Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS)

1. Abstract

The Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) is an internationally recognized, standardized psychometric instrument designed to measure workaholism within organizational psychology and occupational health contexts. Developed by Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Toon W. Taris, and colleagues, the scale addresses the long-standing theoretical ambiguity surrounding excessive work behavior by distinguishing between two core, interrelated components: Working Excessively (WE), representing the behavioral manifestation of allocating an exceptional amount of time and effort to work beyond organizational or financial expectations, and Working Compulsively (WC), representing the cognitive manifestation characterized by an irresistible, persistent internal drive and an inability to mentally detach from work. The DUWAS was constructed through the theoretical and empirical synthesis of two prominent earlier measures—the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) and the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT)—eliminating psychometrically redundant and conceptually confounding items such as perfectionism and job involvement. Validated extensively across diverse cultural, occupational, and national cohorts, the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties, consistently exhibiting adequate to excellent internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .75 and .89 across subscales), robust factorial invariance across genders and occupations, and strong construct validity. By clearly demarcating pathological workaholism from healthy, positive states such as work engagement, the DUWAS provides occupational health researchers, human resource professionals, and clinical psychologists with a rigorous diagnostic framework to identify maladaptive working patterns, evaluate burnout etiology, and design evidence-based organizational interventions.

2. Keywords

Dutch Work Addiction Scale, DUWAS, workaholism, working excessively, working compulsively, occupational health psychology, work engagement, job burnout, behavioral addiction, psychometrics

3. Authors

The primary developers and continuous psychometric investigators of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale include:

• Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Ph.D. — Distinguished Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at Utrecht University (The Netherlands) and Research Professor at KU Leuven (Belgium). A foremost global authority on employee well-being, burnout, work engagement, and workaholism.
• Toon W. Taris, Ph.D. — Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology at Utrecht University. Widely published in the fields of work motivation, occupational stress, longitudinal survey methodology, and work addiction.
• Collaborating Psychometric Researchers: Significant empirical and cross-cultural validations were executed in collaboration with Akihito Shimazu (The University of Tokyo / Keio University), Ilona van Beek (Utrecht University), and Corine van Wijhe (Utrecht University).

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) is to offer a theoretically grounded, empirically refined, and psychometrically parsimonious assessment tool for diagnosing and quantifying workaholism among working populations. In modern industrial-organizational psychology, the concept of workaholism has historically suffered from fragmented operationalizations, often conflating high workload, job passion, organizational citizenship behaviors, and neurotic perfectionism. The DUWAS was engineered specifically to overcome these conceptual ambiguities by isolating workaholism as a distinct psychological syndrome characterized by the simultaneous presence of excessive time commitment and compulsive inner drive.

In occupational and public health research, the DUWAS serves as an essential measurement paradigm to investigate the antecedents, correlates, and adverse consequences of unmanaged work drive. Epidemiological and longitudinal studies utilize the instrument to establish causal links between workaholism and severe physical, psychological, and social outcomes, including burnout, clinical depression, sleep disturbances, cardiovascular strain, psychosomatic complaints, work-to-family conflict, and degraded interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, the scale enables researchers to test sophisticated motivational frameworks, such as Self-Determination Theory, by examining how introjected and external regulations fuel compulsive work tendencies compared to autonomous motivation.

In clinical, counseling, and human resource management contexts, the DUWAS functions as a primary screening and diagnostic inventory. Organizational consultants use the scale to identify departments or occupational groups displaying hazardous levels of compulsive overwork, facilitating the design of preventive workplace policies, stress-management workshops, and structural restructuring of performance incentives. Clinically, mental health practitioners working with executives and professionals utilize the subscale scores to differentiate authentic high engagement from compulsive addiction, structuring tailored cognitive-behavioral interventions aimed at cognitive restructuring, establishing psychological detachment, and fostering healthy work-life integration.

5. Psychological Construct

The DUWAS conceptualizes workaholism through a bifactorial lens that integrates observable behaviors with internal cognitive-affective processes. According to Schaufeli, Taris, and colleagues, workaholism is not simply working long hours (which may occur due to external economic distress or acute project deadlines), nor is it characterized by deep intrinsic enthusiasm (which typifies positive engagement). Rather, workaholism is defined as the chronic, involuntary compulsion to work excessively hard. The construct comprises two core dimensions:

Working Excessively (WE)

The Working Excessively dimension captures the behavioral facet of workaholism. Individuals scoring high on this dimension allocate substantial temporal and energetic resources to their job duties, routinely surpassing formal contractual requirements, organizational expectations, and economic necessity. They consistently rush against deadlines, multitask relentlessly, find themselves remaining at the office or connected to digital work platforms long after colleagues have ceased working, and chronically sacrifice personal hobbies, social engagements, and recuperative rest. Crucially, this excessive labor is self-imposed rather than mandated solely by external coercion, manifesting as a pervasive behavioral pattern across different work environments.

