Approaches Adopted by Researchers to Measure the Quality of the Experience of People Working from Home: a Scoping Review

Abstract

Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic. How to assess and compare in a reliable way the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is a central point to supporting the diffusion of acceptable modalities of working. However, the concept of experience and how it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usually measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science. Thirty-four records out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments of workers' experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Clustering together the most investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarching dimensions and attempt to define workers' experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical systems that enable WFH.

Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41347-022-00264-4.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-022-00264-4
Approaches Adopted byResearchers toMeasure theQuality
oftheExperience ofPeople Working fromHome: aScoping Review
StefanoFederici1 · MariaLauraDeFilippis1 · MariaLauraMele1 · SimoneBorsci2,3 · MarcoBracalenti1 ·
GiovanniBifolchi1· GiancarloGaudino4· MassimoAmendola4· AntonelloCocco4· EmilioSimonetti5
Received: 3 February 2022 / Revised: 13 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools
to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic.
How to assess and compare in a reliable way the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is a
central point to supporting the diffusion of acceptable modalities of working. However, the concept of experience and how
it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches
used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usu-
ally measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science. Thirty-four records
out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically
are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments
of workers’ experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Clustering together the most
investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarch-
ing dimensions and attempt to define workers’ experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a
tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical
systems that enable WFH.
Keywords Experience· Satisfaction· Workers’ experience· Working from home· Remote working· Assessment
Introduction
Advancements in technologies and connectivity since
the late 1990s have enabled the diffusion of distributed
modalities of working outside the office (Bloom etal.,
2015; Tagliaro & Ciaramella, 2016). Researchers refer to the
same distributed modalities of working with different names
(Bolisani et al., 2020), e.g., teleworking, smart working, long-
distance working, remote working at home, and working
outside of the office. In this article, we focus only on
working situations in which employees work outside of the
office via a form of technology in their own adaptable space;
therefore, we use the term “working from home” (WFH) to
indicate a subpopulation of remote workers by aiming to
focus on the perceived experience of those homeworkers
remotely connected with their institutions.
WFH practices are regarded by companies as ways of
reducing employees’ workload, through giving them the
* Stefano Federici
stefano.federici@unipg.it
* Maria Laura De Filippis
marialaura.defilippis@gmail.com
1 Department ofPhilosophy, Social andHuman Sciences
andEducation, University ofPerugia, Perugia, Italy
2 Department Learning, Data Analysis, andTechnology,
Cognition, Data andEducation CODE Group, Faculty
ofBehavioural, Management andSocial Sciences, University
ofTwente, Enschede, theNetherlands
3 Department ofSurgery andCancer, Faculty ofMedicine,
NIHR London IVD, Imperial College, London, UK
4 DGTCSI-ISCTI, Directorate General forManagement
andInformation andCommunications Technology, Superior
Institute ofCommunication andInformation Technologies,
Ministry ofEconomic Development, Rome, Italy
5 Department ofPublic Service, Prime Minister’s Office,
Rome, Italy
/ Published online: 6 July 2022
Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
possibility to work (with formal and informal arrangements)
a certain amount of time outside of their typical work facility
(Davidescu etal., 2020). They are also seen as a strategic
approach whereby companies can reduce the costs associ-
ated with their physical infrastructure (Angelici & Profeta,
2020; Mazzucchelli, 2017; Tagliaro & Ciaramella, 2016).
The practice of WFH was quite consolidated, but only
moderately diffused, before the COVID-19 pandemic. For
instance, data regarding job conditions in the 27 countries of
the European Union in early 2020 suggested that on average,
only 12% of employees were already used to this modality
of working (EUROSTAT, 2021). Some researchers (Barrero
etal., 2021; Bloom etal., 2015) have suggested that this low
diffusion of WFH is mainly owed to a stigma of shirking
associated with this modality of working, whereby remote
workers were perceived as less controllable in terms of their
performance compared to onsite employees. Empirical data
reviews have also suggested that remote workers are less
likely to be promoted compared to onsite workers, and that
remote working positions are less desirable to productive
workers (Bloom etal., 2015; Harrington & Emanuel,
2020). Researchers agree that WFH options should be
better designed so that this work modality can become more
desirable to highly productive workers, maximizing the
benefit to companies and the workforce alike (Bloom etal.,
2015; Harrington & Emanuel, 2020). In fact, some evidence
suggests that when implemented, WFH not only reduces
infrastructure costs but also increases the workforce’s overall
productivity (Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Barrero etal., 2021;
Bloom etal., 2015; Bolisani etal., 2020).
With the onset of the pandemic, remote working became
a necessity for many (Shao etal., 2021; Zhang etal., 2021).
Indeed, to ensure the continuity of services, governments,
companies and institutions worldwide suddenly adopted
approaches and systems to enable people to work from home
(Bonacini etal., 2021). For instance, WFH reached peaks of
40% in eurozone countries (Fana etal., 2020).
Despite these adversities, with differing degrees of effi-
ciency and effectiveness, citizens all over the world have
been offered a certain amount of continuity regarding key
services. For instance, with regard to education, the United
Nations (2020) has reported that during the height of the
pandemic, about 80–85% of students in high-income coun-
tries were involved in alternative e-learning activities, com-
pared to only 50% in low-income countries.
Some researchers have suggested that COVID-19 has
exposed many workers to the advantages and disadvantages
of WFH, potentially increasing their awareness of possible
(alternative) work modalities and opening the opportunity
to reduce the stigma around WFH (Barrero etal., 2021;
Harrington & Emanuel, 2020). For instance, according
to a recent global Ipsos survey involving 12,500 employ-
ees across 29 countries, 30% of respondents who have
experienced WFH would consider looking for another job
if requested to return full-time to their office (Boyon, 2021).
Certainly, during COVID-19, companies and workers
have invested in physical, digital and human capabilities
(Barrero etal., 2021) to adapt to the necessity of WFH.
Moreover, rapid technological advancements have supported
the switch to WFH, with new and updated digital systems for
online and remote services developed to sustain services and
activities (Renu, 2021—e.g., conference, team management
and exchanges, applied robotics solutions, e-health, online
entertainment) including conferences, team management and
exchange, applied robotics solutions, e-health, and online
entertainment.
The technological, human and organizational invest-
ments made during COVID-19 may increase the impetus
to rethink work practices and workplaces already initiated
before the pandemic crisis (Lund etal., 2021). In this sense,
WFH whether full- or part-time is likely to become a new
job condition for a significant fraction of workers world-
wide. The portion of the workforce that will aim to oper-
ate according to the WHF modality is hard to predict, and
ultimately the decision to implement and support it in pri-
vate and public services will be determined by cost–benefit
considerations and by looking at the indexes of productivity
and performance (European Commission, 2020). To inform
decisions regarding the implementation of the WFH modal-
ity, it is however important to go further than economics
and performance considerations and to additionally con-
sider the impact of WFH on individuals, in order to avoid
its well-known negative effects, such as increased workload
and stress (Mallia & Ferris, 2000; Troup & Rose, 2012),
isolation and decreased socialization (Dolan, 2011; Morgan
& Symon, 2002; Raffaele & Connell, 2016), lack of place-
ness (Riva etal., 2021), and work-life balance issues (Aczel
etal., 2021). Ultimately, deciding to implement or expand
practices of WFH should also be driven by the possibil-
ity to monitor, evaluate and compare the overall experience
of employees under such new working conditions in order
to optimize and customize these emerging sociotechnical
systems (i.e., systems to exchange information and perform
actions among humans, supported by technology and regu-
lated by spatial, internal and external normative constraints)
to the needs of both workers and employers (Fox, 1995).
Experience ofWorking fromHome Remotely
WFH is more than simply performing at home the work
conventionally done onsite. It requires a different individual
and organizational structure, which should be designed to fit
the needs and the goals of employers and employees alike
(Baruch, 2000). To understand how different modalities
under the umbrella of WFH can be designed and compared,
452 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
it is necessary to identify ways for assessing workers’
subjective experience (Baruch, 2000; Wang etal., 2021),
with the aim of achieving sustainable WFH modalities
(Davidescu etal., 2020). Indexes of performance and
productivity, as well as the amount of time spent working
from home in line with contractual or informal agreements
(e.g., flexibility), only provide a partial picture of the impact
of WFH modalities. Indeed, monitoring in an efficient way
workers’ perceived quality in performing their work and
their overall experience when at home is considered a key
aspect for improving the success of this work modality, as
perceived by workers (Aczel etal., 2021; Ipsen etal., 2020,
2021; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020).
