Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 268–277 | Cite as

Development and Measurement Properties of the Dutch Version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6)

  • Nathan HuttingEmail author
  • Josephine A. Engels
  • Yvonne F. Heerkens
  • J. Bart Staal
  • Maria W. G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden


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.


Stanford 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).

Ethical Standard

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.


  1. 1.
    Schultz AB, Chen CY, Edington DW. The cost and impact of health conditions on presenteeism to employers: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:365–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braakman-Jansen LM, Taal E, Kuper IH, van de Laar MA. Productivity loss due to absenteeism and presenteeism by different instruments in patients with RA and subjects without RA. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51:354–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merrill RM, Aldana SG, Pope JE, Anderson DR, Coberley CR, Whitmer RW. The hero research study subcommittee RW. Presenteeism according to healthy behaviors, physical health, and work environment. Popul Health Manag. 2012;15:293–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: a review and research agenda. J Organ Behav. 2010;31:519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:547–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turpin RS, Ozminkowski RJ, Sharda CE, Collins JJ, Berger ML, Billotti GM, Baase CM, Olson MJ, Nicholson S. Reliability and validity of the stanford presenteeism scale. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46:1123–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitehouse D. Workplace presenteeism: how behavioral professionals can make a difference. Behav Healthc Tomorrow. 2005;14:32–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hummer J, Sherman B, Quinn N. Present and unaccounted for. Occup Health Saf 2002; 71:40–2, 4, 100.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Despiegel N, Danchenko N, Francois C, Lensberg B, Drummond MF. The use and performance of productivity scales to evaluate presenteeism in mood disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:1148–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, Hackleman P, Gibson P, Holmes DM, Bendel T. Stanford presenteeism scale: health status and employee productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:14–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D, Lipton R. Lost productive time and cost due to common pain conditions in the US workforce. JAMA. 2003;290:2443–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Escorpizo R, Cieza A, Beaton D, Boonen A. Content comparison of worker productivity questionnaires in arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:382–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:165–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39:72–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cancelliere C, Cassidy JD, Ammendolia C, Cote P. Are workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism in workers? A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:395.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campo M, Darragh AR. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are associated with impaired presenteeism in allied health care professionals. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54:64–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulman-Green D, Jaser S, Martin F, Alonzo A, Grey M, McCorkle R, Redeker NS, Reynolds N, Whittemore R. Processes of self-management in chronic illness. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2012;44:136–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Roy JS, Desmeules F, MacDermid JC. Psychometric properties of presenteeism scales for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:23–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:55–65.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beaton DE, Tang K, Gignac MA, Lacaille D, Badley EM, Anis AH, Bombardier C. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of five at-work productivity measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nunnally JCB, I.H. Psychometric theory. New Yourk: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Tang K, Pitts S, Solway S, Beaton D. Comparison of the psychometric properties of four at-work disability measures in workers with shoulder or elbow disorders. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19:142–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. 31.
    Baker GAJA. Quality of life in epilepsy: beyond seizure counts in assessment and treatment. London: Harwood Academic; 2000.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:301–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yamashita M, Arakida M. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale in female employees at 2 Japanese enterprises. J Occup Health. 2008;50:66–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Hutting
    • 2
    Email author
  • Josephine A. Engels
    • 2
  • Yvonne F. Heerkens
    • 2
  • J. Bart Staal
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria W. G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Institute for Quality of HealthcareRadboud University Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Occupation and HealthHAN University of Applied SciencesNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations