-related validity

WFES-PN

The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the WFES-PN and the J-WFES [27] was ρ = 0.685 (p < 0.001). Additionally, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the WFES-PN and the Positive Spillover Scale [35] was ρ = 0.596 (p < 0.001).

FWES-PN

The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the FWES-PN and the J-WFES [27] was ρ = 0.619 (p < 0.001). Additionally, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the FWES-PN and the Positive Spillover Scale [35] was ρ = 0.534 (p < 0.001).

Examination of internal consistency

WFES-PN

Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.899 for the first factor, 0.914 for the second factor, 0.889 for the third factor, 0.875 for the fourth factor, 0.862 for the fifth factor, and 0.944 for the entire scale.

FWES-PN

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.901 for the first factor, 0.907 for the second, 0.878 for the third, 0.860 for the fourth, 0.790 for the fifth, and 0.949 for the scale as a whole.

Examination of stability

One hundred forty respondents (a 61.1% response rate) and data from 118 (a valid response rate of 51.5%) were analyzed. For the WFES-PN, the Shapiro–Wilk test yielded a total score of 0.98 (df = 118, p = 0.109) for the initial survey, confirming normality. However, the total score for the subsequent survey was 0.97 (df = 118, p = 0.004), indicating a departure from normality. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between the initial and subsequent surveys for the WFES-PN were as follows: for the entire scale, 0.700 (p < 0.001); for the subscales, 0.630 (p < 0.001) for the first factor, 0.661 (p < 0.001) for the second factor, and 0.599 (p < 0.001) for the third factor, 0.729 (p < 0.001) for the fourth factor, and 0.588 (p < 0.001) for the fifth factor (Table 4).

Table 4 Correlation coefficients between the first and second surveys of the WFES-PN and FWES-PN (n = 118)

	Spearman Correlation coefficient	
WFES-PN

 Emotional Fulfilment

 Efficiency

 Ability to Lead

 Displaying Industriousness

 Self-growth

	0.700**

0.630**

0.661**

0.599**

0.729**

0.588**

	
FWES-PN

 Help-Seeking

 Receptiveness

 Expansion of One’s Horizon

 Efficiency

 Emotional Fulfilment

	0.721**

0.586**

0.518**

0.716**

0.676**

0.652**

	
Spearman’s correlation coefficient, **p < 0.001

WFES-PN = Work-to-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses

FWES-PN = Family-to-Work Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses

For the FWES-PN, the results of the Shapiro–Wilk test showed a total first survey score of 0.99 (df = 118, p = 0.238), and its normality was confirmed. However, the total second survey score was 0.98 (df = 118, p = 0.041), and its normality was not confirmed. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between the first and second surveys for the FWES-PN were as follows: for the entire scale, 0.721 (p < 0.001); for the subscales, 0.586 (p < 0.001) for the first factor, 0.518 (p < 0.001) for the second factor, 0.716 (p < 0.001) for the third factor, 0.676 (p < 0.001) for the fourth factor, and 0.652 (p < 0.001) for the fifth factor.

Distribution of WFES-PN and FWES-PN

The total score for WFES-PN ranged from 23 to 115, with a mean of 80.0 (SD = ± 15.16), confirming normal distribution based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test (KS = 0.034, df = 503, p = 0.200). For FWES-PN, scores ranged from 30 to 140, with a mean of 100. 7 (SD = ± 17.58), and normality was also confirmed (KS = 0.039, df = 503, p = 0.059).

Discussion

Validity and reliability of the WFES-PN

The first factor, “emotional fulfillment,” comprised seven items, aligning with the concept of “work-to-family affect” in the WFES [2]. Positive affect can expand one’s energy levels, thereby facilitating engagement in other roles [41]. Emotional fulfillment derived from work serves as a resource not only for parent nurses but also for the general population, enriching their family roles.

The second factor, “efficiency,” comprised four items. Although this factor was initially conceptualized as “leadership” in the theoretical framework, it focused specifically on efficiency-related aspects such as time management and planning. Parent nurses demonstrate leadership in various capacities, such as task delegation and staff management, to meet work objectives. However, in their family roles, the emphasis shifts towards efficiency-related tasks due to the absence of situations requiring overt leadership. Notably, whereas the WFES [2] includes “family-to-work efficiency,” it does not explicitly address efficiency in the work-to-family context. This omission reflects the unique challenges faced by nurses, who must navigate numerous tasks and interruptions while prioritizing responsibilities [42]. Improving efficiency at work not only reduces overtime hours but also allows nurses to allocate more time and energy to their maternal roles.

The third factor, the ability to lead, consisted of four items. It is a concrete example of the “work to family development” of the WFES [2]. Many parent nurses were mid-career nurses with leadership roles in the workplace [43]. Questions that encourage reflection and independent thinking during staff coaching are also effective in educating children [44], and the resources gained through work are used in children’s education, leading to the enrichment of family roles.

The fourth factor, displaying industriousness, consisted of four items. This factor was composed of narratives by many parent nurses and was a unique factor not found in the WFES [2]. Thus, showing children how their parents work from an early age and demonstrating the rewarding nature of nursing, along with a sense of pride in their profession, can contribute to their development [45]. The accumulation of hard work days in itself becomes a resource and an enrichment of the family role that leads to the development of children.

The fifth factor, self-growth, comprised four items. This factor corresponds to the human capital of the theoretical framework and is similar to the subfactor “work to family capital” in the WFES [2]. Obtaining the opportunity to deepen one’s view of nursing leads to the establishment of one’s professional identity [46], and as a result, it fosters growth as a family member [47]. Moreover, learning about patients and their families who support patients in their lives through work can be applied when one’s own family members become ill or require nursing care, leading to an improvement in the family member’s role. Thus, it includes items related to resources unique to nurses who are directly involved in the life, aging, illness, and death of individuals.

Most factors extracted in this study delineate the WFES [2] in detail. However, “display industriousness” in WFES-PN was not in the WFES [2], and it was considered to be a unique resource for parent nurses. The results of criterion-related validity suggest that the WFES-PN has construct validity. Cronbach’s α coefficients also indicate internal consistency, and a certain degree of stability was achieved using the test-retest method.

Validity and reliability of the FWES-PN

The first factor, help-seeking, comprised seven items. Help-seeking is a behavior in which people ask for help [48]; it refers to seeking assistance and support from others. For parent nurses, achieving a balance between work and family roles is impossible without the support of those around them. Learning to skillfully seek help through family roles can lead to improvement in work roles, such as sharing information and building relationships to obtain support in the workplace [49]. This factor was identified in an interview survey of parent nurses [8] and is a unique factor for parent nurses that is not found in the WFES [2].

The second factor, receptiveness, comprised seven items. Kashiwagi and Wakamatsu [50] stated that one could observe personality development in terms of flexibility, such as “becoming more mellow” and “becoming more tolerant of others.” Increased receptiveness in the family role also improves interpersonal skills in the workplace, which is utilized in leadership roles at work [51].

The third factor, expansion of one’s horizon, consisted of eight items. Expanding one’s horizon improves understanding of individual differences and improves leadership skills at work [51]. These factors 2 and 3 are considered to correspond to “family-to-work development” in the WFES [2].

The fourth factor, efficiency, comprises three items and is also referred to as “family-to-work efficiency” in the WFES [2]. In the WFES-PN, four items delineate efficiency, with “teaches me how to use my time efficiently” and ‘teaches me to deal with multiple issues” also included in this factor. The attitude of efficiently responding to situations that suddenly happen in the family role, such as not being able to go to work due to the child’s fever, is useful for handling unexpected situations at work [49].

The fifth factor, emotional fulfillment, contained three items. It parallels the “family-to-work effect” found in the WFES [2]. In the WFES-PN, seven items were extracted for emotional fulfillment, and the “resources,” which were obtained and fulfilled through work, were a fulfillment of achieving goals, such as “gives me a sense of accomplishment,” “helps me feel positive,” and “stimulates me.” Meanwhile, emotional fulfillment in the FWES-PN was the fulfillment of effects such as relaxation or healing. In women, positive feelings about the family are also applied to work [52], and emotional fulfillment in the family roles enriches the work role.

Most factors extracted in this study are similar to the WFES [2], and the results of criterion-related validity suggest that the FWES-PN has construct validity. However, “help-seeking” in FWES-PN was not in the WFES [2], and it was considered to be a unique resource for parent nurses. Cronbach’s α coefficients also showed internal consistency, and a certain degree of stability was obtained using the test-retest method.

