Item-Level Psychometric Analysis of the Psychosocial Processes at Work Scale (PROPSIT) in Workers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Instruments
2.2.1. Psychosocial Processes at Work Scale (PROPSIT)
2.2.2. Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES)
2.2.3. Utrech Engagement Scale (UWES-3)
2.2.4. Single Stress Item (SUI)
2.2.5. Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)
2.2.6. Ethical Considerations
2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Data Collection
2.3.2. Analysis
2.3.3. Descriptive Properties
2.3.4. Efficiency of Use of Response Categories
2.3.5. Scaling Distribution
2.3.6. Association with Sociodemographic Variables
2.3.7. Association for Construct Validity
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Information for Items
3.1.1. Psychosocial Risk Factors (PSRFs)
3.1.2. Psychosocial Positive Resource Factors (PPRFs)
3.2. Use of Response Categories
3.2.1. Psychosocial Risk Factors (PSRFs)
3.2.2. Psychosocial Positive Resource Factors (PPRFs)
3.3. Distribution of Scaling
3.3.1. Psychosocial Risk Factors (PSRFs)
3.3.2. Psychosocial Positive Resource Factors (PPRFs)
3.4. Association with External Variables
3.4.1. Psychosocial Risk Factors (PSRFs)
3.4.2. Psychosocial Positive Resource Factors (PPRFs)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Appelbaum, M.; Cooper, H.; Kline, R.B.; Mayo-Wilson, E.; Nezu, A.M.; Rao, S.M. Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. Am. Psychol. 2018, 73, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cooper, H. Reporting Quantitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Urbina, S. Essentials of Psychological Testing; Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- American Educational Research Association [AERA]; American Psychological Association [APA]; National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; American Educational Research Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, A.M.; Rudd, J.M. Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. In Proceedings of the ANZMAC 2009 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 30 November—2 December 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boone, W.J.; Staver, J.R. Presentation and explanation techniques to use in Rasch articles. In Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 287–302. [Google Scholar]
- Figueiredo-Ferraz, H.; Gil-Monte, P.R.; Olivares-Faúndez, V.E. Influence of mobbing (workplace bullying) on depressive symptoms: A longitudinal study among employees working with people with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2015, 59, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Theorell, T.; Hammarström, A.; Aronsson, G.; Träskman Bendz, L.; Grape, T.; Hogstedt, C.; Marteinsdottir, I.; Skoog, I.; Hall, C. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health. 2015, 15, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Price, L.R. Psychometric Methods: Theory and Practice; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Coulacoglou, C.; Saklofske, D.H. Psychometrics and Psychological Assessment; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Morrison, K.M.; Embretson, S. Item generation. In The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing: A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development; Irwing, P., Booth, T., Hughes, D.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 74–94. [Google Scholar]
- Boateng, G.O.; Neilands, T.B.; Frongillo, E.A.; Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R.; Young, S.L. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preckel, F.; Brunner, M. Nomological nets. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences; Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Speed, T. A correlation for the 21st century. Science 2011, 334, 1502–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujita, A.; Sato, J.R.; Demasi, M.A.A.; Sogayar, M.C.; Ferreira, C.E.; Miyano, S. Comparing Pearson, Spearman and Hoeffding’s D measure for gene expression association analysis. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 2009, 7, 663–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makonnen, S.M.Y. A Simulation Study on the Power of Mutual Information and Distance Correlation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Merino, C. Datos normativos del desarrollo psicomotor: Un reanálisis. Rev. Peru. Psicol. 2011, 1, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
- Helson, R.; Soto, C.J. Up and down in middle age: Monotonic and nonmonotonic changes in roles, status, and personality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 89, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Besser, A.; Priel, B.; Flett, G.L.; Wiznitzer, A. Linear and nonlinear models of vulnerability to depression: Personality and postpartum depression in a high risk population. Individ. Differ. Res. 2007, 5, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
- García-Arroyo, J.; Osca, A. Lidiando con el burnout: Análisis de relaciones lineales, no lineales y de interacción. An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 722–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merino-Soto, C.; Lima-Mendoza, S.; Lozano-Huamán, M.; Cruz, G.C.D.L.; Juárez-García, A. Escala de Auto-eficacia Ocupacional—Breve (OSES): Exploración de sus propiedades psicométricas. Rev. Asoc. Esp. Espec. Med. Trab. 2021, 30, 195–207. [Google Scholar]
