The UWES was the most frequent instrument among the analyzed papers, having been validated or cited by 83.1 % of the studies, demonstrating its hegemony as a measurement tool for work engagement. The UWES has been translated and validated in countries on five continents in versions with 17, 15, 9, 6, or 3 items. There is also a version for daily and continuous evaluation of engagement. Its mastery may be due to the effort of its creators in translating and validating the scale in different languages in collaboration with researchers from other countries. It is a three-dimensional scale composed of the dimensions of vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The authors emphasize that the UWES may be used as part of antecedents and consequences research or as an instrument for psychosocial risk assessment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2009). Based on a literature review of UWES validation papers, Kulikowski (2017) points out that the nine-item version of the UWES is presented “as a more valid and reliable measure of work engagement” (p. 170).

In fact, the many approaches to engagement pointed out in this manuscript reveal that there is no convergence of views on what should be the ideal way to measure the construct, which often reverts to direct criticism of the UWES as the dominant measurement tool, especially with regard to its factorial structure (Ababneh & Macky, 2015; Kulikowski, 2017; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Wefald et al., 2012).

The TWES follows the approach by Schaufeli et al. (2002) and proposes to evaluate engagement in group work. The results support the idea that engagement in teamwork and at the individual level are two different constructs, albeit related (Costa et al., 2014). The authors start from the UWES-9 to develop a scale that differs from the original one on how to elaborate the questions, replacing the “I” with “we”. The TWES may be answered individually and have the team members’ answers subsequently aggregated or collectively through group discussions. The authors did not find a three-factor structure for the scale, which resulted in a one-dimensional instrument.

The scale developed by Rothbard (2001) is the oldest among those studied. Although it was proposed before the research by Schaufeli et al. (2002), it fits better with the engagement approach of these authors, even if partially. The same is true for the EACT and EEGT. In the conception of these three scales, the emotional component is not necessarily associated with engagement.

Rothbard (2001) aimed to present and validate a work and family engagement scale, evaluating their different roles and correlating engagement with other constructs, such as family and work importance and family and work demands. Proposed in 2001, it has nine items divided into two dimensions: attention and absorption. In fact, the items elaborated by this author for the absorption dimension underpinned the later development of the scales that consider this dimension, given that it is possible to see similarities in questions of the subsequent scales when compared to those of the Rothbard Scale.

Upon suggesting the EACT, Lupano-Perugini et al. (2017) adopt a physical component (energy) and two cognitive components (attention and absorption), understanding that there is not necessarily an emotional component associated with the engagement phenomenon. The authors consider that attention “refers to the motivational resources that a person can apply to a given task”, and absorption would be “the capacity of applying those resources with intensity” (Lupano-Perugini et al., 2017, p. 128).

The EEGT is a Brazilian two-dimensional proposal by Siqueira et al. (2014) to work with two dimensions: vigor and absorption, opting to exclude dedication because it is “a dimension very similar to other concepts in the literature of organizational behavior since its items are attributed to the work properties such as challenge, inspiration, enthusiasm, meaning, and purpose” (p. 150). The authors argue that, if they kept the items that measure dedication in their tool, there would be an overlap with items from other scales, which “could lead to biases in studies that relate work engagement to, for example, motivation and job meaningfulness or job involvement” (Siqueira et al., 2014, p. 150).

The MBI is the most used burnout scale to assess the effects of this syndrome (Ababneh & Macky, 2015). It is an instrument divided into three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and ineffectiveness. Using this scale, opposite scores from these three dimensions assess three other dimensions of engagement: energy, involvement, and efficacy, respectively (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). Like the MBI, the OLBI is a scale designed for burnout evaluation; however, it was used in some studies to assess engagement/disengagement in two opposite dimensions: energy (exhaustion-vigor) and identification (cynicism-dedication) (Christian et al., 2011). Although the burnout antithesis conception has been criticized and is currently not so frequent in empirical studies, we chose to indicate these two scales because it was identified that they also evaluate engagement.