Potential application of the WFES-PN and FWES-PN

Raising children is useful for nurses who are closely involved with the birth, aging, illness, and death of people [9]. In recent studies, burnout scores for nurses with family roles were low, suggesting that family roles may have a positive spillover effect on work-related emotions [53]; however, we did not find a scale that could measure what kind of work experience helped family roles or what family roles helped work. Since this scale was conducted from basic research to qualitatively clarify the WFE resources among parent nurses, factors not found in the WFES [2] were identified, making it a realistic scale. In addition, since we have developed both the WFES-PN and FWES-PN, it is possible to identify useful resources in the fields of work and family for parent nurses who play both work and family roles and to clarify the resources that they currently have, which will lead to further efforts to strengthen resources.

WFE is attracting attention in industrial organizations because it allows people to examine improvements in their quality of life and work performance at the individual level [27]. WFE has been shown to improve work performance [54], positive effects [2], work and family satisfaction [2], physical and mental health [50], and life satisfaction [12, 55]. To improve the quality of nursing, it is necessary to improve the quality of life. Although WFC research is predominant among nurses [20], it is crucial to elevate WFE while reducing WFC to enhance the quality of work and family [56]. Therefore, this scale is expected to advance research on the positive aspects of interactive work-family dynamics.

Moreover, WFE is more strongly influenced by workplace and personal factors, such as workplace support, family-friendly organizational culture, work engagement, and involvement in work, than by occupational inhibitors like working hours and role loads [2]. In addition, WFE shows a negative association with nurses’ turnover intention [16, 17]. The WFES-PN and FWES-PN are expected to serve as evaluation tools for assessing child-rearing support systems and work-life balance culture within an organization.

Limitations and future challenges

The WFES-PN and FWES-PN had a certain level of construct validity. However, construct validity cannot be guaranteed by a single study, and further validation is required. In addition, this scale was developed by parent nurses working in Japanese hospitals with at least 200 beds, and caution should be exercised when using this scale in different populations.

The following questions were raised for the future: the theoretical framework derived from qualitative research was not supported by exploratory factor analysis; thus, it is necessary to perform confirmatory factor analysis on another dataset to confirm validity. Furthermore, this scale was constructed for female nurses who take care of preschool children; further verification is needed to determine whether it can be applied to nurses taking care of older children. Additionally, as there is a sex difference in the WFE score, further studies are required to determine if it is applicable to male parent nurses.

Research on WFE among parent nurses is in its infancy, and many other questions can also be raised, for example, with regard to international comparisons and the development of shortened versions of the WFES-PN and FWES-PN. As the number of nurses working while raising children increases, it is necessary to verify that the WFE contributes to work styles that enhance productivity while promoting the well-being of professionals.

Conclusions

This paper describes the development and testing of the new WFES-PN and FWES-PN among parent nurses working in hospitals in Japan. As a result, the WFES-PN consists of 23 items with five factors, and the FWES-PN comprises 28 items with five factors, indicating acceptable validity and reliability. It was confirmed that parent nurses working in a society where gender roles still exist acquire resources not available in the original WFES.

The WFES-PN and FWES-PN should be used as objective tools for parent nurses to reflect on their experiences and to elucidate the relationship between work and family outcome variables. Moreover, these scales are expected to serve as evaluation tools for child-rearing support systems and work-life balance culture within organizations, allowing nurses to lead happier and more fulfilling lives.

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to all the participants for their understanding and cooperation in this study. We also thank Dr. Miyuki Nakayama, Graduate School of Osaka Metropolitan University, and Dr. Hiromi Naragino, Osaka Shin-Ai Gakuin University, for their invaluable guidance and advice. This study was performed as a part of a 2020 doctoral thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Nursing, Osaka Prefecture University.

Author contributions

TK conducted the entire research process (study conception, study design, data collection, analysis, and article writing); YH advised on and refined the entire research process and article writing. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (Grant Number 20K10621).

