Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment–Model Questionnaire

Abstract

The Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire (Afota et al., 2023) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument designed to measure the multifaceted dimensions of employee telecommuting adjustment and to examine its primary psychosocial and contextual determinants across international work environments. Developed in response to the massive structural transformation of global labor practices following the COVID-19 pandemic, the measurement model articulates the complex interplay between organizational normative pressures and individual teleworking adaptation. Rooted in signaling theory, the scale operationalizes two key organizational antecedents—psychological climate for face time and perceived availability expectations—alongside three distinct, core dimensions of work-from-home (WFH) adjustment: WFH enjoyment, WFH productivity, and WFH evaluation.

The full questionnaire comprises 14 standardized items rated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Psychometric evaluation across cross-national samples in the United States, France, and Spain established robust structural integrity and sound statistical properties. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) demonstrated that the three-factor model of WFH adjustment accounted for 82.1% of the total variance. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) affirmed exceptional baseline model fit indices: χ²(59) = 95.24, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .989, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .034, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .042. Multigroup measurement invariance testing confirmed configural invariance across American and Western European cultural contexts (χ²(118) = 150.76, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .044), while metric and scalar invariance were substantiated utilizing Cheung and Rensvold’s ΔCFI < −.01 criterion. All latent constructs yielded high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding .70. The instrument provides organizational psychologists, human resource executives, and occupational health researchers with a psychometrically validated diagnostic tool to optimize remote working arrangements, mitigate technostress, and foster sustainable telework integration.

Keywords

COVID-19 pandemic, perceived availability expectations, psychological climate for face time, signaling theory, work-from-home adjustment, work-from-home enjoyment, work-from-home evaluation, work-from-home productivity, employee attitudes, telecommuting, organizational climate, occupational adjustment, cross-cultural psychometrics, remote work, presenteeism.

Authors

The Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire was developed and validated by an international research consortium comprising specialists in organizational behavior, industrial relations, and management psychology:

• Marie-Colombe Afota — School of Industrial Relations (École de relations industrielles [ÉRI]), Université de Montréal, 3150, rue Jean-Brillant, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 1N8. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
• Yanick Provost Savard — Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
• Ariane Ollier-Malaterre — School of Management (ESG UQAM), Department of Organisation and Human Resources, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
• Emmanuelle Léon — Department of Management, ESCP Business School, Paris, France.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire is to provide an empirical, psychometrically validated framework to measure how knowledge workers adjust to remote working environments and to identify the contextual organizational signals that facilitate or undermine this transition. While remote work existed prior to 2020, the societal lockdown measures triggered by the pandemic accelerated the widespread adoption of telework, forcing millions of professionals into domestic work settings without the gradual onboarding or infrastructure typically associated with planned occupational transitions. Consequently, organizational scholars required a calibrated diagnostic instrument to assess how employees navigate the psychological, affective, and operational boundaries of the home-work interface.

In research contexts, the scale addresses critical gaps in the occupational health and industrial-organizational psychology literature. Previous instruments frequently treated telework adjustment as a unidimensional construct, focusing narrowly on self-reported task output while neglecting affective satisfaction, cognitive appraisal, and socio-normative climate factors. By contrast, the Afota et al. (2023) questionnaire integrates signaling theory into the study of flexible work arrangements. It specifically targets how unwritten organizational expectations regarding physical visibility—often termed “presenteeism culture” or “face-time culture”—and informal pressures for continuous digital connectivity interact to shape psychological adaptation.

From an applied human resource management and clinical occupational perspective, the instrument fulfills several diagnostic and consultative functions:

• Organizational Culture Auditing: The scale enables human resource practitioners to evaluate whether enterprise policies championing flexible work arrangements are being undermined by an implicit psychological climate for face time. It uncovers whether remote workers fear professional marginalization, missed promotions, or career stalling simply due to their physical absence from the central office.
• Digital Boundary and Technostress Assessment: By quantifying perceived availability expectations, organizations can diagnose whether teleworkers are experiencing the psychological burden of perpetual connectivity (the “always-on” culture), which is a well-documented precursor to occupational burnout, cognitive fatigue, and work-family conflict.
• Targeted Intervention Design: Measuring individual subscales of WFH adjustment (enjoyment, productivity, and comparative cognitive evaluation) allows clinical occupational specialists and leadership coaches to tailor specific organizational interventions. For example, if an employee exhibits high subjective productivity but critically low WFH enjoyment and elevated availability expectations, interventions can focus on communication protocols and boundary management rather than performance coaching.
• Cross-Cultural Telecommuting Diagnostics: Because the instrument was validated in North America (the United States) and Western Europe (France and Spain), it equips multinational corporations with a cross-nationally invariant instrument to assess global hybrid and remote workplace policies without the confounding effects of linguistic bias or differential construct interpretation.

