Abstract Objective This study aims to develop and validate an inventory of cognitive bandwidth for dual‐career couples, which seeks to measure cognitive resource allocation and its subsequent effects on work‐family integration among dual‐career families in Pakistan. Background Cognitive overload is prevalent among dual‐career couples as they juggle their professional commitments and personal lives. Existing literature has documented the work–family conflict; however, the comprehensive tools that capture cognitive processes for various demands are lacking. Method The approach consisted of focus groups and interviews with 50 dual‐career couples to develop an initial 80 items. Once data were collected from 200 participants, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed on the data, resulting in a 29‐item scale. Results The scale comprises Efficient Use of Cognitive Resources, Focus and Memory Retention, Management Ability and Decision‐Making Efficiency, Mental Flexibility, and Task Transitions. The scale exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82–0.91) and a good model fit (SRMR = 0.053), indicating a good global fit of the model. Conclusion With the completion of this study, the CB–DCC can now provide a reliable and valid measure of cognitive bandwidth in dual‐career couples, thereby highlighting the resources available to manage overload. Implications The instrument has the potential to shape the formulation of policies concerning work‐life balance, including flexible working hours and family leave. It also aids counselors in assisting couples to manage cognitive load for effective integration of work and family. Its use in various sociocultural settings and in longitudinal studies requires further examination.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Aqsa Abdul Khaliq
Samar Fahad
Family Relations
Islamia University of Bahawalpur
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Khaliq et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69be3be16e48c4981c679c4e — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.70210