- Mäder, I.A.; Niessen, C. Nonlinear associations between job insecurity and adaptive performance: The mediating role of negative affect and negative work reflection. Hum. Perform. 2017, 30, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, M. A Comparison of Correlation Measures. Available online: http://www3.nd.edu/~mclark19/learn/CorrelationComparison.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- Reshef, D.N.; Reshef, Y.A.; Finucane, H.K.; Grossman, S.R.; McVean, G.; Turnbaugh, P.J.; Lander, E.S.; Mitzenmacher, M.; Sabeti, P.C. Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science 2011, 334, 1518–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santos, S.S.; Takahashi, D.Y.; Nakata, A.; Fujita, A. A comparative study of statistical methods used to identify dependencies between gene expression signals. Brief. Bioinform. 2014, 15, 906–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dümcke, S.; Mansmann, U.; Tresch, A. A novel test for independence derived from an exact distribution of ith nearest neighbours. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrea, H.; Bültmann, U.; van Amelsvoort, L.G.P.M.; Kant, Y. The incidence of anxiety and depression among employees—The role of psychosocial work characteristics. Depress. Anxiety 2009, 26, 1040–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duru, P.; Ocaktan, M.E.; Çelen, Ü.; Örsal, Ö. The effect of workplace bullying perception on psychological symptoms: A structural equation approach. Saf. Health Work 2018, 9, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnavita, N.; Fileni, A. Association of work-related stress with depression and anxiety in radiologists. Radiol. Med. 2014, 119, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berthelsen, M.; Pallesen, S.; Magerøy, N.; Tyssen, R.; Bjorvatn, B.; Moen, B.E.; Knardahl, S. Effects of psychological and social factors in shiftwork on symptoms of anxiety and depression in nurses. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 57, 1127–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Żołnierczyk-Zreda, D.; Holas, P. Psychosocial working conditions and major depression or depressive disorders: Review of studies. Med. Pr. 2018, 69, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balducci, C.; Avanzi, L.; Fraccaroli, F. Emotional demands as a risk factor for mental distress among nurses. Med. Lav. 2014, 105, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Harvey, S.B.; Modini, M.; Joyce, S.; Milligan-Saville, J.S.; Tan, L.; Mykletun, A.; Bryant, R.A.; Christensen, H.; Mitchell, P.B. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 74, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nieuwenhuijsen, K.; Bruinvels, D.; Frings-Dresen, M. Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup. Med. 2010, 60, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stansfeld, S.; Candy, B. Psychosocial work environment and mental health—A meta-analytic review. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2006, 32, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onyishi, I.E.; Ugwu, F.O.; Onyishi, C.N.; Okwueze, F.O. Job demands and psychological well-being: Moderating role of occupational self-efficacy and job social support among mid-career academics. J. Psychol. Afr. 2018, 28, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reina-Tamayo, A.M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Episodic demands, resources, and engagement. J. Pers. Psychol. 2017, 16, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linacre, J.M. Investigating rating scale category utility. J. Outcome Meas. 1999, 2, 103–122. [Google Scholar]
- Linacre, J.M. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J. Appl. Meas. 2002, 3, 85–106. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, E.V.; Wakely, M.B.; de Kruif, R.E.L.; Swartz, C.W. Optimizing rating scales for self-efficacy (and other) research. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003, 63, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engelhard, G.; Wind, S.A. Rating quality studies using Rasch measurement theory. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–17 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Juárez-García, A.; Flores-Jiménez, C. Estructura factorial de un instrumento para la Evaluación de Procesos Psicosociales en el Trabajo en México. Rev. Psicol. Cienc. Comport. Unidad Acad. Cienc. Juríd. Soc. 2020, 11, 181–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paucar-Santivañez, A.P. Propiedades Psicométricas de la Escala de Factores Psicosociales en el Trabajo en Trabajadores Peruanos del Sector Minero. Bachelor’s Thesis (Licenciatura en Psicología), Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola (USIL), Lima, Perú, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands-resources theory. In Work and Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide; Chen, P.Y., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- Broetje, S.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. The key job demands and resources of nursing staff: An integrative review of reviews. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Labour Organization. International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08), Volume 1: Structure, Group Definitions and Correspondence Tables; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rigotti, T.; Schyns, B.; Mohr, G. A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. J. Career Assess. 2008, 16, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Shimazu, A.; Hakanen, J.; Salanova, M.; De Witte, H. An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 35, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elo, A.L.; Leppänen, A.; Jahkola, A. Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2003, 29, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arapovic-Johansson, B.; Wåhlin, C.; Kwak, L.; Björklund, C.; Jensen, I. Work-related stress assessed by a text message single-item stress question. Occup. Med. 2017, 67, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Houdmont, J.; Jachens, L.; Randall, R.; Hopson, S.; Nuttall, S.; Pamia, S. What does a single-item measure of job stressfulness assess? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Omholt, M.L.; Tveito, T.H.; Ihlebæk, C. Subjective health complaints, work-related stress and self-efficacy in Norwegian aircrew. Occup. Med. 2017, 67, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salminen, S.; Kouvonen, A.; Koskinen, A.; Joensuu, M.; Väänänen, A. Is a single item stress measure independently associated with subsequent severe injury: A prospective cohort study of 16,385 forest industry employees. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ–4. Psychosomatics 2009, 50, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merino-Soto, C.; Dominguez-Lara, S.; Fernández-Arata, M. Validación inicial de una Escala Breve de Satisfacción con los Estudios en estudiantes universitarios de Lima. Educ. Méd. 2017, 18, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merino-Soto, C.; Angulo-Ramos, M.; López-Fernández, V. Escala de inteligencia Emocional Wong-Law (WLEIS) en estudiantes de Enfermería peruanos. Educ. Méd. Super. 2019, 33, e1473. [Google Scholar]
- Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología. Código Ético del Psicólogo [Ethical Code of the Psychologist]; Trillas: Mexico City, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. With the 2016 Amendment to Standard 3.04; American Psychological Association Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Keselman, H.J.; Othman, A.R.; Wilcox, R.R. Preliminary testing for normality: Is this a good practice? J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2013, 12, 2–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korkmaz, S.; Goksuluk, D.; Zararsiz, G. MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. R Doc. 2014, 6, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sato, T.; Morimoto, U. Sentaku-shi keishiki tesuto kaitou bunpu no bunseki [Analyzing endorsement distribution of selected-response items]. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Behaviometric Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Samejima, F. Research on the Multiple-Choice Test Item in Japan: Toward the Validation of Mathematical Models; Scientific Monograph, ONRT-M3; Department of the Navy Office of Naval Research: Tokyo, Japan, 1980.
- Galtung, J. Theory and Methods of Social Research; Universitetsforlaget: Oslo, Norway, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Tastle, W.J.; Wierman, M.J. Consensus and dissention: A measure of ordinal dispersion. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2007, 45, 531–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruedin, D. agrmt: Calculate Concentration and Dispersion in Ordered Rating Scales. R Package Version 1.42.4. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=agrmt (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Glass, G.V. Note on rank biserial correlation. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1966, 26, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangiafico, S. rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. R Package Versión 2.3.25. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanion (accessed on 15 December 2020).
- Reshef, D.N.; Reshef, Y.A.; Sabeti, P.C.; Mitzenmacher, M. An empirical study of the maximal and total information coefficients and leading measures of dependence. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2018, 12, 123–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miecznikowski, J.C.; Hsu, E.S.; Chen, Y.; Vexler, A. testforDEP: Dependence Tests for Two Variables. R Package Version 0.2.0. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=testforDEP (accessed on 20 January 2021).
- Siegrist, J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1996, 1, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karasek, R.A.; Theorell, T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bono, R.; Blanca, M.J.; Arnau, J.; Gómez-Benito, J. Non-normal distributions commonly used in health, education, and social sciences: A systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Micceri, T. The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 105, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muthén, B.O.; du Toit, S.H.C.; Spisic, D. Robust Inference using Weighted Least Squares and Quadratic Estimating Equations in Latent Variable Modeling with Categorical and Continuous Outcomes. Available online: https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2020).
