Development and Measurement Properties of the Dutch Version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6)
- 509 Downloads
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.
KeywordsStanford Presenteeism Scale SPS-6 Reliability Validity Measurement properties Presenteeism Absenteeism
The authors thank Sarah Detaille, Luc Driessen, Laraine Visser-Isles, David Alexander and Ann Jenks for translations of the SPS-6. This study was funded by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (208030004).
This project was declared by the authors to be exempt from review by a medical research ethics committee in accordance with their local regulatory guidelines and standards for human subjects protection in the Netherlands (Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act [WMO], 2005).
Conflict of interests
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
- 8.Hummer J, Sherman B, Quinn N. Present and unaccounted for. Occup Health Saf 2002; 71:40–2, 4, 100.Google Scholar
- 10.Loeppke R, Hymel PA, Lofland JH, Pizzi LT, Konicki DL, Anstadt GW, Baase C, Fortuna J, Scharf T. American College of O, Environmental M. Health-related workplace productivity measurement: general and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM expert panel. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45:349–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25:3186–91.Google Scholar
- 26.Nunnally JCB, I.H. Psychometric theory. New Yourk: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar
- 27.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 28.De Vet HCWT, C.B.; Mokkink, L.B.; Knol, D.L. Measurement in Medicine. Oractical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
- 30.Verberne LK, MK; Barten, JA; Swinkels, ICS. Jaarcijfers 2011 en trendcijfers 2007–2011 fysiotherapie. Landelijke Informatievoorziening Paramedische Zorg. Utrecht, the Netherlands: NIVEL; 2012.Google Scholar
- 31.Baker GAJA. Quality of life in epilepsy: beyond seizure counts in assessment and treatment. London: Harwood Academic; 2000.Google Scholar
- 32.Alnahhal A, May S. Validation of the Arabic version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E1645–50.Google Scholar
- 35.Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.Google Scholar