OBJECTIVE: To develop a Dutch version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) and examine the reliability and discriminant, discriminative and structural validity of the Dutch SPS-6 (DSPS-6). METHODS: The original SPS-6 (English-language) was translated and adapted to the Dutch culture. Thirty participants filled in the DSPS-6 at baseline (T0) and after 5 days (T1). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (Spearman's correlation coefficient, Spearman's rho), item-to-total correlations, discriminant validity (association with job stress and job satisfaction), discriminative validity (patients reporting a (work) disability compared with those indicating that they had no disability; Spearman's rho, t tests), structural validity (Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization) and floor and ceiling effects were examined. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the DSPS-6 was 0.89. Test-retest Spearman's rho was 0.82 (p < 0.01). Item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.60 to 0.82. Subjects reporting a work disability had significantly lower DSPS scores (discriminative validity). Spearman's rho for the DSPS-6 score and job satisfaction were 0.38 (p = 0.05; at T0) and 0.27 (at T1), respectively. Spearman's rho for the association between the DSPS-6 and job stress were -0.52 (p = 0.01; at T0) and -0.42 (p = 0.05; at T1), respectively (discriminant validity). The two factors derived from the principal components analysis account for 77.5 % of the variance of responses (structural validity). A ceiling effect was present. CONCLUSIONS: The DSPS-6 showed good reliability and structural validity. The discriminative validity of the DSPS-6 is partly supported. The concept of presenteeism is not sufficiently distinct from the constructs of job stress and job satisfaction (discriminant validity). The results of the present study show that the adaptation of the SPS-6 into Dutch was successful. Further research on the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the DSPS-6 in a larger group of participants is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a Dutch version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) and examine the reliability and discriminant, discriminative and structural validity of the Dutch SPS-6 (DSPS-6). METHODS: The original SPS-6 (English-language) was translated and adapted to the Dutch culture. Thirty participants filled in the DSPS-6 at baseline (T0) and after 5 days (T1). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (Spearman's correlation coefficient, Spearman's rho), item-to-total correlations, discriminant validity (association with job stress and job satisfaction), discriminative validity (patients reporting a (work) disability compared with those indicating that they had no disability; Spearman's rho, t tests), structural validity (Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization) and floor and ceiling effects were examined. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the DSPS-6 was 0.89. Test-retest Spearman's rho was 0.82 (p < 0.01). Item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.60 to 0.82. Subjects reporting a work disability had significantly lower DSPS scores (discriminative validity). Spearman's rho for the DSPS-6 score and job satisfaction were 0.38 (p = 0.05; at T0) and 0.27 (at T1), respectively. Spearman's rho for the association between the DSPS-6 and job stress were -0.52 (p = 0.01; at T0) and -0.42 (p = 0.05; at T1), respectively (discriminant validity). The two factors derived from the principal components analysis account for 77.5 % of the variance of responses (structural validity). A ceiling effect was present. CONCLUSIONS: The DSPS-6 showed good reliability and structural validity. The discriminative validity of the DSPS-6 is partly supported. The concept of presenteeism is not sufficiently distinct from the constructs of job stress and job satisfaction (discriminant validity). The results of the present study show that the adaptation of the SPS-6 into Dutch was successful. Further research on the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the DSPS-6 in a larger group of participants is recommended.
Authors: Robin S Turpin; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Claire E Sharda; James J Collins; Marc L Berger; Gary M Billotti; Catherine M Baase; Michael J Olson; Sean Nicholson Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Nathan Hutting; J Bart Staal; Yvonne F Heerkens; Josephine A Engels; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: Trials Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Nathan Hutting; Sarah I Detaille; Josephine A Engels; Yvonne F Heerkens; J Bart Staal; Maria Wg Nijhuis-van der Sanden Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2015-07-01