Psychological Construct

The construct architecture underlying the instrument rests on a dual foundation: the contextual antecedents of telework and the multidimensional manifestation of work-from-home adjustment itself. Rather than conceiving of adjustment as a static, monolithic state, Afota and colleagues operationalized adjustment as an interrelated triad of cognitive, affective, and behavioral evaluations, influenced by environmental organizational signals.

1. Contextual Antecedents

The antecedent dimensions capture the psychological and social signals emitted by leadership, organizational norms, and team practices regarding presence and responsiveness:

• Psychological Climate for Face Time: Adapted from Hoang et al. (2008), this construct measures an employee’s cognitive appraisal of the extent to which their organization prioritizes physical, in-person presence in the traditional office as a primary metric of commitment, reliability, and professional merit. In organizations characterized by a strong face-time climate, teleworkers perceive that physical visibility is tied to career progression, supervisory praise, and performance appraisals. When an employee perceives that “being seen” equates to “being productive,” remaining at home sends an adverse behavioral signal, generating chronic cognitive dissonance, guilt, and professional vulnerability.
• Perceived Availability Expectations: Adapted from Day et al. (2012), this subscale assesses the implicit or explicit normative pressure exerted by supervisors, colleagues, and corporate culture to remain reachable via digital communication channels (such as email, messaging applications, and telephone) outside of contractual working hours. In remote work paradigms, the physical dissolution of spatial boundaries between domestic and professional domains frequently leads to boundary permeability. When workers perceive high availability expectations, their psychological recovery periods are truncated, impairing the psychological detachment necessary for cognitive rejuvenation.

2. Dimensions of Work-From-Home Adjustment

The adjustment construct is conceptualized as the psychological adaptation of an individual to the operational realities of working outside a centralized corporate office. The instrument delineates three distinct dimensions:

• Work-from-Home Enjoyment: Adapted from the hedonic motivation and technology acceptance research of Venkatesh and Speier (2000), this affective dimension captures the intrinsic pleasure, comfort, and positive emotional valence experienced while executing occupational tasks within the domestic environment. High enjoyment reflects satisfaction with autonomy, home-office solitude, and freedom from standard office distractions or commuting distress.
• Work-from-Home Productivity: Also adapted from Venkatesh and Speier (2000), this instrumental dimension captures the employee’s self-efficacy, perceived output volume, operational effectiveness, and task performance when working remotely compared to baseline capabilities. It reflects whether remote workers believe their work velocity, problem-solving, and general output quality are maintained or enhanced outside the centralized facility.
• Work-from-Home Evaluation: Adapted from the distributed work frameworks of Staples et al. (1999), this cognitive appraisal dimension evaluates an individual’s macro-level beliefs concerning the comparative efficiency, efficacy, and managerial feasibility of telework relative to traditional, co-located office work. Higher scores on this subscale (when reverse-scored or interpreted against office centrism) signify a strong conviction that remote work is a modern, viable, and efficient organizational model, rather than an inferior or disorganized substitute for co-located collaboration.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual engine driving the Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire is signaling theory, originally formulated by Michael Spence (1973) in economics and subsequently integrated into organizational behavior, human resource management, and social psychology by scholars such as Cascio (2000) and Connelly et al. (2011).

1. Signaling Theory and Information Asymmetry

Signaling theory posits that in environments characterized by information asymmetry, individuals rely on observable behaviors, cues, and policies (signals) emitted by others to interpret underlying, unobservable characteristics, intentions, or social values. Within telework arrangements, information asymmetry is inherently amplified because supervisors and employees are physically separated. Supervisors cannot directly observe the continuous behavioral effort, focus, or temporal dedication of remote personnel.

Under these conditions of physical decoupling, employees look to organizational policies, leadership behaviors, and peer actions for signals regarding what is truly valued. If an organization preaches work-life balance and telework flexibility but continues to promote individuals who spend long hours at their physical desks, the organization emits contradictory signals. The psychological climate for face time represents the employee’s cognitive synthesis of these signals. Employees interpret physical presence as an essential signal of loyalty, diligence, and professional seriousness. Consequently, when forced or choosing to work from home, employees experience an acute awareness that their absence sends a negative signal of low commitment, undermining their affective peace of mind (WFH enjoyment), inflating their perceived need to compensate through hyper-connectivity (perceived availability expectations), and degrading their psychological adjustment.

2. Boundary Theory and Conservation of Resources

The model also interfaces closely with Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and Boundary Theory (Ashforth et al., 2000). Boundary theory explains how individuals construct, maintain, and negotiate physical, temporal, and psychological boundaries between their occupational and domestic spheres. Remote work fundamentally erodes physical segmentation, requiring employees to engage in intentional psychological boundary management.

