negatively to job satisfaction and

negatively to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and positively to
turnover intention (Hypothesis 3).
In order to achieve the two main purposes of the present research, two studies are
presented. The first study developed and validated a state measure of boredom at
work that includes its affective, cognitive, and behavioral manifestations (Farmer &
Sundberg,1986). The second study differentiated boredom from burnout and work
engagement and studies its causes and consequences, using the JD-R model as a
conceptual framework.
Study 1: development of the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS)
On the basis of our conceptualization of boredom at work as a negative affectivemotivational state that originates from inadequate stimulation (Mikulas & Vodanovich,
1993), an eight-item instrument was designed. The items were adapted from
previously developed general boredom scales (i.e., the Boredom Proneness Scale;
Farmer & Sundberg,1986, and the Job Boredom scales; Grubb,1975, Lee,1986) and
referred to five common feelings, thoughts or (non)behaviors that occur when feeling
bored at work: (1)perception of time passage, (2) feeling bored, (3) feelings of
restlessness and not knowing what to do (i.e., Hill & Perkins, 1985), (4) engaging in
task-unrelated thoughts(Damrad-Frye & Laird,1989), and (5)tendencies to do taskunrelated things(Baker,1992). Rather than assessing antecedent characteristics of the
job, the items of the DUBS aimed to express the experience and manifestation of
work boredom itself (i.e., Antrobus et al.,1967; Baker, 1992; Damrad-Frye & Laird,
1989; Hill & Perkins, 1985). Descriptions of job characteristics (e.g., monotony of
the job) or feelings that could also signify other forms of unwell-being (e.g., feeling
tired) were therefore excluded.
Method
Participants and procedure
To evaluate the validity and reliability of the DUBS, a survey was conducted across
three samples. Sample 1 consisted of respondents from various organizational sectors
who had participated in a psychosocial risk assessment. They were asked to fill out
the DUBS as part of an occupational health audit. The link to the web-based
questionnaire was distributed by the human resources departments of the
participating organizations. Samples 2 and 3 were convenience samples and included
respondents from various organizational sectors who completed online surveys. As
the Internet has been proven to be an efficient and useful tool for data collection
(Cook, Heath, & Thompson,2000), data were collected through an open survey on
the websites of two large Dutch companies in the fields of occupational health,
coaching, and training. All participants were briefly introduced to the study, and
anonymity and confidentiality of the data were emphasized. Participants answered
questions on work characteristics and their well-being at work. Participants in the
first and third sample also answered questions about organizational outcomes (i.e.,
job satisfaction and commitment).
Most participants inSample 1(N 2342) were employed in health care (56%),
public administration (22%), and commercial services (16%). Of the total sample

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

negatif untuk kepuasan kerja dan komitmen organisasi, dan positifomset niat (hipotesis 3).Untuk mencapai dua tujuan utama penelitian sekarang, dua penelitian yangdisajikan. Studi pertama dikembangkan dan divalidasi ukuran kebosanan di negarakerja yang mencakup manifestasinya afektif, kognitif dan perilaku (petani &Sundberg, 1986). Studi kedua dibedakan kebosanan dari kelelahan dan kerjaketerlibatan dan studi sebab dan akibat, menggunakan model JD-R sebagaikerangka konseptual.Studi 1: pengembangan dari Belanda kebosanan skala (DUBS)Berdasarkan kami konseptualisasi dari kebosanan di tempat kerja sebagai keadaan negatif affectivemotivational yang berasal dari stimulasi tidak memadai (Mikulas & Vodanovich,1993), delapan-item instrumen dirancang. Item yang diadaptasi darisebelumnya dikembangkan umum kebosanan Timbangan (yaitu, kebosanan kemalasan skala;Petani & Sundberg, 1986, dan skala pekerjaan kebosanan; Grubb, 1975, Lee, 1986) dandisebut lima umum perasaan, pikiran, atau (Bebas) perilaku yang terjadi ketika merasabosan di tempat kerja: (1) persepsi berlalunya waktu, (2) merasa bosan, (3) perasaankegelisahan dan tidak tahu apa yang harus dilakukan (yaitu, Hill & Perkins, 1985), (4) terlibat dalamtugas yang tidak terkait pikiran (Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989), dan (5) kecenderungan untuk melakukan taskunrelated things(Baker,1992). Daripada menilai yg karakteristikjob, the items of the DUBS aimed to express the experience and manifestation ofwork boredom itself (i.e., Antrobus et al.,1967; Baker, 1992; Damrad-Frye & Laird,1989; Hill & Perkins, 1985). Descriptions of job characteristics (e.g., monotony ofthe job) or feelings that could also signify other forms of unwell-being (e.g., feelingtired) were therefore excluded.MethodParticipants and procedureTo evaluate the validity and reliability of the DUBS, a survey was conducted acrossthree samples. Sample 1 consisted of respondents from various organizational sectorswho had participated in a psychosocial risk assessment. They were asked to fill outthe DUBS as part of an occupational health audit. The link to the web-basedquestionnaire was distributed by the human resources departments of theparticipating organizations. Samples 2 and 3 were convenience samples and includedrespondents from various organizational sectors who completed online surveys. Asthe Internet has been proven to be an efficient and useful tool for data collection(Cook, Heath, & Thompson,2000), data were collected through an open survey onthe websites of two large Dutch companies in the fields of occupational health,coaching, and training. All participants were briefly introduced to the study, andanonymity and confidentiality of the data were emphasized. Participants answeredquestions on work characteristics and their well-being at work. Participants in thefirst and third sample also answered questions about organizational outcomes (i.e.,job satisfaction and commitment).Most participants inSample 1(N 2342) were employed in health care (56%),public administration (22%), and commercial services (16%). Of the total sample

