ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014
Development and measurement properties of the Dutch version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6).
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcome assessment of a complex mental health intervention in the workplace. Results from the MENTUPP pilot study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Validation of the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI) among Taiwanese Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Re-visiting the six-item Stanford presenteeism scale (SPS-6) and its psychometric properties.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Traditional Chinese Version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) among Taiwanese Employees in Technology Companies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Presenteeism and work ability: development of the Persian version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (P-SPS-6) and measurement of its psychometric properties.BMC psychology · 2021Article
- The effects of integrating work-related factors and improving cooperation in musculoskeletal physical therapy practice: protocol for the 'WORK TO BE DONE' cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Development of a self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder: an intervention mapping approach.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2015Article
- Presenteeism and noise perception at work: a cross-sectional study using association analysis.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo 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).
methodsThe 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.
resultsCronbach'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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23868673What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.