- Forero, C.G.; Maydeu-Olivares, A.; Gallardo-Pujol, D. Factor Analysis with Ordinal Indicators: A Monte Carlo Study Comparing DWLS and ULS Estimation. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2009, 16, 625–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correll, J.; Mellinger, C.; McClelland, G.H.; Judd, C.M. Avoid Cohen’s ‘Small’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Large’ for Power Analysis. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2020, 24, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | N | % |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 96 | 51.1 |
Female | 92 | 48.9 |
Marital Status | ||
Married | 37 | 19.7 |
Cohabitant | 24 | 12.8 |
Divorced | 3 | 1.6 |
Single | 124 | 124 |
Contract | ||
Planta/Definitive | 95 | 50.5 |
Eventual/Temporal | 93 | 49.5 |
Job level | ||
Director, manager, supervisor or area manager | 27 | 14.4 |
Administrative, nonmanagerial (nonmanual work) | 101 | 53.7 |
Sales, without personnel in charge (nonmanual work) | 9 | 4.8 |
Operative employee (manual work) | 49 | 26.1 |
Other | 2 | 1.1 |
Convivencia | ||
Alone | 11 | 5.9 |
Alone with a pet | 1 | 0.5 |
Partner or family | 171 | 91.0 |
With friends | 3 | 1.6 |
Others | 2 | 1.1 |
Classification of academic areas | ||
Health sciences | 6 | 3.2 |
Basic sciences | 1 | 0.5 |
Engineering | 20 | 10.6 |
Economic and management sciences | 65 | 34.6 |
Humanities, law and social sciences | 39 | 20.7 |
Does not belong/not applicable | 56 | 29.8 |
Missing | 1 | 0.5 |
Occupational classification CIUO-08 | ||
Directors and managers | 3 | 1.6 |
Scientific and intellectual professionals | 58 | 30.9 |
Technicians and mid-level professionals | 57 | 30.3 |
Administrative support personnel | 30 | 16.0 |
Service workers, store and market salespersons | 8 | 4.3 |
Military, craftsmen, mechanical and other trades workers | 26 | 13.8 |
Plant and machine operators and assemblers | 4 | 2.1 |
Elementary occupations | 1 | 0.5 |
Psychosocial Risk Factors | M | SD | Sk | Ku | AD | AJUS | TW | O < 10 | AENO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Workload and work rhythm demands | |||||||||
| 4.67 | 1.53 | −0.57 | −0.85 | 9.96 | A | 0.62 | 1, 7 | 5.29 |
| 4.74 | 1.56 | −0.64 | −0.57 | 8.24 | S | 0.62 | 1 | 5.8 |
| 2.83 | 1.44 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 9.05 | A | 0.66 | 7 | 5.17 |
High responsibility demands | |||||||||
| 2.54 | 1.72 | 1.00 | −0.09 | 13.06 | L | 0.56 | 0 | 5.20 |
| 2.07 | 1.32 | 1.53 | 2.22 | 15.60 | U | 0.71 | 5, 6, 7 | 4.07 |
Shift and schedule demands | |||||||||
| 3.30 | 1.49 | 0.28 | −0.88 | 5.36 | S | 0.64 | 7 | 5.71 |
| 1.72 | 1.31 | 1.93 | 2.94 | 33.09 | S | 0.71 | 4, 6, 7 | 2.99 |
| 1.58 | 1.24 | 2.45 | 5.81 | 4.22 | U | 0.73 | 4, 5, 6, 7 | 2.55 |
Cognitive/attentional demands | |||||||||
| 4.53 | 1.74 | −0.55 | −0.92 | 8.76 | S | 0.55 | 0 | 5.95 |
| 4.64 | 1.66 | −0.59 | −0.79 | 9.04 | A | 0.58 | 1 | 5.75 |
| 4.60 | 1.65 | −0.37 | −0.96 | 6.00 | A | 0.58 | 1 | 6.09 |
Emotional demands | |||||||||
| 3.51 | 1.58 | 0.62 | −0.39 | 6.39 | A | 0.62 | 0 | 5.88 |
| 2.51 | 1.25 | 1.14 | 1.47 | 1.27 | S | 0.72 | 6, 7 | 4.45 |
| 2.64 | 1.55 | 1.15 | 0.65 | 11.73 | A | 0.63 | 6, 7 | 5.09 |
Physical effort demands | |||||||||
| 2.53 | 1.66 | 1.01 | −0.10 | 13.39 | S | 0.59 | 7 | 5.04 |
| 2.28 | 1.53 | 1.18 | 0.19 | 17.30 | S | 0.54 | 7 | 4.35 |
| 2.17 | 1.34 | 1.21 | 0.83 | 13.79 | L | 0.70 | 6, 7 | 4.34 |
Harassment at work | |||||||||
| 1.26 | 0.76 | 4.39 | 22.30 | 47.61 | U | 0.80 | 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | 1.80 |
| 1.21 | 0.73 | 5.14 | 29.29 | 53.60 | U | 0.81 | 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | 1.59 |
Stressful leadership | |||||||||
| 1.84 | 1.02 | 2.08 | 5.95 | 17.80 | S | 0.80 | 4, 5, 6, 7 | 3.18 |
| 1.96 | 1.14 | 1.73 | 3.22 | 16.77 | S | 0.72 | 4, 5, 6, 7 | 3.52 |
| 4.69 | 1.69 | 0.75 | −0.48 | 9.59 | S | 0.58 | 0 | 5.71 |
Psychosocial Positive Resources | M | SD | Sk | Ku | AD | AJUS | TW | O < 10 | AENO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rewards and career development | |||||||||
| 4.85 | 1.58 | −0.72 | −0.41 | 9.19 | S | 0.61 | 7 | 5.48 |
| 4.74 | 1.76 | −0.63 | −0.77 | 8.91 | S | 0.55 | 0 | 5.99 |
| 4.92 | 1.46 | −0.75 | −0.26 | 9.08 | S | 0.66 | 1 | 5.24 |
| 2.27 | 1.33 | 1.05 | 0.58 | 11.25 | L | 0.69 | 5, 6, 7 | 4.50 |
| 2.04 | 1.26 | 1.66 | 2.70 | 16.12 | S | 0.73 | 4, 5, 6, 7 | 3.88 |
| 5.20 | 1.43 | −0.89 | 0.11 | 9.67 | A | 0.66 | 1 | 5.09 |
| 5.28 | 1.40 | −0.90 | 0.20 | 9.18 | A | 0.67 | 1, 2 | 5.07 |
Labor control and task content | |||||||||
| 5.18 | 1.48 | −0.94 | 0.13 | 10.23 | A | 0.65 | 1 | 5.16 |
| 5.68 | 1.38 | −1.17 | 0.64 | 13.32 | S | 0.68 | 1, 2 | 4.49 |
| 5.67 | 1.42 | −1.08 | 0.32 | 12.92 | J | 0.66 | 1, 2 | 4.95 |
| 5.41 | 1.49 | −0.85 | −0.32 | 11.40 | S | 0.63 | 1, 2 | 4.60 |
| 5.62 | 1.39 | −1.16 | 0.75 | 12.59 | S | 0.67 | 1, 2 | 4.64 |
Resources to carry out the work | |||||||||
| 5.58 | 1.49 | −1.28 | 0.95 | 14.34 | S | 0.65 | 1 | 5.49 |
| 5.01 | 1.64 | −0.91 | −0.10 | 10.46 | S | 0.60 | 1 | 4.99 |
Workplace climate and social support | |||||||||
| 5.10 | 1.36 | −0.80 | 0.32 | 8.23 | A | 0.70 | 1 | 5.11 |
| 5.05 | 1.34 | −0.57 | −0.08 | 6.68 | A | 0.70 | 1 | 4.93 |
| 5.22 | 1.34 | −0.79 | 0.18 | 8.19 | S | 0.69 | 1 | 4.87 |
Value congruence | |||||||||
| 5.09 | 1.36 | −0.80 | 0.03 | 9.11 | S | 0.62 | 1 | 5.17 |
| 4.96 | 1.41 | −0.87 | 0.20 | 8.96 | A | 0.68 | 1 | 5.17 |
