The present research compares and contrasts frequency versus agreement response formats, two approaches to measuring job burnout and work engagement. Construct-based and measurement-based arguments for the superiority of the frequency response format in measuring burnout/engagement are provided, demonstrating that frequency-based measurements will explain relatively more variance in outcome variables. Fair comparison, time order counterbalance, and multiple measuring waves justify the comparison and reduce common method errors of self-report measures. Sample 1 (N = 242) was composed of employees from multiple organizations, while the participants in Sample 2 (N = 281) were employees from one company. Relative importance analysis showed that frequency outperforms the agreement response format in measuring burnout and engagement in both samples. These findings suggest that the frequency response format provides a more valuable method of detecting the dynamic nature of burnout/engagement, which offers methodological guidance for future research involving dynamic constructs. These findings can lead to improvements in the measurement of the dynamic experiences of burnout and engagement. This is one of the first studies to provide evidence whether the dynamic nature of the constructs would have any bearing on the response formats.
Keywords: agreement response format; burnout; engagement; frequency response format; relative importance analysis; usefulness analysis.