Working Compulsively (WC)

The Working Compulsively dimension captures the cognitive and affective facet of workaholism. It is characterized by a persistent, obsessive preoccupation with work when the individual is not actively working, coupled with an irresistible internal impulse to labor. Compulsive workers experience profound psychological distress, anxiety, and guilt when forced to take vacations or leisure time, finding it exceptionally difficult to mentally detach or relax. Even when work tasks become tedious, distressing, or unenjoyable, the compulsive worker feels an unyielding internal obligation to persevere. This dimension aligns closely with clinical definitions of addiction, wherein the behavior is driven by negative reinforcement (i.e., avoiding internal tension, guilt, and perceived inadequacy) rather than positive reinforcement or genuine pleasure.

Construct Demarcation: Workaholism vs. Work Engagement and Boredom

A primary theoretical achievement of the DUWAS research program is the empirical distinction among three major occupational well-being profiles:

• Workaholism (High WE, High WC): Characterized by excessive behavior driven by internal compulsion, associated with elevated distress, burnout, and poor health.
• Work Engagement (High Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption): Characterized by a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind where dedication is intrinsically motivated and joyful, without the agonizing compulsion, chronic guilt, or inability to detach found in workaholics.
• Boredom / Underload (DUBS): Characterized by subjective understimulation, low energy arousal, day-dreaming, and sluggish passage of time at work, representing the opposite extreme of cognitive-behavioral immersion.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the DUWAS is grounded in multiple interacting psychological models spanning behavioral addiction, cognitive motivation, and occupational health.

Behavioral Addiction Model

The DUWAS conceptualizes workaholism within the overarching framework of non-substance or behavioral addictions. In this model, work functions analogously to gambling or internet gaming: the individual experiences salience (work dominates thinking and behavior), mood modification (working temporarily alleviates internal dysphoria or low self-worth), tolerance (increasing amounts of work are needed to achieve the same emotional stability), withdrawal (acute anxiety, restlessness, and irritability when separated from work), conflict (interpersonal friction with family and colleagues), and relapse (returning to destructive work patterns despite conscious decisions to scale back).

Synthesis of the WART and WorkBAT Traditions

Historically, two psychometric instruments dominated early workaholism research: Spence and Robbins’ (1992) Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT)—which posited a triad of Work Involvement, Drivenness, and Work Enjoyment—and Robinson’s (1999) Work Addiction Risk Test (WART). Psychometric investigations demonstrated that WorkBAT’s Work Enjoyment subscale actually measured engagement rather than addiction, while WART suffered from multidimensional confounding with general Type-A personality traits. Schaufeli, Taris, and Verhoeven (2005) rigorously analyzed the item pools of both scales using confirmatory techniques, demonstrating that workaholism could be most cleanly, reliably, and validly represented by extracting the behavioral overwork items from WART (forming Working Excessively) and the internal compulsion items from WorkBAT (forming Working Compulsively).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

From the perspective of Self-Determination Theory, workaholism reflects severe dysregulation of behavioral motivation. While engaged employees display autonomous motivation (integrated and intrinsic motivation driven by values and joy), workaholic employees are dominated by controlled motivation—specifically introjected regulation. Under introjected regulation, individuals act to satisfy contingent self-esteem, appease internal guilt, or ward off deep-seated feelings of worthlessness. The compulsive drive measured by the DUWAS operationalizes this fragile, introjected motivational structure.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the DUWAS has been extensively documented in peer-reviewed cross-cultural, organizational, and clinical investigations involving thousands of working adults across Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Multiple independent studies using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have demonstrated that the hypothesized correlated two-factor model (Working Excessively and Working Compulsively) fits organizational survey data substantially better than a single-factor unidimensional model or alternative three-factor permutations. The correlation between the two latent factors typically ranges between .50 and .70, confirming that while WE and WC represent distinct psychological facets, they converge to form a unified higher-order workaholism syndrome. Full measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) has been replicated across different nationalities, most notably between Western (e.g., the Netherlands) and East Asian (e.g., Japan) organizational cohorts (Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The DUWAS demonstrates robust convergent validity through moderate-to-strong positive associations with validated indicators of psychological strain, such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) exhaustion and depersonalization subscales, sleep impairment indices, and perceived work-family conflict. Conversely, its discriminant validity has been rigorously demonstrated with respect to work engagement as measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). While engaged workers exhibit elevated job satisfaction, psychological vigor, and dedication, workaholic workers (identified via high DUWAS scores) exhibit elevated emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and psychosomatic complaints despite similarly elevated working hours.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Prospective and longitudinal studies confirm that baseline scores on the DUWAS significantly predict future adverse outcomes, including increased risk of long-term sickness absence, cardiovascular indicators (such as elevated resting blood pressure), clinical burnout onset, and objective declines in job performance over time. High scorers on Working Compulsively specifically show an inability to benefit from non-work recovery periods (e.g., weekends and annual leave), which prospectively predicts sustained sympathetic nervous system activation and cognitive fatigue.