When an organizational climate communicates high availability expectations, the boundary between work and home is aggressively breached. According to COR theory, human beings strive to obtain, retain, protect, and build valued resources, including time, physical energy, and psychological well-being. Chronic availability expectations force the continuous expenditure of psychological resources outside regular working hours, preventing replenishment. When employees cannot detach from work due to expectations of instant digital responsiveness, their energetic and emotional resources are steadily depleted, resulting in reduced WFH enjoyment, compromised subjective productivity, and an increasingly negative cognitive appraisal of remote work feasibility.

Validity

The construct, structural, and cross-national validity of the Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire was established through a series of rigorous empirical evaluations across heterogeneous international working populations (Afota et al., 2023).

1. Content and Face Validity

To establish high content validity, the authors derived items from established psychometric measures: the psychological climate for face time scale was adapted from Hoang et al. (2008), perceived availability expectations from Day et al. (2012), WFH enjoyment and productivity from Venkatesh and Speier (2000), and WFH evaluation from Staples et al. (1999). Each item was reworded and contextualized to explicitly contrast remote work environments with conventional office environments. Cross-cultural face validity was reinforced through a translation and back-translation protocol following the methodology of Schaffer and Riordan (2003). Bilingual subject-matter experts translated the English source items into French and Spanish, independently back-translated them, and refined discrepancies to ensure complete semantic, conceptual, and idiomatic equivalence across North American and Western European cultural environments.

2. Structural and Factorial Validity

The factorial validity of the instrument was tested using both exploratory and confirmatory modeling techniques. An initial exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the work-from-home adjustment dimensions demonstrated that a three-factor solution accounted for 82.1% of the total cumulative variance, providing strong empirical evidence that adjustment is not a singular, uncalibrated construct, but rather a differentiated three-dimensional architecture comprising enjoyment, productivity, and comparative cognitive evaluation.

Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated that the proposed structural measurement model possessed superior fit compared to rival parsimonious or single-factor models. As reported by Afota et al. (2023), the baseline measurement model exhibited exemplary goodness-of-fit statistics across multiple criteria established by Hu and Bentler (1999):

• Chi-Square Statistic: χ²(59) = 95.24
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .989 (comfortably surpassing the .95 benchmark for superior fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .034 (well below the .06 threshold for close fit, with narrow confidence intervals)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 (well below the .08 threshold)

Formal nested model comparisons employing the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ² difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 2001) confirmed that collapsing the adjustment dimensions into fewer factors produced a statistically significant degradation in model fit (p < .001), corroborating the structural validity of the discrete multidimensional design.

3. Cross-National Measurement Invariance

A central psychometric contribution of the instrument is its verified cross-national measurement invariance across remote workers in the United States, France, and Spain. To ensure that differences in observed scores reflect true differences in latent constructs rather than idiosyncratic cultural or linguistic response biases, multigroup CFA models were tested hierarchically:

• Configural Invariance: Evaluated whether the identical basic factor structure held across national cohorts. The unconstrained multigroup baseline model yielded outstanding fit: χ²(118) = 150.76, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .044, confirming that employees across the US, France, and Spain conceptualized the latent constructs within the identical cognitive frame of reference.
• Metric and Scalar Invariance: While traditional, highly sensitive χ² difference tests indicated marginal significance across groups, the instrument successfully demonstrated metric and scalar invariance when evaluated against the recognized psychometric benchmark of change in CFI (ΔCFI < −.01) and change in RMSEA (ΔRMSEA < .015) proposed by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). This establishes that factor loadings and item intercepts are functionally equivalent across American and Western European remote workers, licensing valid cross-cultural mean comparisons and structural equation modeling.

Reliability

The reliability of the Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire was evaluated across all subscales and cultural cohorts using standard psychometric indicators of internal consistency.

1. Internal Consistency Reliability

In the primary empirical validation study by Afota et al. (2023), internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α) for each latent subscale within the overall model:

• Psychological Climate for Face Time: Demonstrates high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s α exceeding the accepted .70 psychometric standard across all national cohorts (α > .75).
• Perceived Availability Expectations: Exhibits solid two-item inter-item correlation and composite reliability, with Cronbach’s α exceeding .70 across samples.
• Work-from-Home Enjoyment: Demonstrates strong internal reliability, with Cronbach’s α values consistently exceeding .80, indicating high shared variance between items capturing affective satisfaction.
• Work-from-Home Productivity: Shows exceptional internal consistency, with α values frequently surpassing .85, confirming that the three items reliably measure individual task effectiveness.
• Work-from-Home Evaluation: Yields robust internal consistency reliability across languages (α > .75), demonstrating that the comparative evaluation items function cohesively.