Workers’ experience of WFH has been widely and
inconsistently characterized. For instance, some researchers
agree that the subjective experience of workers is a multifaced
concept that can be measured by collecting a wide range of
variables regarding aspects such as satisfaction, flexibility, and
work-life balance (Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Barrero etal.,
2021; Bloom etal., 2015; Bolisani etal., 2020; Davidescu
etal., 2020). Accordingly, Grant etal. (2013), focusing on
the psychological impact of remote technology in the context
of WFH, have suggested that workers’ experience is affected
by their perceived effectiveness and performance, their well-
being and work-life balance, plus overarching elements
such as their use of technology and their relationship with
management. By contrast, Aczel etal. (2021) have suggested
that modeling the experience of working from home
necessitates attention to the negative and positive aspects of
WFH compared to working onsite, considering aspects such
as control over tasks, freedom, motivation and individual
context (e.g., number of children at home), on top of perceived
performance, time spent at work, well-being, and work-life
balance. Alternatively, Davidescu etal. (2020) have suggested
that the measurement of subjective experience should be
mainly focused on collecting aspects such as satisfaction
regarding one’s position and work flexibility, that is, assessing
the interplay between an employee’s subjective reaction
(satisfaction) to objective conditions such as flexibility and
their working conditions.
Certainly, a worker’s satisfaction, conceptualized either
as the positive emotional state resulting from an individual’s
appraisal of their job or job experience (Kröll & Nüesch,
2019), or as a set of an individual’s attitudes toward or about
a certain job (Ahmad etal., 2003), is a key aspect of the
workers’ overall experience. Nevertheless, due to this vague
characterization of the construct of satisfaction, this concept
is often used by researchers in a very opportunistic way.
Based on the focus of the researchers, the assessment of
workers’ satisfaction could be limited to modeling satisfac-
tion toward the type of position and salary, or be expanded
to include, for instance, satisfaction with work arrange-
ments, the workload, the workers’ satisfaction regarding
the technological and management enablers available at
their institutions, etc. In this sense, satisfaction assessment
is measured often with different goals and items by mak-
ing it difficult to compare insights regarding this subjective
component of the workers’ experience.
In terms of this opportunistic approach to satisfaction
assessment, the concept of satisfaction and experience
are not clearly connected in the context of WFH. In other
domains, such as service and product interaction, experi-
ence is defined by an international standard (ISO 9241–210,
2019), which strongly connects experience and satisfaction
with other potential aspects for a subjective assessment of a
service’s quality. Such a standardized definition can enable
goals and measurements to be unified in the domain of ser-
vice experience but is missing in the context of WFH.
Some researchers (Bentley etal., 2016; Rajanen &
Rajanen, 2020) have suggested that people’s experience of
complex sociotechnical systems is usually determined by
a subjective reaction to objective aspects and constraints.
Therefore, it seems plausible that the interplay between a
subjective reaction and objective aspects is a determinant
in the quality experienced by people in WFH modalities.
Nevertheless, given that the multifaceted concept of work-
ing experience is not well characterized when attempting
to assess the experience of working from home, research-
ers tend to focus on different elements of a sociotechnical
system (e.g., work modality and constraints) using a wide
range of methods (which are more or less qualitative) and
questions (which are more or less validated), often making
it difficult to compare results (Duxbury etal., 1992; Grant
etal., 2019; Maruyama etal., 2009). Indeed, some research-
ers are quite positive about the effect of WFH modalities on
people (e.g., Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Bloom etal., 2015),
whereas others are less positive or even negative, highlight-
ing these modalities’ detrimental impacts (e.g., Bellmann &
Hübler, 2020; de Vries etal., 2019).
Recognizing this issue, standardized scales are emerg-
ing to assess in a comparable way the elements that may be
associated with the experience of WFH, for instance: (i) the
e-work life scale (Grant etal., 2019), which aims to assess
elements associated with effectiveness, work-life balance,
and well-being; (ii) the advantage and disadvantage scale
proposed by Ipsen etal. (2021), which seeks to model the
strengths and weaknesses of WFH. Moreover, validated
scales developed for other objectives are often used to assess
the experience of remote workers, for instance, the tech-
nostress scale (Ragu-Nathan etal., 2008), which aims to
assess the stress induced by one’s interaction with technol-
ogy (Molino etal., 2020); and the Utrecht work engagement
scale, intended as a measure of fulfillment at work (UWES,
Schaufeli etal., 2006), which is often also used as an indirect
measure of satisfaction (Molino etal., 2020; Moretti etal.,
2020).
453Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
As recently suggested by Grant etal. (2019), research-
ers investigating WFH consider different variables to model
workers’ experience. Nevertheless, despite variations in the
objects measured, it is possible to aggregate different vari-
ables according to overarching dimensions. For instance,
researchers can focus on assessing specific variables such
as stress, workload or exhaustion, but despite the diversity
of measures available, the overall objectives of such inves-
tigations are oriented toward assessing the same overarch-
ing concept, i.e., the effect of WFH on people’s well-being.
Currently, a mapping of the aspects that researchers deem
important for assessing the experience of remote home
workers, as well as how these aspects are usually assessed,
is missing. In response, the research reported here aimed—
in line with the general objective of scoping reviews (Munn
etal., 2018)—to systematically map the most common
approaches for measuring home workers’ experience. This
mapping was also intended to clarify the concept of expe-
rience in the domain of WFH by proposing a qualitative
reorganization of the overarching dimensions that can be
measured to model workers’ experience. Our scoping review
was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension
for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) approach (Tricco
etal., 2018).
Methods
Study Design
The scoping review was performed on articles examining or
attempting to model the quality of experience of home work-
ers from the past 10years. The checklist of the PRISMA-
ScR was used to ensure alignment of the review process with
the framework (Supplementary material 1).
Definition ofTerms
WFH is conceptualized in this study as a modality of work-
ing from a remote location—specifically the home—via
technology, enabling employees to perform their activities
in a smart and connected way. The experience of the worker
is understood here as workers’ perceived satisfaction and
quality in performing their work from home.
Research Questions
By aiming to map the current practice of assessing WFH in
terms of the methods and types of tools used, and to identify
the most investigated aspects as well as potential overarching
dimensions used to evaluate the experience of workers, this
review sought to answer the following research questions:
(R1) What methodological approaches (e.g., survey, obser-
vation, interview) are usually applied to investigate
the subjective experience of WFH?
(R2) What variables are usually investigated using these
approaches?
(R3) What overarching dimensions emerge through group-
ing variables oriented to assessing similar relation-
ships between workers and their work modalities?
We intended the first two questions to help us map the
most common methods applied and the variables investi-
gated by researchers to assess workers’ experience. Further-
more and in line with previous research, we assumed that the
experience of home workers is a multifaceted concept, and
so we attempted to aggregate variables oriented to assessing
similar relevant aspects of employees’ experience by propos-
ing potential dimensions for evaluating this concept.
Eligibility Criteria
In the review, we included records that:
(i) Focused on the evaluation of the quality perceived by
remote home workers regarding their modality of work
and its associated constraints, by highlighting empiri-
cally or qualitatively the main aspects that should be
measured, irrespective of the COVID-19 pandemic.
(ii) Discussed and measured the advantages and disad-
vantages of WFH or proposed validation of tools for
the assessment of the workers’ experience.
(iii) Attempted to assess or compare the perceived experi-
ence of WFH and office work.
We excluded records that investigated remote working
outside of the home or working from home without the sup-
port of technology, as well as studies focusing on:
(i) Either the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work-
ers’ quality of life or health, or disruption or changes
brought about by the transition to WFH, without reflect-
ing on key factors that may affect workers’ experience.
(ii) Either surveying workers, modeling by data set review
aspects that affect workers’ productivity, or reviewing
types of job arrangements or other organizational con-
straints on WFH, with no focus on aspects that affect
people’s experience of working from home; or with
researchers simply discussing theoretically the potential
connection between job arrangements and the experi-
ence of workers while focusing mainly on modeling the
workers’ performance..
(iii) The economic or environmental sustainability of work-
ing from home, the business advantages and general
economic benefits of implementing this work modal-
454 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
ity, or the sustainability of WFH in the family context,
without any or with minimal reference to effects on
experience or satisfaction.