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study, but they are available from the corresponding author at a reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted with the approval of the Osaka Prefecture University Graduate School of Nursing Research Ethics Committee (application number 2019-36). A written explanation was given to the participants regarding the significance, purpose, and method of the research; respect for the free will of the participants’ cooperation in the research; protection of privacy; preservation of data anonymity; and disclosure of research results. Informed consent was obtained when the participants responded to the consent form and returned the completed questionnaire. Permission to use the scales was obtained from the developer and translator.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

CITC Corrected item-total correlation

COSMIN COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments

FWE Family-to-work enrichment

FWES-PN Family-to-Work Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses

J-WFES Japanese version of the Work-Family Enrichment Scale

KMO Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

WFC Work-family conflict

WFE Work-family enrichment

WFES-PN Work-to-Family Enrichment Scale for Parent Nurses

WFES Work-Family Enrichment Scale

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Baral R Bhargava S Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes J Manag Psychol 2010 25 274 300 10.1108/02683941011023749
Baral R, Bhargava S. Work-family enrichment as a mediator between organizational interventions for work-life balance and job outcomes. J Manag Psychol. 2010;25:274–300.
2. Carlson DS Kacmar KM Wayne JH Grzywacz JG Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale J Vocat Behav 2006 68 131 64 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002
Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Wayne JH, Grzywacz JG. Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. J Vocat Behav. 2006;68:131–64.
3. Greenhaus JH Powell GN When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment Acad Manag Rev 2006 31 72 92 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625
Greenhaus JH, Powell GN. When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family enrichment. Acad Manag Rev. 2006;31:72–92.
4. Fujimoto T. Positive relationship between work and personal life. JILPT. 2011:117–8. https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/zassi/backnumber/2011/01/pdf/117-118.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2024.
5. Fujisawa R Positive work-life relationships RMS Message 2018 51 7 12
Fujisawa R. Positive work-life relationships. RMS Message. 2018;51:7–12. https://www.recruit-ms.co.jp/research/journal/pdf/j201810/m51_all.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2023.
6. Hamada M Kazumi N Effects of the maternal role on practical nursing performance: from a survey on nurses who have completed the childcare role Jpn J Matern Health 2019 60 412 20
Hamada M, Kazumi N. Effects of the maternal role on practical nursing performance: from a survey on nurses who have completed the childcare role. Jpn J Matern Health. 2019;60:412–20.
7. Iwashita M Takada M Factors related to career continuation among nurses raising children J Jpn Acad Nurs Admin Pol 2012 16 45 56
Iwashita M, Takada M. Factors related to career continuation among nurses raising children. J Jpn Acad Nurs Admin Pol. 2012;16:45–56.
8. Kawakita T Hosoda Y Work-family enrichment resources of female nurses raising preschool children J Jpn Acad Nurs Sci 2022 42 196 203 10.5630/jans.42.196
Kawakita T, Hosoda Y. Work-family enrichment resources of female nurses raising preschool children. J Jpn Acad Nurs Sci. 2022;42:196–203.
9. Ichinose M How the experience of parenthood influences the work approach of a staff nurse J North Japan Acad Nurs Sci 2014 17 31 9
Ichinose M. How the experience of parenthood influences the work approach of a staff nurse. J North Japan Acad Nurs Sci. 2014;17:31–9.
10. Crouter AC Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work-family interface Hum Relat 1984 37 425 41 10.1177/001872678403700601
Crouter AC. Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work-family interface. Hum Relat. 1984;37:425–41.
11. Lapierre LM Li Y Kwan HK Greenhaus JH DiRenzom MS Shao P A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work–family enrichment J Organ Behav 2018 39 385 401 10.1002/job.2234
Lapierre LM, Li Y, Kwan HK, Greenhaus JH, DiRenzom MS, Shao P. A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work–family enrichment. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:385–401.