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

negatif terhadap kepuasan kerja dan komitmen organisasi, dan positif untuk
omset niat (Hipotesis 3).
Dalam rangka untuk mencapai dua tujuan utama dari penelitian ini, dua studi yang
disajikan. Penelitian pertama dikembangkan dan divalidasi ukuran keadaan kebosanan di
tempat kerja yang mencakup afektif, kognitif, dan manifestasi perilaku (Farmer &
Sundberg, 1986). Studi dibedakan kedua kebosanan dari kelelahan dan bekerja
keterlibatan dan mempelajari penyebab dan konsekuensinya, menggunakan model JD-R sebagai
kerangka konseptual.
Belajar 1: pengembangan Kebosanan Skala Belanda (DUBS)
Berdasarkan konseptualisasi kami kebosanan di tempat kerja sebagai negara affectivemotivational negatif yang berasal dari stimulasi tidak memadai (Mikulas & Vodanovich,
1993), instrumen delapan item yang dirancang. Item yang diadaptasi dari
sisik kebosanan umum dikembangkan sebelumnya (yaitu, Skala Kebosanan rawan;
Farmer & Sundberg, 1986, dan Kebosanan Kerja timbangan; Grubb, 1975, Lee, 1986) dan
disebut lima perasaan umum, pikiran atau (non) perilaku yang terjadi ketika merasa
bosan di tempat kerja (1) persepsi waktu bagian, (2) perasaan bosan, (3) perasaan
gelisah dan tidak tahu apa yang harus dilakukan (yaitu, Bukit & Perkins, 1985), (4) melakukan
tugas-terkait pengalaman (Damrad-Frye & Laird, 1989), dan (5) kecenderungan untuk melakukan hal-hal taskunrelated (Baker, 1992). Daripada menilai karakteristik anteseden dari
pekerjaan, item dari DUBS bertujuan untuk mengekspresikan pengalaman dan manifestasi dari
kerja kebosanan itu sendiri (yaitu, Antrobus et al, 1967;. Baker, 1992; Damrad-Frye & Laird,
1989; Bukit & Perkins , 1985). Deskripsi dari karakteristik pekerjaan (misalnya, monoton
pekerjaan) atau perasaan yang juga bisa menandakan bentuk lain dari sehat-makhluk (misalnya, merasa
karena itu lelah) dikeluarkan.
Metode
Peserta dan prosedur
Untuk mengevaluasi validitas dan reliabilitas dari DUBS, survei dilakukan di
tiga sampel. Sampel 1 terdiri dari responden dari berbagai sektor organisasi
yang telah berpartisipasi dalam penilaian risiko psikososial. Mereka diminta untuk mengisi
dengan DUBS sebagai bagian dari audit kesehatan kerja. Link ke berbasis web
kuesioner didistribusikan oleh sumber daya manusia departemen dari
organisasi yang berpartisipasi. Sampel 2 dan 3 adalah sampel kenyamanan dan termasuk
responden dari berbagai sektor organisasi yang menyelesaikan survei online. Seperti
Internet telah terbukti menjadi alat yang efisien dan berguna untuk pengumpulan data
(Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000), data dikumpulkan melalui survei terbuka di
situs dua perusahaan besar Belanda di bidang kesehatan kerja,
pembinaan , dan pelatihan. Semua peserta secara singkat diperkenalkan penelitian, dan
anonimitas dan kerahasiaan data yang ditekankan. Peserta menjawab
pertanyaan tentang karakteristik pekerjaan dan kesejahteraan mereka di tempat kerja. Peserta dalam
sampel pertama dan ketiga juga menjawab pertanyaan tentang hasil organisasi (yaitu,
kepuasan kerja dan komitmen).
Sebagian besar peserta inSample 1 (N 2342) yang bekerja di pelayanan kesehatan (56%),
administrasi publik (22%), dan layanan komersial (16%). Dari total sampel