Regarding the proposed items, it is possible to point out close similarities between the items of the May and Rich Scales, both influenced by Kahn’s personal engagement approach and divided into three dimensions: physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The scale developed by May et al. (2004) consists of thirteen items and is pointed out as the first measurement instrument conceived from Kahn’s conception (Ababneh & Macky, 2015; Viljevac et al., 2012). In turn, the Rich Scale consists of eighteen items. However, mainly in the absorption dimension, this instrument presents items with close similarities to each other such as “At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job”, “At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job”, and “At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job” (Rich et al., 2010). In our literature review, we did not find any validation studies of this scale beyond the original research, but we conjecture that further validation attempts could indicate a leaner scale with fewer questions.

Matz-Costa et al. (2013) proposed a measurement scale for work engagement (not necessarily remunerated) among retired elderly people and related this engagement to the well-being perceived by such individuals in their lives from a preventive and restorative perspective. The PEP is a one-dimensional seventeen-item instrument since, in the authors’ view, engagement involves “different levels of interest, focus, and energy experienced while enacting a role”, which, at high levels of engagement, cannot be dismembered (p. 1296). Even with a one-dimensional proposal, their approach is close to Kahn’s insofar as it represents engagement as an investment of multiple dimensions (physical, emotional, and cognitive) of life and job experiences, meeting personal needs of meaningfulness, safety, and availability.

The SMVM assesses engagement based on vigor. Although it may seem that the measure does not assess engagement itself, Shirom elaborated it based on Kahn’s research and in criticism of the approach by Schaufeli et al. (2002). The author suggests the vigor component of engagement is the one that best expresses the concept and is not confused with other psychological constructions.In this conception, vigor is associated with the energy resources of an individual, which may be cognitive, emotional, or physical and are expressed from the dimensions of physical strength, emotional energy, and cognitive liveliness (Wefald et al., 2012).

Soane et al. (2012) presented a differentiated structure for engagement based on activation, positive affect, and focus. Their study culminated in the development of the ISA Engagement Scale. The focus, based on the forerunner vision by Kahn (1990), is an indispensable condition for engagement characterized as the alignment between work roles and work itself. For Soane et al. (2012), focus must be complemented by activation and positive affect in order to turn into engagement. Activation is a response to stimuli capable of triggering “a range of affective and cognitive responses” (Soane et al., 2012, p. 531), and positive affect concerns the activation of positive emotions stimulated by work. Based on the convergence of these three factors, the authors proposed the ISA as a three-dimensional measure formed by social, affective, and intellectual engagement. This model differs from the other scales presented, especially with regard to social engagement (e.g., “I share the same work values as my colleagues”, “I share the same work goals as my colleagues”), an aspect suggested by Kahn (1990) but not considered in the construction of other scales.

The Saks Scale derives from the model of the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement and identifies the division between organizational engagement and job engagement, which comprise the two dimensions of the scale (Saks, 2006). Job engagement concerns the dedication and commitment to work tasks and involves items such as “Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time” and “I am highly engaged in this job”. In turn, organizational engagement refers to the employee’s involvement with their organization, involving statements such as “Being a member of this organization is very captivating”, “One of the most exciting things for me is getting involved with things happening in this organization”, and “Being a member of this organization make me come ‘alive’”.

The Ababneh Scale was proposed in 2019 and arose from an analysis that Ababneh and Macky (2015) and Ababneh et al. (2019) did on different measuring instruments. The authors argue, as Saks (2006) does, that it is imperative to differentiate employee engagement from job engagement. Job engagement refers to the attachment to employment tasks, while employee engagement involves job engagement associated with the attachment to the organization itself (Ababneh & Macky, 2015). This scale is also influenced by Kahn’s view of engagement, especially with regard to adjusting workers to their work roles. As stated by Kahn (1990), “it is difficult for people to engage personally in fulfilling work processes when organizational ends do not fit their own values” (p. 716). Thus, Ababneh et al. (2019) suggest a scale composed of five dimensions: emotion and activation, discretionary effort, absorption, identification, and task performance. The dimensions of emotion and activation, discretionary effort, and absorption are related to job engagement. In turn, the dimensions of identification and task performance are associated with employee engagement.

Proposed by Robinson et al. (2004), the IES Engagement Tool explores engagement as an employee’s tendency to align and commit to their organization. These authors understand that engagement has similarities and overlaps two other constructs: employee commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. However, it goes beyond both concepts by requiring that engaged employees have an element of awareness about the organization’s business. The result is a one-dimensional scale that favors items such as “I speak highly of this organization to my friends”, “I am proud to tell others I am part of this organization”, and “This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance”.