ArticlePloS one2017
Psychometric assessment of a scale to measure bonding workplace social capital.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social cohesion, social capital and mental health: current evidence and future research directions.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2026Article
- Personal growth among female nurses raising preschool children: a cross-sectional study on the role of work engagement and social support.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Development of a relational workplace social capital scale for Japanese nurses.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2020Article
- Workplace social capital and refraining from seeking medical care in Japanese employees: a 1-year prospective cohort study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Impact of Workplace Social Capital and COVID-19 on the Psychological Distress of Hospital Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWorkplace social capital (WSC) has attracted increasing attention as an organizational and psychosocial factor related to worker health. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of a newly developed WSC scale for use in work environments, where bonding social capital is important.
methodsWe assessed the psychometric properties of a newly developed 6-item scale to measure bonding WSC using two data sources. Participants were 1,650 randomly selected workers who completed an online survey. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted. We examined the item-item and item-total correlations, internal consistency, and associations between scale scores and a previous 8-item measure of WSC. We evaluated test-retest reliability by repeating the survey with 900 of the respondents 2 weeks later. The overall scale reliability was quantified by an intraclass coefficient and the standard error of measurement. We evaluated convergent validity by examining the association with several relevant workplace psychosocial factors using a dataset from workers employed by an electrical components company (n = 2,975).
resultsThe scale was unidimensional. The item-item and item-total correlations ranged from 0.52 to 0.78 (p < 0.01) and from 0.79 to 0.89 (p < 0.01), respectively. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α coefficient: 0.93). The correlation with the 8-item scale indicated high criterion validity (r = 0.81) and the scale showed high test-retest reliability (r = 0.74, p < 0.01). The intraclass coefficient and standard error of measurement were 0.74 (95% confidence intervals: 0.71-0.77) and 4.04 (95% confidence intervals: 1.86-6.20), respectively. Correlations with relevant workplace psychosocial factors showed convergent validity.
conclusionsThe results confirmed that the newly developed WSC scale has adequate psychometric properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.