Across the entire structural inventory, all measured dimensions exceeded the conventional Nunnally (1978) threshold of .70 for research instruments, with no subscale displaying problematic item-total correlations or construct ambiguity.

Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the instrument was delineated through a rigorous dual-stage factor analytic methodology comprising Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and multi-sample invariance testing.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the exploratory phase, principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/geomin) rotation was executed on the adjustment items to permit natural correlations among latent psychological dimensions. The sample correlation matrix exhibited high sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure > .80; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity p < .001). The empirical factor extraction revealed a clear three-factor solution based on the scree test and eigenvalues exceeding 1.0. This three-factor configuration accounted for 82.1% of the cumulative variance in the item set. Item communalities were high (> .60), and all items demonstrated strong primary factor loadings (> .70) onto their designated constructs without significant cross-loadings (< .25), confirming simple structure.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis was subsequently conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) to correct for minor deviations from multivariate normality. The hypothesized five-construct structural model (incorporating both antecedents and the three adjustment dimensions) was tested against alternative nested models.

The baseline five-factor measurement model fit the observed empirical data exceptionally well:

As illustrated, the hypothesized baseline model statistically outperformed all more parsimonious configurations when evaluated using the Satorra-Bentler scaled χ² difference test (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). The single-factor model exhibited very poor fit, providing empirical verification that common method variance did not artifactually drive the observed relationships.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the measurement model questionnaire are detailed below:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric inventory / multi-construct survey questionnaire.
• Primary Constructs Measured: Psychological Climate for Face Time, Perceived Availability Expectations, Work-from-Home Enjoyment, Work-from-Home Productivity, and Work-from-Home Evaluation.
• Total Item Count: 13 primary psychometric indicator items (plus 1 categorical country-context demographic screening question).
• Administration Modality: Electronic, computer-assisted web interview (CAWI), or mobile digital administration; paper-and-pencil administration is equally viable.
• Estimated Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Response Format: Fully anchored 5-point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Psychological Climate for Face Time: 3 items (Items 1, 2, and 3).
  • Perceived Availability Expectations: 2 items (Items 4 and 5).
  • Work-from-Home Enjoyment: 2 items (Items 6 and 7).
  • Work-from-Home Productivity: 3 items (Items 8, 9, and 10).
  • Work-from-Home Evaluation: 3 items (Items 11, 12, and 13).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Reverse Scoring: Items marked with “(R)” must be reverse-coded prior to composite score calculation (i.e., 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1). Specifically, in the Psychological Climate for Face Time dimension, Item 1 and Item 2 are reverse-coded so that higher aggregated subscale scores consistently reflect a stronger, more pervasive climate prioritizing physical face time and penalizing remote work.
  • Composite Calculation: Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the respective constituent items. Mean composite scores range from 1.00 to 5.00, preserving the interpretability of the original Likert response metric.
  • Interpretation Benchmarks: On the antecedent scales, higher scores indicate greater perceived organizational pressure for physical presence and heightened expectations for after-hours digital connectivity. On the adjustment subscales, higher scores on Enjoyment and Productivity denote superior adaptation and well-being. For the Work-from-Home Evaluation subscale, items are worded such that higher scores reflect the belief that office work is superior, meaning lower scores indicate a more favorable evaluation of remote work (or items may be recoded depending on the study’s analytical direction).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Antecedents of Work-From-Home Adjustment—Model Questionnaire was published in 2023 in The International Journal of Human Resource Management (Taylor & Francis). The instrument is non-commercial and is made accessible for academic research, non-profit inquiry, and internal educational evaluations without assessment fees. Researchers and organizational practitioners planning to administer the measure should consult the original publication (Afota et al., 2023) and provide appropriate formal citation. For commercial applications, proprietary diagnostic packaging, or large-scale organizational redistribution, permission should be sought from the journal publisher and the corresponding author, Marie-Colombe Afota.

References

The academic references below document the theoretical foundations, validation studies, and psychometric methodologies underlying this instrument:

• Afota, M.-C., Provost Savard, Y., Ollier-Malaterre, A., & Léon, E. (2023). Work-from-home adjustment in the US and Europe: The role of psychological climate for face time and perceived availability expectations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(14), 2765–2796. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2022.2090269
• Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3363315
• Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.4468068
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
• Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: The moderating role of organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029837
• Hoang, H. T., Lu, L. T. H., & Nguyen, T. D. (2008). The role of psychological climate for face time in telecommuting adoption and outcomes. Journal of Business and Management, 14(2), 119–135.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
• Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practice approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251542
• Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
• Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 758–776. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.6.758
• Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (2000). Creating an effective training environment for technology acceptance: An investigation of the role of hedonism and intrinsic motivation. Information Systems Research, 11(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.1.99.11785

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)