(iv) The social consequences of smart working enforced by
COVID-19, e.g., the gender gap, and coping strategies.
(v) Behavioral changes resulting from legislation, rules,
management/leadership and team interplay with regard
to working from home owing to the pandemic crisis.
Search Strategy
Records were retrieved from two of the largest literature
databases—Scopus and Web of Science—using the Boolean
operators (AND/OR) to combine the following keywords
(see Supplementary Material 2 for the search criteria):
“Working from home,” “Smart working,” “Remote work-
ing,” “Satisfaction,” “Perceived satisfaction,” “Experi-
ence,” and “Perceived quality.” We searched only for Eng-
lish language articles, conferences and book chapters. We
focused on the past 10years, to collect information on recent
advancements in measuring employees’ experience with the
WFH modality.
Record Categorization Strategy
The records were first classified in terms of type of study and
number of participants.
Subsequently, each record was analyzed to list down the
variables declared by their authors to be the object of the
investigation, and tested with qualitative or reliable scales
(see Supplementary Material 3 for a qualitative synthesis).
For each record, we reported the type of items used for the
investigation as follows: (i) qualitative scales, whereby the
record used its own items to investigate the dimensions at
hand; (ii) adapted/validated scales, whereby the record used
items adapted from previous studies or standardized reli-
ability scales to investigate the dimensions at hand; or (iii)
mixture scales, whereby the record used a mixture of quali-
tative and adapted/validated items to investigate the dimen-
sions at hand.
The list of variables was used to group aspects by simi-
larity, producing a set of clustered overarching dimensions.
For instance, despite the fact that studies focusing on, for
instance, how much people feel they matter at work (Prihadi
etal., 2021), typically use different measures from those
investigating, for example, how much a person is engaged
personally or by others in their work activity (Moretti etal.,
2020), both aim to attain workers’ insights regarding the
same relationship, i.e., between individuals and their job
function and activities. Two authors of the present study
(MLDF, SB) independently categorized by a grounded
approach (Stern, 1980) the records in potential overarch-
ing dimensions when, despite using different measures,
researchers aimed to inform similar relationships between
the workers and their modality of work. Agreement between
the two authors was achieved via discussion, and the final
set of dimensions was discussed and approved by all the
authors.
Finally, we investigated how the overarching dimensions
we identified have typically been investigated by researchers
in terms of qualitative and quantitative scales.
Results
A total of 323 products were derived from Scopus and the
Web of Science (Fig.1). A further two records were added
manually following a reading of online resources. After
removing 27 duplicates, a scan of the 298 remaining records
by title and abstract was performed by two of the authors
(MLDF, SB). Articles that mentioned in their scope either a
theoretical or empirical testing of aspects related to the qual-
ity experienced by workers in the context of remote WFH
and that also suggested specific approaches or measures
regarding this subject were retained.
Only about 19.5% (58) of the records were retained, as
a large proportion of the studies were focused either on the
economic and business advantages of implementing WFH,
on the environmental sustainability of working from home,
or on COVID-19-related aspects of WFH like the forced
transition to this modality. The full texts of these 58 records
were then scanned by three of the authors (MLDF, SB, GB)
to identify articles proposing or discussing methods for
assessing the subjective experience of WFH. After remov-
ing 26 records, a further two records were retrieved from the
reference list. The final list comprised 34 records.
As shown in Table1, 59% of the studies in our pool
used surveys, whereas 15% used a theoretical analysis or
a qualitative approach. In 29% of cases, a combination of a
survey and either a qualitative approach or a validation of
scales was used, while 18% of the studies involved longi-
tudinal observations. Only one record (Bloom etal., 2015)
proposed a randomized control experiment. The number of
participants involved in the studies varied from 12 families
to 11,011 individual participants.
Twenty-three percent of the studies only used a qualita-
tive scale (e.g., individually defined items) for their analysis,
39% used scales with adapted items from previous literature
or standardized scales, and 39% used a combination of quali-
tative and adapted questions.
As reported in Table2, for each item we looked at which
types of scales were used for the assessment, and we extrapo-
lated 153 key variables reported by the researchers as part of
their study as important for assessing the quality perceived by
remote home workers (see Supplementary Material 3 for a quali-
tative synthesis of the measures used in the study). Moreover,
455Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
48% of the records reported the list of questions used to collect
data, while only in 45% of the cases was the reliability of the
items used for investigation discussed by the authors.
Ten overarching dimensions were identified as follows:
1. Engagement with work (ENG): this dimension contains
aspects investigated in 13 records (Bellmann & Hübler,
2020; Bloom etal., 2015; Chong etal., 2020; Darouei &
Pluut, 2021; de Vries etal., 2019; Decastri etal., 2020;
Di Tecco etal., 2021; Koopmans etal., 2013, 2014;
Moretti etal., 2020; Prihadi etal., 2021; Schade etal.,
2021; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). These records
assessed variables associated with workers’ individual
relationships with their work in general, their work func-
tion and activities. This dimension also includes workers’
sense of fulfillment in doing their work, their sense of
caring about their work and their perception that they
matter, or their attitude and behavior toward their work
that might affect (if negative) their willingness to work
e.g., counterproductivity.
Records identified from databasison
basesofinclusion andexclusion
criteria
(n =323)
Duplicaterecords removed
(n =27)
Records Screened
(n =298)
Full text itemsassessedfor
eligibility
(n =58)
Studiesincludedinqualitative
synthesis
(
n=34
)
Identification
Screening
Included
Records identified from other
sources
(n =2)
Full text excluded (n=26).
Reasons: 4not retrievable,
8impactof COVID-19onhealthand
forced transition to WFH;
11 mainly WFH andmodeling
productivity
3economic/ environmental/social
Records excluded
(n=240)
Eligible after screening
(n=32)
Eli
g
ibilit
y
Additional records by references
(n=2)
Fig. 1 A pictorial view of the review process in accordance with the flowchart of the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati etal., 2009)
456 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
2. Flexibility (FLEX): This dimension contains aspects
considered in 19 records (Angelici & Profeta, 2020;
Bloom etal., 2015; Craig etal., 2021; Davidescu
etal., 2020; de Vries etal., 2019; Decastri et al.,
2020; Eng etal., 2010; Grant etal., 2019; Langvik
etal., 2021; Mazzucchelli, 2017; Moretti etal., 2020;
Nakrošienė etal., 2019; Nansen etal., 2010; Negulescu
& Doval, 2021; Raguseo etal., 2014; Schade etal.,
2021; Tustin, 2014; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020;
Wang & Ronen, 2011). This dimension pertains to
the assessment of variables such as the amount of
flexibility in the job (e.g., working from home weekly)
and perceived freedom to work at one’s own pace, i.e.,
time, space and resource management. This dimension
also includes aspects related to the amount of oversight
imposed on workers and perceived constraints on
carrying out one’s work in a flexible way.