8. Reliability

The DUWAS exhibits strong and consistent reliability coefficients across varied sample compositions and linguistic adaptations.

Internal Consistency

Across empirical studies, the internal consistency of the DUWAS subscales consistently satisfies standard psychometric thresholds:

• Working Excessively (WE): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely range from .78 to .86 in general working samples, with composite reliability (CR) indices typically exceeding .80.
• Working Compulsively (WC): Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically fall between .75 and .85, demonstrating solid homogeneity of the cognitive compulsion indicators.
• Total Workaholism Scale: When the subscales are aggregated to yield a global workaholism composite, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega generally fall between .85 and .89.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal studies evaluating the temporal stability of the DUWAS over intervals ranging from 6 months to 2 years demonstrate stable test-retest correlations (typically r = .60 to .75). These coefficients confirm that workaholism behaves predominantly as a relatively stable, chronic behavioral-cognitive pattern (trait-like syndrome) within constant job settings, while retaining sufficient state sensitivity to reflect meaningful changes following organizational restructurings or clinical interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial structure of the DUWAS has been rigorously explored and validated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

In the seminal cross-cultural validation study by Schaufeli, Shimazu, and Taris (2009), structural equation modeling was conducted on large samples of Dutch employees (N = 2,164) and Japanese employees (N = 1,950). The hypothesized correlated two-factor model demonstrated good fit to the data, outperforming alternative models:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Consistently values ≥ .92 to .96 across Dutch and Japanese samples.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranging from .045 to .062 (with 90% confidence intervals well within acceptable psychometric limits).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently ≤ .05.

Factor Loadings and Multigroup Invariance

Standardized factor loadings for items loading onto the Working Excessively factor typically range from .55 to .78, with items such as ‘continuing to work after co-workers have called it quits’ and ‘racing against the clock’ loading strongly. Standardized loadings for the Working Compulsively factor range from .52 to .81, anchored strongly by items reflecting the inability to relax and feelings of guilt during non-work periods. Multigroup invariance testing demonstrates invariant factor loadings (metric invariance) across gender, white-collar versus blue-collar job categories, and cultural contexts, justifying comparative cross-national research.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological screening and diagnostic inventory.
• Target Population: Employed adults across public and private sectors, self-employed professionals, and executives.
• Administration Format: Available in paper-and-pencil questionnaires, digital web surveys, and computerized psychometric batteries.
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 6 minutes.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type frequency scale:
  • 1 = (Almost) never
  • 2 = Sometimes
  • 3 = Often
  • 4 = (Almost) always
• Subscales & Scoring Principles:
  • Working Excessively (WE): Computed as the mean or sum score of items reflecting overt behavioral overwork. Higher scores indicate greater overcommitment of time and physical effort.
  • Working Compulsively (WC): Computed as the mean or sum score of items measuring persistent cognitive preoccupation, inner pressure, and guilt during leisure.
  • Overall Workaholism Score: Calculated as the unweighted arithmetic mean of all DUWAS items or the average of the two subscale means.
  • Typological Categorization: Researchers frequently employ median-splits or cut-off percentiles (e.g., top quartile / 75th percentile) on both WE and WC simultaneously to identify four distinct employee quadrants: Workaholic (High WE, High WC), Hard Worker (High WE, Low WC), Compulsive Worker (Low WE, High WC), and Relaxed Worker (Low WE, Low WC).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Formal Release: 2004 (Technical Manual / Utrecht University); primary international peer-reviewed journal publications appeared in 2005 and 2009.
• Authors & Copyright Holders: Wilmar B. Schaufeli and Toon W. Taris.
• Accessibility and Fee: The Dutch Work Addiction Scale is published as an open-access academic instrument for non-commercial scientific research, university education, and individual clinical/organizational diagnosis. No licensing fee is required for non-commercial use, provided that full scholarly attribution is given to the authors. Commercial utilization, automated commercial testing platforms, or organizational consulting applications requiring large-scale corporate profiling require formal author notification and permissions as detailed on the official research portal (www.wilmarschaufeli.nl).

12. References

The theoretical, empirical, and psychometric foundations of the DUWAS are established in the following key scientific publications:

• Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.199
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2004). Technical information: Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Utrecht University, Department of Psychology.
• Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4), 320–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397109337239
• Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 193–217). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847202833.00018
• Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
• Schaufeli, W. B., Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., & Taris, T. W. (2010). Workaholisme, een begrip gemeten. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
• Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_15
• Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Internal and external validation of the Dutch Work Addiction Risk Test: Implications for jobs and non-work conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00195.x

13. Items of the Scale