Factores de Riesgo Psicosocial (RP) | SIS (Stress) | OSES (Self-Efficacy) | UWES (Engagement) | PHQ-4 (Distress) | Gender | Age | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MIC | rho | MIC | rho | MIC | rho | MIC | rho | |||
Workload and work rhythm demands | ||||||||||
| 0.083 | 0.140 | 0.136 | 0.222 | 0.159 | 0.343 | 0.204 | −0.289 | 0.046 | 0.069 |
| 0.101 | 0.175 | 0.142 | 0.144 | 0.119 | 0.261 | 0.173 | −0.355 | 0.076 | 0.006 |
| 0.061 | 0.047 | 0.190 | −0.305 | 0.155 | −0.407 | 0.245 | 0.486 | −0.104 | −0.006 |
High responsibility demands | ||||||||||
| 0.045 | 0.00 | 0.104 | −0.176 | 0.103 | −0.225 | 0.056 | 0.23 | 0.112 | 0.037 |
| 0.038 | −0.027 | 0.152 | −0.292 | 0.138 | −0.303 | 0.082 | 0.175 | 0.171 | 0.015 |
Shift and schedule demands | ||||||||||
| 0.05 | 0.097 | 0.116 | 0.007 | 0.107 | 0.140 | 0.071 | −0.178 | −0.029 | −0.072 |
| 0.043 | 0.067 | 0.146 | −0.303 | 0.164 | −0.290 | 0.084 | 0.142 | 0.00 | −0.002 |
| 0.052 | 0.024 | 0.160 | −0.343 | 0.156 | −0.353 | 0.107 | 0.283 | 0.074 | 0.058 |
Cognitive/attentional demands | ||||||||||
| 0.086 | 0.096 | 0.169 | 0.285 | 0.152 | 0.319 | 0.206 | −0.420 | 0.085 | 0.110 |
| 0.082 | 0.140 | 0.134 | 0.243 | 0.146 | 0.290 | 0.191 | −0.361 | 0.076 | 0.011 |
| 0.041 | 0.100 | 0.228 | 0.416 | 0.181 | 0.439 | 0.122 | −0.295 | 0.019 | 0.089 |
Emotional demands | ||||||||||
| 0.061 | 0.046 | 0.129 | −0.042 | 0.112 | −0.117 | 0.099 | 0.242 | −0.176 | 0.028 |
| 0.039 | 0.175 | 0.139 | −0.254 | 0.110 | −0.249 | 0.09 | 0.214 | −0.110 | 0.016 |
| 0.064 | 0.176 | 0.150 | −0.324 | 0.150 | −0.353 | 0.232 | 0.432 | −0.145 | −0.006 |
Physical effort demands | ||||||||||
| 0.052 | 0.164 | 0.143 | −0.188 | 0.112 | −0.217 | 0.064 | 0.135 | 0.103 | 0.018 |
| 0.061 | 0.117 | 0.133 | −0.212 | 0.119 | −0.212 | 0.059 | 0.129 | 0.082 | −0.047 |
| 0.070 | 0.120 | 0.187 | −0.229 | 0.107 | −0.192 | 0.129 | 0.204 | 0.168 | 0.005 |
Harassment at work | ||||||||||
| 0.028 | 0.137 | 0.184 | −0.347 | 0.117 | −0.307 | 0.107 | 0.246 | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| 0.024 | 0.036 | 0.114 | −0.256 | 0.117 | −0.272 | 0.089 | 0.216 | 0.005 | 0.118 |
Stressful leadership | ||||||||||
| 0.050 | 0.144 | 0.143 | −0.274 | 0.106 | −0.253 | 0.129 | 0.151 | −0.012 | 0.121 |
| 0.044 | 0.115 | 0.124 | −0.233 | 0.151 | −0.288 | 0.112 | 0.180 | 0.154 | 0.056 |
| 0.078 | 0.080 | 0.194 | 0.345 | 0.290 | 0.549 | 0.234 | −0.397 | −0.007 | −0.202 |
Positive Psychosocial Resources | SIS (Stress) | OSES (Self-Efficacy) | UWES (Engagement) | PHQ-4 (Distress) | Gender | Age | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MIC | rho | MIC | rho | MIC | rho | MIC | rho | |||
Rewards and career development | ||||||||||