3. Health and well-being (HEAL): This dimension
includes aspects presented in 16 records (Aczel etal.,
2021; Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Bloom etal., 2015;
Chong etal., 2020; Craig etal., 2021; Darouei & Pluut,
2021; Decastri etal., 2020; Di Tecco etal., 2021; Grant
etal., 2019; Koopmans etal., 2013, 2014; Langvik
etal., 2021; Molino etal., 2020; Moretti etal., 2020;
Table 1 Type of research approach and number of participants in each study. Records are presented in ascending order by year
*Articles proposing relevant measures and aspects to assess workers’ experience not only of WFH modalities
Study ID Authors, year Type of study Number of participants
1 Eng etal. (2010) Survey 1,103
2 Nansen etal. (2010) Qualitative observation (longitudinal) 12 families (24 participants)
3 Wang and Ronen (2011) Theoretical/review N/A
4 Troup and Rose (2012) Survey 856
5 Koopmans etal. (2013)* Scale validation 1,181
6 Koopmans etal. (2014)* Interview and survey 695 (expert interview and
survey), 253 expert survey
7 Raguseo etal. (2014) Interview and survey 100 (survey), 49 (interview)
8 Tustin (2014) Focus group and survey 310
9 Bloom etal. (2015) Survey and randomized experiment (longitudinal) 249
10 Malik etal. (2016) Survey 117
11 Mazzucchelli (2017) Interview and survey 1560 (workers), 160 (managers)
12 de Vries etal. (2019) Diary study and survey (longitudinal) 61
13 Grant etal. (2019) Scale validation 260
14 Nakrošienė etal. (2019) Survey 128
15 Angelici and Profeta (2020) Survey (longitudinal) 310
16 Bellmann and Hübler (2020) Survey (longitudinal) 50
17 Bolisani etal. (2020) Survey 931
18 Chong etal. (2020) Survey 128
19 Davidescu etal. (2020) Survey 220
20 Decastri etal. (2020) Interview 57
21 Ipsen etal. (2020) Scale validation 4643
22 Molino etal. (2020) Survey and scale validation 1627
23 Moretti etal. (2020) Survey 51
24 van der Lippe and Lippényi (2020) Survey 11,011
25 Aczel etal. (2021) Survey 704
26 Ali etal. (2021) Survey 466
27 Craig etal. (2021) Theoretical/review N/A
28 Darouei and Pluut (2021) Diary study and survey (longitudinal) 34
29 Di Tecco etal. (2021) Survey 187
30 Ipsen etal. (2021) Scale validation 5748
31 Langvik etal. (2021) Survey 1,133
32 Negulescu and Doval (2021) Theoretical/review N/A
33 Prihadi etal. (2021) Survey 400
34 Schade etal. (2021) Survey 199
457Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Table 2 Types of measurements (scales), items and reliability of
items reported (yes/no) by the researchers, and key variables investi-
gated in each study. Types of measurements are presented according
to the following three categories: (i) qualitative scales—the record
used its own items to investigate the dimensions at hand; (ii) adapted/
validated scales—the record used items adapted from previous stud-
ies or standardized reliability scales to investigate the dimensions at
hand; and (iii) mixture scales—the record used a mixture of quali-
tative and adapted/validated items to investigate the dimensions at
hand. Review studies (Craig etal., 2021; Negulescu & Doval, 2021;
Wang & Ronen, 2011) were excluded from the analysis of the types
of items
Study ID Authors, year Type of scale Items reported Reliability
reported
Key variables investigated
1 Eng etal. (2010) Mixture No No •Work and family conflict
•Management support and influence
2 Nansen etal. (2010) Qualitative No N/A •Management of time and spatial constraints and conflicts
3 Wang and Ronen (2011) N/A N/A N/A •Loyalty toward company, peers and role
•Job satisfaction
4 Troup and Rose (2012) Mixture Yes No •Living situation, including time spent on childcare
(average hours per week) and distribution of work and
home tasks
•Performance
•Job satisfaction
5 Koopmans etal. (2013)* Adapted/validated Yes Yes •Individual task and contextual performance
•Counterproductive behavior
6 Koopmans etal. (2014)* Adapted/validated Yes Yes •Individual task and contextual performance
•Counterproductive behavior
7 Raguseo etal. (2014) Mixture No No •Flexibility in the job
•Management of work-life balance
•Layout and technology elements
•Innovativeness of management
8 Tustin (2014) Mixture Yes No •Advantages and disadvantages of WFH
•Job satisfaction
•Commuting duty and flexibility of the job
•Work-life balance aspects, e.g., more time with family and
better management of time
•Well-being aspects, e.g., improved quality of life
9 Bloom etal. (2015) Adapted/validated Yes Ye s •Performance
•Commuting duty
•Work-life situation
•Satisfaction (life and work)
•Exhaustion
•Attitude toward work
10 Malik etal. (2016) Mixture Yes Ye s •Perceived value of WFH
•Family and work values and balance
•Favorable attitude toward WFH
•Motivational factors (intentions)
•Organization of the work environment and job position
11 Mazzucchelli (2017) Qualitative No No •Family–work reconciliation
•Flexibility
•Lack of autonomy and support
•Advantages and disadvantages
12 de Vries etal. (2019) Mixture Yes No •Engagement
•Organizational commitment
•Exchange with manager
•Social isolation
13 Grant etal. (2019) Adapted/validate Yes Ye s •Work-life interference
•Flexibility
•Well-being
•Organizational aspects that affect WFH
14 Nakrošienė etal. (2019) Qualitative No No •Need to communicate with colleagues
•Commuting and work-life balance e.g., taking care of
family, WFH for sickness
•Suitability of working space at home;
•Supervisor’s trust and support
•Access to organization’s documents
•Time management and work home in productive hours
•Satisfaction
•Advantages of WFH
•Self-reported productivity
458 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Table 2 (continued)
Study ID Authors, year Type of scale Items reported Reliability
reported
Key variables investigated
15 Angelici and Profeta (2020) Mixture No No •Flexibility
•Freedom of managing time and work activities
•Subjective and objective productivity
•Well-being
•Work-life balance
•Satisfaction
16 Bellmann and Hübler (2020) Mixture No No •Job satisfaction
•Improved work-life balance
•Workers personality
•Job characteristics and organizational aspects
•Commitment information
•Collegiality of organization
17 Bolisani etal. (2020) Adapted/validated No No •Individual advantages and disadvantages of WHF
18 Chong etal. (2020) Adapted/validated No No •Stress
•Exhaustion
•Withdrawal behavior
•Job satisfaction
19 Davidescu etal. (2020) Qualitative Yes No •Flexibility of job and time
•Adaptability of working space organization and
technology
•Job satisfaction
•Increased productivity and efficiency
•Interpersonal relationships
•Personal comfort and motivation
•Management of working time
20 Decastri etal. (2020) Qualitative No No •Productivity
•Management of work-life balance
•Improved well-being of workers
•Layout of the space and information and technology
infrastructure
•Quality of management and organization-related aspects
21 Ipsen etal. (2020) Adapted/validated Yes Ye s •Advantages and disadvantages of WFH
22 Molino etal. (2020) Adapted/validated Ye s Yes •Improved work-life balance
•Stress in WFH
•Stress induced by technology
23 Moretti etal. (2020) Adapted/validated No Yes •Engagement
•Pain
•Stress
•Avoidance
•Flexibility in tasks
•Living situation
•Perceived productivity
•Advantages and disadvantages of WFH
24 van der Lippe and Lippényi
(2020)
Mixture No Yes •Work performance
•Type of WFH oversight and collaboration
•Perceived autonomy
•Job satisfaction
•Job demands
•Job position
•Situation at home, commuting and work-life balance
25 Aczel etal. (2021) Qualitative Yes No •Work efficiency
•Well-being
•Living situation and work-life balance
•Advantages and disadvantages of WFH
26 Ali etal. (2021) Qualitative No Yes •Job satisfaction
•Motivation
•Organizational aspects
•Personal fears and anxiety
27 Craig etal. (2021) N/A N/A N/A •Management of breaks and time
•Management of elements in the work space/layout
•Positive effect on well-being
28 Darouei and Pluut (2021) Adapted/validated No Ye s •Engagement
•Exhaustion
•Attitude toward the organization
•Work pressure/demands
•Work-life conflicts
459Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Schade etal., 2021; Tustin, 2014). The variables inves-
tigated are related to the WFH modalities perceived
effects on people’s health and well-being, for instance,
fatigue, workload, stress (also induced by technology,
Molino etal., 2020), pain, avoidance, and exhaustion
induced by stress and withdrawal behavior.
4. Layout and technology (LAY). This dimension is
apparent in six records (Craig etal., 2021; Davidescu
etal., 2020; Decastri etal., 2020; Nakrošienė etal.,
2019; Negulescu & Doval, 2021; Raguseo etal.,
2014). The LAY dimension considers organizational
and environmental elements that may affect work-
ers’ experience, such as the physical adaptability of
the workspace and furniture, and the adaptability and
functionality of the technology, e.g., the quality of the
technological setup, and issues in usage.
5. Organizational and job-related aspects (ORG): This
dimension contains aspects from 11 records (Ali
etal., 2021; Bellmann & Hübler, 2020; Darouei &
Pluut, 2021; de Vries etal., 2019; Eng etal., 2010;
Grant etal., 2019; Malik etal., 2016; Nakrošienė etal.,
2019; Raguseo etal., 2014; Schade etal., 2021; Wang
& Ronen, 2011). The ORG dimension is focused on
the quality of the relationship between workers and
their organization, including variables such as loyalty
and trust toward the company e.g., uncertainty regard-
ing the work, but also trust toward managers and col-
leagues, and support provided by management and
colleagues that may compromise the aforementioned
relationship. The ORG dimension also includes the
assessment of job position, type of company, salary,
and work demands and pressure, for instance, to model
differences in workers’ experience.