12. McNall LA Nicklin JM Masuda AD A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work? Family enrichment J Bus Psychol 2010 25 381 96 10.1007/s10869-009-9141-1
McNall LA, Nicklin JM, Masuda AD. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work? Family enrichment. J Bus Psychol. 2010;25:381–96.
13. Liu H Ngo HY Cheung FM Work–family enrichment and marital satisfaction among Chinese couples: a crossover-spillover perspective Int J Stress Manag 2016 23 209 31 10.1037/a0039753
Liu H, Ngo HY, Cheung FM. Work–family enrichment and marital satisfaction among Chinese couples: a crossover-spillover perspective. Int J Stress Manag. 2016;23:209–31.
14. Van den Eynde A Mortelmans D The consequences of Work–Family Enrichment in families on the Behaviour of children Soc Sci 2020 9 1 13
Van den Eynde A, Mortelmans D. The consequences of work–family enrichment in families on the behaviour of children. Soc Sci. 2020;9:1–13.
15. Ghislieri C Gatti P Molino M Cortese CG Work-Family Conflict and Enrichment in nurses: between job demands, perceived organizational support and work-family backlash J Nurs Manag 2017 25 65 75 10.1111/jonm.12442 27859839
Ghislieri C, Gatti P, Molino M, Cortese CG. Work-family conflict and enrichment in nurses: between job demands, perceived organizational support and work-family backlash. J Nurs Manag. 2017;25:65–75.27859839
16. Russo M Buonocore F The relationship between work-family enrichment and nurse turnover J Manag Psy 2012 27 216 36
Russo M, Buonocore F. The relationship between work-family enrichment and nurse turnover. J Manag Psy. 2012;27:216–36.
17. Rajkonwar B Mansi R The impact of work–family issues on turnover intentions among nurses? A study from North-Eastern India J Health Manag 2018 20 164 77 10.1177/0972063418763652
Rajkonwar B, Mansi R. The impact of work–family issues on turnover intentions among nurses? A study from North-Eastern India. J Health Manag. 2018;20:164–77.
18. Cooklin AR Westrupp E Strazdins l Giallo R Martin A Nicholson JM Mothers’ work–family conflict and enrichment: associations with parenting quality and couple relationship Child Care Health Dev 2015 41 266 77 10.1111/cch.12137 24673505
Cooklin AR, Westrupp E, Strazdins l, Giallo R, Martin A, Nicholson JM. Mothers’ work–family conflict and enrichment: associations with parenting quality and couple relationship. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41:266–77.24673505
19. Kawakita T A literature review regarding nurses work-family enrichment Osaka Med Coll J Nurs Res 2019 9 73 8
Kawakita T. A literature review regarding nurses work-family enrichment. Osaka Med Coll J Nurs Res. 2019;9:73–8.
20. Cortese CG Lara Colombo, Ghislieri C Determinants of nurses’ job satisfaction: the role of work–family conflict, job demand, emotional charge and social support J Nurs Manag 2010 18 35 43 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.01064.x 20465727
Cortese CG, Lara Colombo, Ghislieri C. Determinants of nurses’ job satisfaction: the role of work–family conflict, job demand, emotional charge and social support. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:35–43.20465727
21. Tang SW Siu OL Cheung F A study of work–family enrichment among Chinese employees: the mediating role between work support and job satisfaction J Appl Psychol 2014 63 130 50 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00519.x
Tang SW, Siu OL, Cheung F. A study of work–family enrichment among Chinese employees: the mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol. 2014;63:130–50.
22. Rastogi M Rangnekar S Rastogi R Work–family enrichment in India: validation of work–family enrichment scale Global Bus Rev 2017 18 1568 79 10.1177/0972150917713050
Rastogi M, Rangnekar S, Rastogi R. Work–family enrichment in India: validation of work–family enrichment scale. Global Bus Rev. 2017;18:1568–79.
23. Lim DH Choi M Song JH Work–family enrichment in Korea: construct validation and status Leadersh Organ Dev J 2012 33 282 99 10.1108/01437731211216470
Lim DH, Choi M, Song JH. Work–family enrichment in Korea: construct validation and status. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2012;33:282–99.
24. De Klerk M Nel JA Hill C Koekemoer E The development of the MACE work–family enrichment instrument SA J Ind Psychol 2013 39 1 16 10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1147
De Klerk M, Nel JA, Hill C, Koekemoer E. The development of the MACE work–family enrichment instrument. SA J Ind Psychol. 2013;39:1–16.
