Revaluating the Dimensionality of Academic Engagement: A Bifactor Analysis of the UWES in Higher Education

The factor structure of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) has been debated, with studies alternately supporting unidimensional and three‑factor solutions. This inconsistency may reflect a methodological limitation: conventional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) cannot always separate general from dimension‑specific variance, producing similar fit indices across competing models when a dominant general factor is present. We examined the dimensionality of the UWES‑17 and UWES‑9 in a sample of 755 Chilean university students, comparing unidimensional, three‑factor, second‑order, and bifactor models using Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV) estimation appropriate for ordinal data. Bifactor indices, explained common variance (ECV), percent of uncontaminated correlations (PUC), and hierarchical omega (ωₕ), were computed to evaluate essential unidimensionality. Results indicated that a general engagement factor explained approximately 85% of common item variance in both versions (ECV ≈ .85; ωₕ > .90), while specific factors for vigor, dedication, and absorption retained negligible reliable variance, particularly absorption (ωₕ ≈ .00). Measurement invariance by sex was supported for the UWES‑9 at the metric level. Taken together, findings suggest that the apparent multidimensionality of the UWES may be, at least partly, an artifact of conventional CFA modeling rather than a substantive property of the construct in this student sample. For applied monitoring of student well‑being, the UWES‑9 total score is recommended as the most pragmatic and psychometrically defensible scoring approach. Implications for interpreting prior literature and for institutional and educational practice are discussed.