6. Performance, productivity and efficiency (PERF):
This dimension contains aspects investigated in 12
records (Aczel etal., 2021; Angelici & Profeta, 2020;
Bloom etal., 2015; Chong etal., 2020; Koopmans
etal., 2013, 2014; Moretti etal., 2020; Nakrošienė
etal., 2019; Prihadi etal., 2021; Tustin, 2014; van der
Lippe & Lippényi, 2020; Wang & Ronen, 2011). It
contains quantitative performance measures including
indexes, and reported data on increases in productivity,
Table 2 (continued)
Study ID Authors, year Type of scale Items reported Reliability
reported
Key variables investigated
29 Di Tecco etal. (2021) Mixture Yes Yes •Engagement
•Work-life balance
•Job satisfaction
•Well-being
•Demands of and control over the work activity
•Peer support
•Management support
•Rules and changes at the organizational level
30 Ipsen etal. (2021) Adapted/validated Yes Ye s •Job satisfaction
•Advantages and disadvantages of WFH
•Perceived work-life balance
•Perceived work efficiency
•Perceived control overwork
•Home office constraints
•Work uncertainties
•Inadequate tools
31 Langvik etal. (2021) Mixture No No •Personality
•Job satisfaction
•Stress
•Socialization needs
•Type of flexibility
32 Negulescu and Doval (2021) N/A N/A N/A •Time management
•Space organization, setup and management
33 Prihadi etal. (2021) Adapted/validated Yes Yes •Mattering
•Self-esteem
•Extraversion
•Work self-efficacy
34 Schade etal. (2021) Mixture Yes Yes •Work-related basic needs satisfaction
•Job role
•Autonomy and oversight
•Support by colleagues
•Well-being and exhaustion
•Tendency to reappraise
•Detachment from work
•Flow of the work modality
•Work engagement
460 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
task complexity, time on task, and the number of
goals achieved in a set period of time. Moreover, it
includes subjective perceptions of performance, such
as regarding the efficiency or productivity of workers.
7. Personal needs and style (PERS): This dimension
appears in nine records (Ali etal., 2021; Bellmann &
Hübler, 2020; Chong etal., 2020; de Vries etal., 2019;
Langvik etal., 2021; Malik etal., 2016; Nakrošienė
etal., 2019; Prihadi etal., 2021; Schade etal., 2021).
It includes the assessment of individual needs and
characteristics, personality traits and style, which may
affect people’s activities at (and toward their) work,
such as the need to interact/communicate with oth-
ers, the need for socialization or comfort, security and
support, and personal internal motivation to perform
activities in a certain way and fear and anxiety to per-
form due to personal reasons and style.
8. Satisfaction (SAT): This dimension appears in 13
records (Ali etal., 2021; Angelici & Profeta, 2020;
Bellmann & Hübler, 2020; Bloom et al., 2015;
Davidescu etal., 2020; Decastri etal., 2020; Di Tecco
etal., 2021; Langvik etal., 2021; Nakrošienė etal.,
2019; Schade etal., 2021; Troup & Rose, 2012; Tustin,
2014; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). It pertains to
the explicit assessment of satisfaction as an individual’s
overall sense of satisfaction with their work, or their
satisfaction with its position and modality.
9. Subjective gain (SUBJ): This includes aspects meas-
ured in 9 records (Bolisani etal., 2020; Ipsen etal.,
2020, 2021; Malik etal., 2016; Mazzucchelli, 2017;
Moretti etal., 2020; Nakrošienė etal., 2019; Schade
etal., 2021; Tustin, 2014). It pertains to the assess-
ment of (economic) value, forms of personal gain (also
caused by external factors) that may stimulate workers
to carry out their work in a certain modality, includ-
ing (perceived) improvements in the flow and quality
of the work done, and the perceived advantages and
disadvantages of the WFH modality.
10. Work-life balance (WLB): This dimension appears in
21 records (Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Bellmann &
Hübler, 2020; Bloom etal., 2015; Decastri etal., 2020;
Eng etal., 2010; Grant etal., 2019; Malik etal., 2016;
Mazzucchelli, 2017; Nakrošienė etal., 2019; Nansen
etal., 2010; Raguseo etal., 2014; Troup & Rose, 2012;
Tustin, 2014). It contains aspects related to existing
or perceived conflicts between work duties and duties
associated with one’s living situation, e.g., home duty,
childcare, distance from work, the necessity to com-
mute, and the sustainability of working from home.
To summarize the relationship between the variables
investigated in the records and the proposed overarching
dimensions, we estimated the percentage of how many
records focused on each dimension (see Supplementary
Material 4). Specifically, the results suggest that aspects
associated with WLB were the most investigated in our
data set (62% of the records), followed by FLEX (56%)
and HEAL (47%). Aspects concerning ENG and SAT
were equally investigated (38%), followed by PERF (35%).
Aspects associated with the other dimensions were inves-
tigated in fewer than one third of the records: ORG (32%),
SUBJ and PERS (both 26%), and LAY (18%).
To attain insights into how the overarching dimensions
were investigated by the researchers, we distinguished for
each dimension when data were collected using indexes,
qualitative items, items of validated scales or adapted items,
or a combination (mixture) of validated, adapted and qualita-
tive items. We used this distinction to generate a heatmap
in SPSS 25 (Fig.2). As suggested in the figure, qualita-
tive (own-made) items were widely used to measure all the
clusters, with an overall mean of 50% of the dimensions
measured by qualitative questions across the studies. These
items were used in more than one third of the cases to assess
aspects regarding LAY, FLEX, WLB, ORG, SAT, PERF,
and SUBJ. Questions adapted from validated scales or previ-
ous studies were used to assess almost all the clusters (the
exception being LAY) as on average between 24 and 26%
of the dimensions in our records were measured with these
types of questions. Items from validated scales were used to
measure dimensions ENG, SUBJ, and HEAL in more than
one third of the cases, while items adapted from previous
studies (independently from the reliability of the questions)
were often used to assess PERS and ENG. A combination of
adapted and validated scale questions or indexes was rarely
used to collect data associated with all the dimensions.
About 41% (14 out of 34) of the studies aimed at
establishing the quality of the workers’ experience by
comparing different modalities, e.g., WFH versus working
at the office (Aczel etal., 2021; Ali etal., 2021; Angelici &
Profeta, 2020; Bellmann & Hübler, 2020; Bloom etal., 2015;
Davidescu etal., 2020; Ipsen etal., 2020, 2021; Mazzucchelli,
2017; Molino etal., 2020; Schade etal., 2021; Troup & Rose,
2012; Tustin, 2014; van der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). While
the remaining studies mainly focused on exploring specific
aspects of WFH to model the experience of the workers
without comparing it with office work. When researchers aim
to compare working modalities by asking workers (from home
and the office) to answer the same set of items, only a minimal
focus is placed on the differences between the work modalities.
For instance, when it comes to the dimension of SAT,
researchers when comparing work modalities tend to assess
workers’ general sense of satisfaction with their job. This valid
measure of satisfaction is, however, different from assessing
the workers’ satisfaction regarding specific elements of the
work modality that is used by researchers who aim to assess
the experience of WFH without comparative purposes, e.g.,
461Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
satisfaction with the quality of the setup and communication
modalities, software used for WFH etc.
Due to the nature of their study (comparative or
explorative of the work modalities), researchers may
end up measuring different, albeit connected, aspects of
workers’ experience. For instance, in 70% of the records
in which the dimension of SAT was explored, researchers
mainly refer to the workers’ general satisfaction with the
job without focusing on the specificity of WFH settings
(Ali etal., 2021; Angelici & Profeta, 2020; Bellmann &
Hübler, 2020; Bloom etal., 2015; Davidescu etal., 2020;
Schade etal., 2021; Troup & Rose, 2012; Tustin, 2014; van
der Lippe & Lippényi, 2020). Conversely, in 30% of the
cases, researchers did focus their analysis on satisfaction
associated with the specific WFH settings to better
understand how to improve the WFH modality and the
effect of this modality on workers (Decastri etal., 2020; Di
Tecco etal., 2021; Langvik etal., 2021; Nakrošienė etal.,
2019), asking, for instance, about satisfaction regarding the
working arrangement at home, the technical setup, or the
satisfaction with the WFH experience.
Discussion
The results of the qualitative synthesis reinforce the idea that
workers’ subjective experience requires that multiple aspects
be investigated. Below, we summarize the results in line with
our research questions.
