Box One: Measurement of Work-Life Conflict

• Overload was assessed in this study using five items from a scale developed by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981). Role overload was calculated as the summed average of these five items. High scores indicate greater role overload. In this study, Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.88.
• Work interferes with family was measured by means of a 5-item Likert scale developed by Gutek, Searle and Kelpa (1991). Work-to-family interference was calculated as the summed average of these five items. High scores indicate higher levels of perceived interference. In this study, Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.92.
• Family-to-work interference was assessed by means of a 5-item Likert scale developed by Gutek, Searle and Kelpa (1991). Family-to-work interference was calculated as the summed average of these five items. High scores indicate higher levels of perceived interference. In this study, Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.87.
• Caregiver strain was quantified using a modified three-item version of Robinson's (1983) Caregiver Strain Index (CSI). This index measures objective (rather than subjective) burden in three areas. Respondents were asked to indicate (using a 5-point Likert scale) how often they had difficulty in caring for an elderly relative or dependent because of physical strains, financial strains or because it left them feeling completely overwhelmed. Options given included never, monthly, weekly, several days per week or daily. Total caregiver strain was calculated as the summed average of these three items. Higher scores indicate greater strain. This measure has been used in a number of studies with good results (Robinson reports a Cronbach alpha of 0.91). In this study, the Cronbach alpha was 0.78.

Box Two: Measurement of Organizational Interventions

• Perceived flexibility: This is defined as the amount of flexibility respondents perceive they have over their work hours and their work location. A 4-item measure of perceived flexibility was developed by Duxbury and Higgins for use in their 1991 work-family study. The measure has evolved over time and now includes 10 items. Respondents were asked how easy or difficult it is for them to: vary their work hours, spend some of their time working at home, take holidays, take time off to attend a course, interrupt their work day for personal reasons and then return to work, receive personal calls when they are at work, balance work and personal/family commitments, keep family commitments, and take a paid day off when either a child is sick or a crisis occurs with an elderly relative. Respondent responses are captured using a 5-point scale (where a 1 = very difficult, a 3 = neither easy nor difficult, and a 5 = very easy). Perceived flexibility is calculated as the summed average of these 10 items. Higher scores reflect greater perceived flexibility. This measure has been used in a number of studies and has very high internal reliability (reported Cronbach's alpha coefficients range from 0.85 to 0.91). In this study Cronbach's alpha was .86. As outlined in Chapter Three, we also collected data on what work arrangement the individual formally worked.
• Supportive manager and non-supportive manager: The extent to which the respondents perceived that the individual they reported to was supportive (i.e. assisted their efforts to get their job done effectively given their personal circumstances) and non-supportive was assessed using two behaviourally based measures that were developed and tested by Duxbury and Higgins over a 5-year period. Non-supportive management is assessed using a 6-item measure (i.e. has unrealistic expectations on how much work can be done) while the supportive manager measure includes 9 items (e.g. gives recognition when I do my job well, listens to my concerns, provides me with challenging opportunities). In all cases, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree that their manager had engaged in each of these 15 behaviours over the past three months. Responses were collected using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree). The supportive manager score was calculated as the summed average of the 9 supportive behaviours (higher scores indicate a more supportive manager). The non-supportive management score was calculated as the summed average of 6 non-supportive items (higher scores represent a more non-supportive manager). The internal reliability (i.e. Cronbach's alpha) of both of the scales is strong (management support scale was .91, non-supportive management scale was .86).
• Supports in organization: Previous research (Bohen and Viveros-Long, 1981; Frone and Yardley, 1996; Sekaran, 1986) was used to generate a list of 13 benefits and services that have been found to help employees cope with stress and work-life imbalance. We adapted the methodology developed by Bohen and Viveros-Long and asked respondents the following question: "Organizations can help employees by offering various services. A number of such services are listed below. If the services listed below are not available or you do not use them, please mark the appropriate yes or no answer and skip to the next service. If you use the service, please indicate the extent to which it helps you cope with work/personal/family issues." Three sets of data are generated from this measure: (1) the percent of respondents who work for a company that offers each of the 13 services (response choice was yes or no), (2) the percent of respondents who actually use each of these services (response choice was yes or no), and (3) the extent to which those who use the service feel it helps them cope (5-point Likert scale where 1 = helps me cope to a very little extent, 3 = helps me cope to a moderate extent, and 5 = helps me cope to a very great extent).

Box Three: Measurement of Individual Coping Strategies

• Individual coping: Coping has been defined as the "means by which individuals and organizations manage external or internal demands that tax or exceed the individual resources (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978)." The research literature has defined a number of coping strategies, including:
  • changing the situation (direct action)
  • changing the way one thinks about the situation (cognitive reappraisal)
  • focusing on the stress reaction (symptom management)
  • social support (getting help or encouragement from others)
• This scale looks at individual coping strategies. The 13-item measure was originally developed in 1995 by the authors for use in a longitudinal study using items from measures developed by Hall (1972) and Pearlin and Schooler (1978). It is used here for comparability purposes. Key coping behaviours (both positive and negative) in each of the above four areas were included in the measure. While many of these coping strategies are to be encouraged (positive coping behaviours include talking things over with family and friends, prioritizing, getting help from family and friends), some (i.e. have a drink, use drugs) can be considered "negative coping behaviours." Respondents are asked in the survey to indicate how frequently they use each of the following strategies to cope with stress, anxiety and depression. They were given the following choices: 1 = never, 2 = monthly, 3= weekly, 4 = several days per week, and 5 = daily. Higher scores reflect greater use of the coping strategy. In this analysis, we use the individual items rather than the scale to determine the effectiveness of the different coping strategies at coping with role overload, work-to-family interference, family-to-work interferencence and caregiver strain.
• Having children: At the request of Health Canada, we included two questions in the survey that linked work-life conflict to the decision to have children. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with the following statements:
  • I have had fewer children because of the demands of my job.
  • I have not yet started a family because of my career.
• A 5-point scale Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree) was used to collect responses. In all cases, higher scores indicate greater agreement with the statement.

These items were developed for this study.

Box Four: Measurement of Coping Strategies Used Within Family

• Coping strategies used within family: Family coping behaviours were assessed using 18 questions from Skinner and McCubbin's (1987) Dual Employed Coping Scale (DECS). The complete DESC is a 5-point, 58-item Likert-style measure designed to identify and assess coping behaviours that spouses find helpful in managing work and family roles when one or both partners are employed outside the home. Items are in the form of strategies used by the couple in dealing with the pressures of their situation. The complete DESC is extremely comprehensive and its strategies often overlap. In this analysis, 17 items were selected from the DESC to quantify the following coping strategies:
  • strengthening and modifying roles within the family unit (i.e. encouraging children to help out, specifically planning family time together)
  • putting family first (i.e. limiting my job involvement so I will have time for the family, planning work changes around family needs)
  • sacrificing own needs and standards (i.e. getting less sleep than I would like to have, leaving things undone around the house, trying to be flexible, cutting down on outside activities)
  • Procuring help from others (i.e. hiring help to care for children, buying more goods and services, relying on extended family members for help)
  An additional question was added to the measure (i.e. hiring help to care for elderly dependents) to reflect the increased need for elder care in our society). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement to which each of the family coping strategies described their coping style. A Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral and 5 = strongly agree was used for responses. The overall scale achieved a Cronbach alpha of .76.

• Off-shifting: Many individuals in this sample work different hours than their partner to reduce the need for outside help for child care and/or elder care responsibilities. The following question was included in the survey to identify which respondents used this strategy: "Do you choose to work different hours than your partner in order to better manage child care or elder care responsibilities?" Two responses were allowed: yes and no.