| 0.057 | 0.00 | 0.269 | 0.443 | 0.267 | 0.561 | 0.212 | −0.394 | 0.090 | −0.060 |
| 0.080 | −0.030 | 0.222 | 0.437 | 0.298 | 0.649 | 0.308 | −0.579 | 0.110 | −0.040 |
| 0.060 | 0.017 | 0.264 | 0.447 | 0.291 | 0.612 | 0.201 | −0.358 | 0.060 | −0.100 |
| 0.068 | 0.00 | 0.161 | −0.333 | 0.204 | −0.447 | 0.158 | 0.419 | −0.070 | 0.140 |
| 0.032 | −0.038 | 0.171 | −0.326 | 0.171 | −0.408 | 0.138 | 0.277 | 0.060 | −0.060 |
| 0.046 | −0.048 | 0.239 | 0.457 | 0.394 | 0.674 | 0.21 | −0.378 | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| 0.040 | 0.041 | 0.141 | 0.353 | 0.247 | 0.433 | 0.086 | −0.186 | −0.070 | −0.030 |
Labor control and task content | ||||||||||
| 0.046 | −0.057 | 0.167 | 0.411 | 0.298 | 0.513 | 0.136 | −0.26 | 0.000 | 0.060 |
| 0.027 | 0.000 | 0.184 | 0.477 | 0.389 | 0.634 | 0.189 | −0.371 | 0.000 | −0.040 |
| 0.028 | 0.013 | 0.231 | 0.511 | 0.385 | 0.684 | 0.183 | −0.376 | 0.010 | −0.020 |
| 0.020 | 0.027 | 0.219 | 0.513 | 0.321 | 0.652 | 0.165 | −0.395 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| 0.047 | −0.010 | 0.185 | 0.458 | 0.340 | 0.632 | 0.209 | −0.393 | −0.050 | 0.030 |
Resources to carry out the work | ||||||||||
| 0.082 | −0.110 | 0.169 | 0.435 | 0.345 | 0.582 | 0.241 | −0.421 | 0.080 | 0.000 |
| 0.086 | −0.067 | 0.253 | 0.454 | 0.298 | 0.591 | 0.239 | −0.407 | 0.040 | −0.070 |
Workplace climate and social support | ||||||||||
| 0.066 | −0.090 | 0.195 | 0.310 | 0.293 | 0.453 | 0.107 | −0.177 | 0.050 | −0.120 |
| 0.057 | −0.052 | 0.188 | 0.354 | 0.274 | 0.478 | 0.132 | −0.159 | 0.03 | −0.100 |
| 0.049 | −0.073 | 0.227 | 0.365 | 0.303 | 0.52 | 0.141 | −0.259 | 0.130 | −0.030 |
Value congruence | ||||||||||
| 0.047 | −0.051 | 0.220 | 0.385 | 0.344 | 0.544 | 0.161 | −0.304 | 0.090 | −0.070 |
| 0.053 | 0.036 | 0.170 | 0.348 | 0.253 | 0.497 | 0.170 | −0.289 | 0.030 | −0.070 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Merino-Soto, C.; Juárez-García, A.; Salinas-Escudero, G.; Toledano-Toledano, F. Item-Level Psychometric Analysis of the Psychosocial Processes at Work Scale (PROPSIT) in Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137972
Merino-Soto C, Juárez-García A, Salinas-Escudero G, Toledano-Toledano F. Item-Level Psychometric Analysis of the Psychosocial Processes at Work Scale (PROPSIT) in Workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):7972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137972
Chicago/Turabian StyleMerino-Soto, César, Arturo Juárez-García, Guillermo Salinas-Escudero, and Filiberto Toledano-Toledano. 2022. "Item-Level Psychometric Analysis of the Psychosocial Processes at Work Scale (PROPSIT) in Workers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 7972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137972