Methodological Approaches That Researchers
Commonly Apply toInvestigate Workers’ Subjective
Experience ofWFH (R1)
Distributing questionnaires to workers represents the
most commonly used approach for investigating workers’
subjective experience of WFH. Qualitative approaches
such as interviews have also been used in combination
with scales, either to focus on specific aspects or to model
relationships among aspects that affect the experience.
Purely qualitative studies and control experiments have less
commonly been used to investigate the experience of WFH.
Moreover, longitudinal observations are also performed,
suggesting the idea that some researchers consider the
experience of workers as an aspect that is changing and
should be observed over time. This resonates with the
definition of experience in other domains, such as the one of
service and user experience (ISO 9241–210, 2019). Defining
an international standard that could convey a cross-domain
framework to guide researchers toward a unified evaluation
practice and thus enabling comparability of the experience
of remote workers, should be a long-term objective of the
different communities that are interested in investigating
WFH.
Variables That Are Usually Investigated
byResearchers (R2)
Despite the fact that the terminology used in different studies
varies substantially, in many cases researchers have gath-
ered—through diverse approaches, albeit mainly adopting
validated scales—data to assess similar and connected key
aspects. Out of the 153 variables declared by the researchers
in our data set, in fewer than 50% of the cases were the items
and the reliability reported. Our qualitative analysis of the
records suggests that at least ten dimensions can affect the
overall experience of working from home.
Overarching Dimensions toAssess theMultiple
Aspects Associated withRemote Workers’
Experience (R3)
The variables that we originally clustered as WLB and
FLEX are the most commonly investigated, especially
because these have also often been used to profile work-
ers and their (contractual and living) conditions, as well as
how these aspects affect their overall experience. From a
subjective point of view, monitoring workers’ satisfaction
regarding their work-life balance or the flexibility offered
by their company may provide useful indicators for man-
agers. For instance, sudden drops may imply issues with
employees’ working modality and indicate that remedial
actions are needed to maximize their experience. Other pri-
mary concerns for researchers are workers’ HEAL, ENG,
and SAT, which could represent their subjective reactions
to their working conditions, and declines in any of them
may also affect their PERF. Performance can be observed
using indexes (Bloom etal., 2015) or through measuring
time spent on particular tasks. Furthermore, from a sub-
jective point of view, focusing on workers’ perceptions of
improved productivity (Nakrošienė etal., 2019) may pro-
vide information on the relationship between productivity
and experience. Moreover, to monitor subjective perspec-
tives regarding ORG and LAY—and thereby (changes in)
the relationship between workers and their organization, or
issues due to the technological or environmental setup—it
may be useful to measure, for instance, loyalty toward the
company or satisfaction with technology. Finally, it may
be helpful to assess how the same sociotechnical system
of working is perceived by people with different types of
SUBJ and PERS, in order to provide insights into how best
to design or alter a WFH modality that can suit different
people. Combining all these dimensions may provide a full
picture of workers’ experience and support decision mak-
ing regarding the implementation or modification of WFH
practices.
The goals of the researchers might affect how the
dimensions are observed, e.g., comparing or exploring
462 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
the work modalities. Researchers aiming to compare
the experience of the workers from home and from the
office could tend to assess general aspects associated
with the ten dimensions; conversely, researchers who
aim to explore the effect of WFH on workers’ experience
tend to assess the dimensions focusing on the specific
characteristics of WFH. These diverse goals may bring
researchers to discuss the same dimensions collecting
data that are inherently different and hard to compare.The
dimensions we have identified have mainly been assessed
using informal questions, supporting the idea that there
is an increasing need for reliable and comparable ways of
evaluating aspects connected to the experience of WFH
(Duxbury etal., 1992). Looking at our data, this seems
particularly relevant for aspects that belong to WLB and
FLEX, as well as those related to SAT, PERF, ORG,
and LAY. When it comes to the assessment of ENG,
HEAL, and SUBJ, researchers can benefit from the use
of validated scales or adapted questions from previous
studies. Furthermore, aspects such as PERS and SAT
may benefit from validated scales, although it seems that
adapted items are generally preferred by researchers. The
use of qualitative and informal questions to study workers’
experience is not a problem per se, but because the data
collected and the aspects investigated in the domain of
WFH are hard to compare, the risk is that decisions about
implementing or changing WFH practices in companies
and institutions will be made by overrating the importance
or the risks of certain aspects based on partial insights
regarding workers’ experience.
Fig. 2 Heatmap of the types
of scales (including indexes)
reported in the records to assess
workers’ experience by measur-
ing aspects associated with the
different overarching dimen-
sions. Percentages are reported
as proportions. Review studies
(Craig etal., 2021; Negulescu
& Doval, 2021; Wang & Ronen,
2011) were excluded from this
analysis
Type of scaleENGFLEX HEAL LAYORG PERF PERS SATSUBJWLB Mean
Qualitative items9%86% 29% 100%71% 45%14% 50%33% 79%50%
Itemsofvalidated scale55% 7% 43%14% 27%29% 17%56% 5% 26%
Adapteditems 36%7%21% 14%18% 43%25% 11%11% 24%
Mixed
(validated/adapted)
7% 14
%5
%8%
Mixed
(adapted/qualitative)
8% 8%
Indexe
s9%9
%
463Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
A Tentative Definition ofWFH Experience
The 10 dimensions that emerged from this analysis can be
used to propose an original tentative unifying definition of
workers’ experience as follows.
Home workers’ experience is a multifaceted concept,
which may vary and should be monitored over time (Angelici
& Profeta, 2020; Bellmann & Hübler, 2020; Bloom etal.,
2015; Darouei & Pluut, 2021; de Vries etal., 2019; Nansen
etal., 2010). It is affected by workers’ living situation (WLB,
contractual (FLEX) constraints, well-being (HEAL), sense
of engagement (ENG) and satisfaction (SAT) with their
work, and perceived performance and productivity (PERF).
Moreover, their relationship with their organization (ORG)
and the physical organization of their work environment and
technology (LAY) may negatively or positively affect their
experience, together with personal differences in terms of
subjective gain (SUBJ) or personal needs and style (PERS).
All these aspects, when assessed and monitored over time,
can provide a full picture of workers’ experience and support
decision making regarding how best to implement or change
WFH practices.
Such a definition of experience represents an original
and inclusive perspective of the quality perceived by home
workers to support decision making with regard to the design
of the WFH modalities at a systemic level. Nakrošienė etal.
(2019), focusing on WFH by taking a job demands-resources
perspective, have recently proposed a list of 10 aspects that
researchers should consider in their assessments of WFH:
“time-planning skills, possibility to work during the most
productive time, reduced time for communication with
co-workers, possibility to work from home in case of sickness,
supervisor’s trust; supervisor’s support, possibility to save on
travel expenses, possibility to take care of family members,
suitability of the working place at home and possibility to
access the organization’s documents from home.”(Nakrošienė
etal., 2019, p. 96). All these aspects are included in our
dimensions (FLEX, WLB, PERS, SUBJ, ORG, SAT, LAY,
WLB), although our analysis has also added aspects related
to engagement (ENG) and health (HEAL), which have been
widely investigated in the existing literature.
The main limitation of the present study is that we have
proposed a set of overarching dimensions that emerged
from our analysis of the literature. A future study should
aim to extend or revise the dimensions we have proposed
by involving experts and employee panels in interviews in
order to find consensus. Nevertheless, despite this limitation,
this scoping review has mapped approaches and measures
of home workers’ experience, highlighted key aspects that
are commonly investigated and suggested a potential unify-
ing definition of remote workers’ experience.The topic of
WFH is of interest to multiple domains, from industrial and
business settings to healthcare and public administration.
In the present review we did not consider the different and
specific needs of each domain, and future studies should
explore such contextual needs. Moreover, we did not focus
on specific software architectures and management tools that
could, for instance, impact the experience of the workers,
nor did we compare different socio-technical systems devel-
oped or adapted to enable WFH.
Despite these limitations, the present work proposed a
new integrated set of dimensions that could help researchers
in different domains to look at WFH in terms of workers’
experience. This might, for instance, facilitate researchers
usually focused on health aspects to also consider, and
include in their assessment, dimensions that are normally
considered more relevant by researchers in other domains (e.g.,
business-oriented investigation on WFH), and vice versa help
researchers mainly oriented toward assessing the experience
for improving the workflow and productivity to better consider
health aspects. The current work proposed an initial framework
that could enable cross-contamination between the needs and
interests of different communities, paving the road for a unified
assessment of WFH in different domains.
