Development and Validation of a Well-being Scale for Hybrid Workers in Thailand: A Mixed Methods Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The rapid shift to hybrid working has affected employee well-being in multidimensional ways that existing instruments—particularly those developed outside the Thai context—may not adequately capture. This highlights an important gap in current Thai well-being scales, as cultural nuances shape how employees perceive flexibility, social connection, and work–life boundaries. This study aimed to: (1) examine the general state and components of well-being among hybrid workers, (2) develop a contextually appropriate well-being measurement scale, and (3) evaluate its psychometric properties to provide a valid tool for human resource development in Thailand.
Methodology: A mixed-methods research design following a sequential exploratory design was employed. Phase 1 involved qualitative in-depth interviews with 25 employees from five major industries—Technology, Finance, Manufacturing, Education, and Services—each with at least one year of hybrid work experience. Thematic analysis was used to generate scale items based on real work experiences. Phase 2 involved quantitative research with 414 hybrid workers recruited through quota and volunteer sampling. The resulting measurement tool was a 32-item scale using a 5-point Likert response format. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, item discrimination, reliability assessment, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using composite scores.
Main Results: Thematic analysis revealed two key insights specific to the Thai context: the need for “Task–Location Fit” and a “Divergence in Relationships,” characterized by stronger family connections but weaker collegial ties. These insights informed the development of a 32-item scale representing five dimensions based on the PERMA framework. CFA results demonstrated excellent construct validity, with model fit indices indicating a strong fit (χ² = 2.29, df = 3, p = .515, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.004). Reliability ranged from .85 to .92 across the five dimensions. The strongest factor loadings were found for Engagement (0.943) and Relationships (0.921), followed by Accomplishment (0.837), Positive Emotion (0.832), and Meaning (0.829). Despite overall high well-being, the study identified a “hidden vulnerable group,” representing 26.3 percent of employees at risk.
Discussions: The findings support the applicability of the PERMA framework within hybrid work settings and demonstrate strong alignment between the scale and real working conditions in Thailand. The excellent model fit can be attributed to the composite-level analytic approach, which reduces measurement error and improves model parsimony. Correlated errors reflect the interconnected nature of well-being dimensions in workplace environments. The particularly strong influence of Engagement and Relationships highlights the unique cultural importance of social harmony and group cohesion in Thailand. Reduced face-to-face interaction in hybrid settings requires targeted interventions to prevent social isolation—an issue that may be less critical in more individualistic cultures.
Conclusions: The developed scale demonstrates strong psychometric properties and is suitable for assessing well-being levels and screening at-risk groups for workforce development in the new normal. For the Thai context, the scale provides a valuable evidence-based tool for organizational policy-making. Executives should implement proactive strategies such as outcome-based management and hybrid team-building activities to strengthen social connections. This study contributes a localized tool that supports sustainable employee well-being and enhances organizational competitiveness in Thailand’s evolving labor landscape.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Ackaradejruangsri, P., Mumi, A., Rattanapituk, S., & Pakhunwanich, P. (2023). Exploring the determinants of young inclusive leadership in Thailand: Research taxonomy and theoretical framework. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14(4), 3696–3723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01017-7
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands-resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6
Hill, N. S., Axtell, C., Raghuram, S., & Nurmi, N. (2024). Unpacking virtual work’s dual effects on employee well-being: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 50(2), 752–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221131535
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., ... van Vugt, M. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns. National Institute of Development Administration.
Labour Protection Act (No. 8), B.E. 2566 (2023). Royal Thai Government Gazette, 140(20A), 56–59.
Lajom, J. A. L., & Sibunruang, H. (2024). The rise of flexible working in Southeast Asia: Insights from Thailand and the Philippines. In X. W. Chan, S. Shang, & L. Lu (Eds.), Work-life research in the Asia-Pacific: Implications for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (pp. 23–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52795-1_2
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Pimthong, S., Suwanwong, C., Surakarn, A., Chiangkhong, A., Sumalrot, T., & Khunakorncharatphong, A. (2022). Development and validation of the Thai mental well-being scale. Heliyon, 8(4), e09296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09296
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49–60.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
Suengkamolpisut, W., & Singhatong, S. (2026). Leading across boundaries: Adaptive leadership and employee well-being in Thailand’s hybrid workplace. Organization Management Journal, 23(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-08-2025-2669
Telu, S., & Kumar, S. (2025). Towards a sustainable future: A comprehensive review of employee well-being in hybrid work settings. Management & Sustainability: An Arab Review, 4(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSAR-10-2024-0182
The Jamovi Project. (2022). jamovi (Version 2.3) [Computer software]. https://www.jamovi.org
Vora, D., & Kainzbauer, A. (2020). Humanistic leadership in Thailand: A mix of indigenous and global aspects using a cross-cultural perspective. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 27(4), 665–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-01-2020-0008
Warr, P., & Nielsen, K. (2018). Wellbeing and work performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 685–706). DEF Publishers.