25. Ghislieri C Martini M Gatti P Colombo L The ‘bright side’ of the work–family interface: a briefwork–family enrichment scale in a sample of health professionals. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics Methodol Appl Psychol 2012 18 211 30
Ghislieri C, Martini M, Gatti P, Colombo L. The ‘bright side’ of the work–family interface: a briefwork–family enrichment scale in a sample of health professionals. TPM—Testing, Psychometrics. Methodol Appl Psychol. 2012;18:211–30.
26. Van Steenbergen EF Kluwer ES Karney BR Work–family enrichment, work–family conflict, and marital satisfaction: a dyadic analysis J Occup Health Psychol 2014 19 182 94 10.1037/a0036011 24730427
Van Steenbergen EF, Kluwer ES, Karney BR. Work–family enrichment, work–family conflict, and marital satisfaction: a dyadic analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2014;19:182–94.24730427
27. Hara T Development of the Japanese version of work-family enrichment scale and examination of its psychological process Japanese Association Industrial/Organizational Psychol J 2018 31 139 54
Hara T. Development of the Japanese version of work-family enrichment scale and examination of its psychological process. Japanese Association Industrial/Organizational Psychol J. 2018;31:139–54.
28. Hara T Effects of social support and role performance among dual-career men and women: the mediating role of work–family enrichment Res Lifesp Dev Psychol 2020 12 69 78
Hara T. Effects of social support and role performance among dual-career men and women: the mediating role of work–family enrichment. Res Lifesp Dev Psychol. 2020;12:69–78.
29. Bureau GE, Office C, Government of Japan. The White Paper on Gender Equality 2023. https://www.gender.go.jp/about_danjo/whitepaper/r05/gaiyou/pdf/r05_gaiyou_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2024.
30. Bureau GE, Office C, Government of Japan, The White Paper on Gender Equality. 2022. https://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/about_danjo/whitepaper/pdf/special_feature.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2024.
31. Friedman SD, Greenhaus JH. Work and family-allies or enemies? What happens when business professionals confront life choices. Oxford University Press; 2000.
32. Kawakita T Hosoda Y Assessing the content validity of the work-family enrichment scale for parent nurses, Japanese J Med Nurs Educ 2023 31 48 56
Kawakita T, Hosoda Y. Assessing the content validity of the work-family enrichment scale for parent nurses, Japanese. J Med Nurs Educ. 2023;31:48–56.
33. Prinsen CAC Mokkink LB Bouter LM Alonso J Patrick DL de Vet HCW COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures Qual Life Res 2018 27 1147 57 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 29435801
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57.29435801
34. Spenner KI Rosenfield RA Women, work, and identities Soc Sci Res 1990 19 3 266 9 10.1016/0049-089X(90)90010-G
Spenner KI, Rosenfield RA. Women, work, and identities. Soc Sci Res. 1990;19(3):266–9.
35. Fukumaru Y Relationships between multiple roles of dual-career couples and depression Jpn J Fam Psychol 2000 14 151 62
Fukumaru Y. Relationships between multiple roles of dual-career couples and depression. Jpn J Fam Psychol. 2000;14:151–62.
36. Pleck JH Staines GL Lallg L Conflicts between work and family life Mon Lab Rev 1980 103 29 32
Pleck JH, Staines GL, Lallg L. Conflicts between work and family life. Mon Lab Rev. 1980;103:29–32.
37. Kopelman RE Greenhause JH Connolly TF A model of work, family and interrole conflict: a construct validation study Organ Behav Hum Perform 1983 32 198 215 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-2
Kopelman RE, Greenhause JH, Connolly TF. A model of work, family and interrole conflict: a construct validation study. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1983;32:198–215.
38. Edwards JR Rothbard NP Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs Acad Manage Rev 2000 25 178 99 10.2307/259269
Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Acad Manage Rev. 2000;25:178–99.
39. Polit DF Beck CT Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice 2021 11 Philadelphia Wolters Kluwer 350 4
Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2021. pp. 350–4.
40. Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003. p.51.
41. Marks SR Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on Human Energy, Time and Commitment Am Sociol Rev 1977 4 921 36 10.2307/2094577
Marks SR. Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment. Am Sociol Rev. 1977;4:921–36.