Conclusion
An essential part of the “new normal” after the COVID-19
pandemic will be a revision of the modality of work (Bonacini
etal., 2021). Certainly, we have learned that several tasks, if not
certain jobs, can be done from home with a minimal amount
of effort. Nevertheless, the shift toward this new normal needs
to be monitored. Mistakes in the design of sociotechnical
systems, such as working organizations, may go unseen until
the consequences are perceivable e.g., the performance of
some workers suddenly decreases, or many workers decide
concurrently to leave their jobs. Continuous measurements
and agreement on ways of assessing WFH are necessary to
benchmark different modalities of remote working. This will
facilitate the exchange and diffusion of best practices among
companies and institutions, which will be especially important
if working from home becomes a typical condition for a
growing group of employees (Barrero etal., 2021). Therefore,
it is necessary to unify the domain of WFH, which is currently
characterized by differences in terminology, objectives and ways
of assessing aspects associated with workers’ experience. Some
standardized tools for measuring a set of aspects associated
with workers’ experience are currently available (Grant etal.,
2019; Ragu-Nathan etal., 2008; Schaufeli etal., 2006, 2017).
However, the same cannot be said for either a battery of items
with the potential to combine measurements of experience or a
unified perspective regarding aspects that should be assessed.
This article has contributed to this effort to find a con-
solidated way of evaluating the experience of WFH by map-
ping the most commonly assessed aspects and how these
464 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
are usually measured by researchers. Moreover, we have
defined home workers’ experience based on insights from
the literature. Although further validation is needed, such a
definition and its elements should be intended as an initial
driver to support researchers in different domains to fully
account for the workers’ perspective when assessing WFH
systems. Our list of dimensions can be used by experts as
a checklist for establishing aspects to assess or monitor in
order to improve workers’ experience of carrying out their
profession from home. In this sense, the list of dimensions
we proposed could be seen as a way to bridge the commu-
nities of researchers that are working in different domains,
with the common goal of assessing the experience of home
workers, pushing researchers to consider a more coherent
and comparable set of dimensions for their investigations.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41347- 022- 00264-4.
Acknowledgements The present work was supported by Directorate
General for Management and Information and Communications, Min-
istry of Economic Development (DGTCSI-ISCTI), and the Department
of Public Service, Prime Minister’s Office within the research project
“Job-satisfying” on April 6, 2021.
Funding Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di
Perugia within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Aczel, B., Kovacs, M., van der Lippe, T., & Szaszi, B. (2021).
Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges.
PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0249127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al.
pone. 02491 27
Ahmad, K. Z., Alwee, S. H. S., Yusoff, Z. Z. M., Osman, S. I. W., &
Tuah, S. N. A. (2003). The Association between ethical deci-
sion-making, job satisfaction, organisational commitment and
selected demographic variables. Malaysian Management Jour-
nal, 7(2), 1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32890/ mmj.7. 2. 2003. 8749
Ali, S., Alam, B. F., Noreen, S., Anwar, M., Qazi, S. H., & Hussain,
T. (2021). Motivation and job satisfaction among medical and
dental college faculty in Pakistan amid the COVID-19 outbreak.
Work, 69(2), 359–366. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ WOR- 213483
Angelici, M., & Profeta, P. (2020). Smart-working: work flexibility without
constraints. Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo)
Working Paper n. 8165. https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 35563 04
Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2021). Why working from
home will stick. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Working Paper No. 28731. http:// www. nber. org/ papers/ w28731
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by
professionals and managers. New Technology, Work and Employ-
ment, 15(1), 34–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1468- 005X. 00063
Bellmann, L., & Hübler, O. (2020). Working from home, job satis-
faction and work–life balance – robust or heterogeneous links?
International Journal of Manpower, 42(3), 424–441. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1108/ IJM- 10- 2019- 0458
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M.
(2016). The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbe-
ing: A socio-technical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52,
207–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. apergo. 2015. 07. 019
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working
from home work? Evidence from a chinese experiment. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218, Article qju032. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1093/ qje/ qju032
Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P.
(2020). Working from home during COVID-19 pandemic: Les-
sons learned and issues. Management & Marketing. Challenges
for the Knowledge Society, 15(s1), 458–476. https:// doi. org/ 10.
2478/ mmcks- 2020- 0027
Bonacini, L., Gallo, G., & Scicchitano, S. (2021). Working from home
and income inequality: Risks of a ‘new normal’with COVID-19.
Journal of Population Economics, 34(1), 303–360. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s00148- 020- 00800-7
Boyon, N. (2021). Return to the workplace 2021 global survey.
IPSOS. https:// www. ipsos. com/ en- us/ news- polls/ return- to- the-
workp lace- global- survey
Chong, S., Huang, Y., & Chang, C. H. D. (2020). Supporting interde-
pendent telework employees: A moderated-mediation model link-
ing daily COVID-19 task setbacks to next-day work withdrawal.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1408–1422. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00843
Craig, C. M., Neilson, B. N., Altman, G. C., Travis, A. T., & Vance,
J. A. (2021). Applying Restorative Environments in the Home
Office While Sheltering-in-Place. Human Factors. Advance online
publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 20820 984286
Darouei, M., & Pluut, H. (2021). Work from home today for a better
tomorrow! How working from home influences work-family con-
flict and employees' start of the next workday. Stress and Health.
Advance publication online. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smi. 3053
Davidescu, A. A., Apostu, S. A., Paul, A., & Casuneanu, I. (2020).
Work flexibility, job satisfaction, and job performance among
romanian employees-Implications for sustainable human resource
management. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(15), Article 6086.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 56086
de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of tel-
eworking in the public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Pub-
lic Personnel Administration, 39(4), 570–593. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 07343 71X18 760124
Decastri, M., Gagliarducci, F., Previtali, P., & Scarozza, D. (2020).
Understanding the use of smart working in public administration:
The experience of the presidency of the council of ministers. In
A. Lazazzara, F. Ricciardi, & S. Za (Eds.), Exploring Digital Eco-
systems: Organizational and Human Challenges (pp. 343–363).
Springer Nature. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 23665-6_ 25
465Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Di Tecco, C., Ronchetti, M., Russo, S., Ghelli, M., Rondinone, B. M.,
Persechino, B., & Iavicoli, S. (2021). Implementing smart working
in public administration: A follow up study. Medicina del Lavoro,
112(2), 141–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 23749/ mdl. v112i2. 10595
Dolan, V. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact
on their performance. International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 62–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 19173/
irrodl. v12i2. 793
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Mills, S. (1992). After-hours tel-
ecommuting and work-family conflict: A comparative analysis.
Information Systems Research, 3(2), 173–190. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1287/ isre.3. 2. 173
Eng, W., Moore, S., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E., & Sikora, P. (2010).
What influences work-family conflict? the function of work sup-
port and working from home. Current Psychology, 29(2), 104–
120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12144- 010- 9075-9
European Commission. (2020). COM/2020/500 final - Communication
from the commission 2020 European Semester: Country-specific
recommendations. https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/
TXT/? qid= 15917 20546 579& uri= CELEX% 3A520 20DC0 500
EUROSTAT. (2021). Employed persons working from home as a per-
centage of the total employment, by sex, age and professional status
(%). https:// appsso. euros tat. ec. europa. eu/ nui/ show. do? datas et= lfsa_
ehomp & lang= en: EUROSTAT. https:// appsso. euros tat. ec. europa. eu/
nui/ show. do? datas et= lfsa_ ehomp & lang= en
Fana, M., Milasi, S., Napierala, J., Fernandez-Macias, E., & Vázquez, I. G.
(2020). Telework, work organisation and job quality during the COVID-
19 crisis: A qualitative study. N. European Commision Joint Research
Centre (JRC) Working Papers. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 10419/ 231343
Fox, W. M. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines:
Past and present. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
31(1), 91–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86395 311009
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An explora-
tion of the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job
effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance. Employee Rela-
tions, 35(5), 527–546. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ER- 08- 2012- 0059
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., Spurgeon, P. C., Tramontano, C., &
Charalampous, M. (2019). Construction and initial validation of
the E-Work Life Scale to measure remote e-working. Employee
Relations, 41(1), 16–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ER- 09- 2017- 0229
Harrington, E., & Emanuel, N. (2020). Working remotely? Selection,
treatment, and market provision of remote work Harvard Uni-
versity Working paper https:// schol ar. harva rd. edu/ eharr ington/
publi catio ns/ worki ng- remot ely - selec tion- treat ment- and- mar k e t-
provi sion- remote- work
Ipsen, C., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2020). Experiences of working
from home in times of covid-19 International survey conducted the
first months of the national lockdowns March-May 2020. Techni-
cal University of Denmark (DTU) Internal Report 2020. https://
orbit. dtu. dk/ en/ publi catio ns/ exper iences- of- worki ng- from- home-
in- times- of- covid- 19- inter nation
Ipsen, C., van Veldhoven, M., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2021). Six key
advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe dur-
ing COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 18(4), 1826. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1804 1826
ISO. (2019). ISO 9241–210 Ergonomics of human-system interaction
— Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. Brus-
sels, BE: European Committee for Standardization. https:// www.
iso. org/ stand ard/ 77520. html
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., van Buuren, S., Van
der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. (2013). Development of an indi-
vidual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 17410 40131 12852 73
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H.
C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Measuring individual work
performance: Identifying and selecting indicators. Work, 48(2),
229–238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ WOR- 131659
Kröll, C., & Nüesch, S. (2019). The effects of flexible work practices on
employee attitudes: Evidence from a large-scale panel study in Ger-
many. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
30(9), 1505–1525. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09585 192. 2017. 12895 48
Langvik, E., Karlsen, H. R., Saksvik-Lehouillier, I., & Sørengaard, T.
A. (2021). Police employees working from home during COVID-
19 lockdown: Those with higher score on extraversion miss their
colleagues more and are more likely to socialize with colleagues
outside work. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, Article
110924. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2021. 110924
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., &
Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting system-
atic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare
interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. b2700
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Smit, S., Ellingrud, K., Meaney,
M., & Robinson, O. (2021). The future of work after COVID-19.
McKinsey Global Institute. https:// www. mckin sey. com/ featu red-
insig hts/ future- of- work/ the- future- of- work- after- covid- 19
Malik, A., Rosenberger, P. J., Fitzgerald, M., & Houlcroft, L. (2016).
Factors affecting smart working: Evidence from Australia. Inter-
national Journal of Manpower, 37(6), 1042–1066. https:// doi. org/
10. 1108/ ijm- 12- 2015- 0225
Mallia, K. L., & Ferris, S. P. (2000). Telework: A consideration of its
impact on individuals and organizations. Electronic Journal of
Communication, 10(3), 4.
Maruyama, T., Hopkinson, P. G., & James, P. W. (2009). A multi-
variate analysis of work–life balance outcomes from a large-scale
telework programme. New Technology, Work and Employment,
24(1), 76–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 005X. 2008. 00219.x
Mazzucchelli, S. (2017). Flexibility and work-family balance: A win-
win solution for companies? The case of Italy. International
Review of Sociology-Revue Internationale De Sociologie, 27(3),
436–456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03906 701. 2017. 13774 11
Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M. L., Russo,
V., Zito, M., & Cortese, C. G. (2020). Wellbeing Costs of Technology
Use during Covid-19 Remote Working: An Investigation Using the
Italian Translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability,
12(15), 20, Article 5911. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 55911
Moretti, A., Menna, F., Aulicino, M., Paoletta, M., Liguori, S., & Iolascon, G.
(2020). Characterization of home working population during covid-19
emergency: A cross-sectional analysis. International Journal of Envi-
ronmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 1–13, Article 6284.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1717 6284
Morgan, S. J., & Symon, G. (2002). Computer-mediated communica-
tion and remote management: Integration or isolation? Social Sci-
ence Computer Review, 20(3), 302–311. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
08944 39302 02000 307
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., &
Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review?
Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or
scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology,
18(1), 1–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12874- 018- 0611-x
Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from
home: Characteristics and outcomes of telework. International
Journal of Manpower, 40(1), 87–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
IJM- 07- 2017- 0172
Nansen, B., Arnold, M., Gibbs, M., & Davis, H. (2010). Time, space
and technology in the working-home: An unsettled nexus. New
Technology Work and Employment, 25(2), 136–153. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 005X. 2010. 00244.x
Negulescu, O. H., & Doval, E. (2021). Ergonomics and time manage-
ment in remote working from home. Acta Technica Napocensis
466 Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1 3
Series-Applied Mathematics Mechanics and Engineering, 64(SI 1),
99–108. https:// atna- mam. utcluj. ro/ index. php/ Acta/ artic le/ view/ 1500
Prihadi, K. D., Lim, E. S. Z., Chan, K. C., Lee, S. M. H., & Ridwan, A.
(2021). Efficacy of working from home among urban profession-
als in Malaysia during the pandemic: The robust predictive role of
mattering. International Journal of Public Health Science, 10(1),
215–220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11591/ ijphs. v10i1. 20736
Raffaele, C., & Connell, J. (2016). Telecommuting and co-working com-
munities: what are the implications for individual and organizational
flexibility? In Sushil, J. Connell, & J. Burgess (Eds.), Flexible Work
Organizations: The Challenges of Capacity Building in Asia (pp.
21–35). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 81- 322- 2834-9_2
Ragu-Nathan, T., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The
consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Con-
ceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems
Research, 19(4), 417–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 1070. 0165
Raguseo, E., Neirotti, P., Paolucci, E., Gastaldi, L., Corso, M., & Martini,
A. (2014). Towards a Smarter Work? Unpacking Complementarities
between ICT Adoption, Human Resource Practices and Office Lay-
out [Paper presentation]. The 9th International Forum on Knowledge
Asset Dynamics, Matera. https:// www. w ebof scien ce. com/ wos/ woscc/
full- record/ WOS: 00035 72623 03029? SID= D3SpI ztfkH Vr7Iz ONnY
Rajanen, M., & Rajanen, D. (2020). Usability as Speculum Mundi: A
Core Concept in Socio-technical Systems Development. Complex
Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly, 129(22), 49–59.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 7250/ csimq. 2020- 22. 04
Renu, N. (2021). Technological advancement in the era of COVID-19.
SAGE Open Medicine, 9, 20503121211000910. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 20503 12121 10009 12
Riva, G., Wiederhold, B. K., & Mantovani, F. (2021). Surviving
COVID-19: The Neuroscience of Smart Working and Distance
Learning. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
24(2), 79–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ cyber. 2021. 0009
Schade, H. M., Digutsch, J., Kleinsorge, T., & Fan, Y. (2021). Having to
work from home: Basic needs, well-being, and motivation. Inter-
national Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
18(10), Article 5149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1810 5149
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measure-
ment of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-
national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
66(4), 701–716. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64405 282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., & De
Witte, H. (2017). An ultra-short measure for work engagement.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 1015- 5759/ a0004 30
Shao, Y., Fang, Y., Wang, M., Chang, C.-H.D., & Wang, L. (2021).
Making daily decisions to work from home or to work in the
office: The impacts of daily work-and COVID-related stressors on
next-day work location. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6),
825–838. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00929
Stern, P. N. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and pro-
cesses. Image, 12(1), 20–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1547- 5069.
1980. tb014 55.x
Tagliaro, C., & Ciaramella, A. (2016). Experiencing smart working: A
case study on workplace change management in Italy. Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 18(3), 194–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
jcre- 10- 2015- 0034
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H.,
Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., & Weeks, L.
(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR):
Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7),
467–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7326/ M18- 0850
Troup, C., & Rose, J. (2012). Working from home: Do formal or infor-
mal telework arrangements provide better work-family outcomes?
Community, Work and Family, 15(4), 471–486. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 13668 803. 2012. 724220
Tustin, D. H. (2014). Telecommuting academics within an open distance
education environment of South Africa: More content, productive,
and healthy? International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 15(3), 185–214. https:// doi. org/ 10. 19173/ irrodl. v15i3. 1770
United Nations. (2020). Education During COVID-19 and Beyond [Policy
Brief]. UN Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG) Pol-
icy Briefs and Papers. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18356/ 21e7d 903- en
van der Lippe, T., & Lippényi, Z. (2020). Co-workers working from home
and individual and team performance. New Technology, Work and
Employment, 35(1), 60–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ntwe. 12153
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Achieving Effec-
tive Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Work
Design Perspective. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 16–59. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12290
Wang, W., & Ronen, S. (2011). Employee loyalty and telecommut-
ing. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 77,
687–689. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 13305 13
Zhang, C., Yu, M. C., & Marin, S. (2021). Exploring public sentiment
on enforced remote work during COVID-19. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 106(6), 797–810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00933
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
467Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science (2022) 7:451–467
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com