42. Matsutani M Sakyo Y Oku H Hori N Takaya T Miura Y New baccalaureate nursing graduates’ perceptions of required nursing competency: an analysis of interview data from nurses J St Lukes SocNurs Res 2012 16 9 19
Matsutani M, Sakyo Y, Oku H, Hori N, Takaya T, Miura Y. New baccalaureate nursing graduates’ perceptions of required nursing competency: an analysis of interview data from nurses. J St Lukes SocNurs Res. 2012;16:9–19.
43. Oyamada K A literature review of the characteristics of nurses in mid-career and professional development methods in Japan J Jpn Acad Nurs Admin Pol 2009 13 73 80
Oyamada K. A literature review of the characteristics of nurses in mid-career and professional development methods in Japan. J Jpn Acad Nurs Admin Pol. 2009;13:73–80.
44. Park S Sugimura SA Three-Layer Model of parental reflection in the Rearing Children Japanese J Dev Psychol 2009 20 99 111
Park S, Sugimura SA, Three-Layer. Model of parental reflection in the rearing children. Japanese J Dev Psychol. 2009;20:99–111.
45. Suemori K. Mothers’ work conditions and early adolescents’ psychological adjustment in Japan: work socialization hypothesis vs. Work Stress Hypothesis. Journal of social welfare, Nihon Fukushi University. 2011;125:135–41.
46. Öhlén J Segesten K The professional identity of the nurse: concept analysis and development J Adv Nurs 1998 28 720 27 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00704.x 9829659
Öhlén J, Segesten K. The professional identity of the nurse: concept analysis and development. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:720–27.9829659
47. Okamoto Y. Maturation in the context of women’s life-long development and identity development and involvement as individuals. Kyoto: Kitaooji shobou;1999.p.122.
48. Pescosolido BA Beyond rational choice: the social dynamics of how people seek help Am J Sociol 1992 97 1096 138 10.1086/229863
Pescosolido BA. Beyond rational choice: the social dynamics of how people seek help. Am J Sociol. 1992;97:1096–138.
49. Nakahara J Tohmatsu Innovation. Human resource development and workplace diversity 2018 Tokyo Diamond Inc 177 8
Nakahara J. Tohmatsu Innovation. Human resource development and workplace diversity. Tokyo: Diamond Inc; 2018. pp. 177–8.
50. Kashiwagi K Wakamatsu M Becoming a parent and personality development: a lifespan developmental view Dev Psychol Res 1994 5 72 83
Kashiwagi K, Wakamatsu M. Becoming a parent and personality development: a lifespan developmental view. Dev Psychol Res. 1994;5:72–83.
51. Ruderman MN Benefits of multiple roles for Managerial Women Acad Manage J 2002 45 369 86 10.2307/3069352
Ruderman MN. Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Acad Manage J. 2002;45:369–86.
52. Rothbard NP Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family roles Adm Sci Q 2001 46 655 84 10.2307/3094827
Rothbard NP. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family roles. Adm Sci Q. 2001;46:655–84.
53. Kida R Fujinami K Yumoto Y Togari T Ogata Y The association between burnout and multiple roles at work and in the family among female Japanese nurses: a cross-sectional study Ind Health 2023 61 195 202 10.2486/indhealth.2021-0280 35569954
Kida R, Fujinami K, Yumoto Y, Togari T, Ogata Y. The association between burnout and multiple roles at work and in the family among female Japanese nurses: a cross-sectional study. Ind Health. 2023;61:195–202.35569954
54. Carlson DS Kacmar KM Zivnuska S Ferguson M Whitten D Work-family enrichment and job performance: a constructive replication of affective events theory J Occup Health Psychol 2011 16 297 312 10.1037/a0022880 21728437
Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Zivnuska S, Ferguson M, Whitten D. Work-family enrichment and job performance: a constructive replication of affective events theory. J Occup Health Psychol. 2011;16:297–312.21728437
55. Wijaya S The correlation between social support and work-family enrichment with psychological well-being among married nurses JMMR 2021 10 46 56 10.18196/jmmr.v10i1.10285
Wijaya S. The correlation between social support and work-family enrichment with psychological well-being among married nurses. JMMR. 2021;10:46–56.
56. Bakker AB Brummelhuis TL Prins JT van der Heijden FMMA Applying the job demands-resources model to the work–home interface: a study among medical residents and their partners J Vocat Behav 2011 79 170 80 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.004
Bakker AB, Brummelhuis TL, Prins JT, van der Heijden FMMA. Applying the job demands-resources model to the work–home interface: a study among medical residents and their partners. J Vocat Behav. 2011;79:170–80.
