ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
Translation, validation and psychometric properties of Effort-Reward Imbalance questionnaire among nurses in Vietnam.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application management and effectiveness analysis of intelligent logistics robots in hospital drug and specimen delivery scenarios.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Progress and inequalities in financial risk protection toward universal health coverage: insights from Vietnam.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- A national cross-sectional study on latent profile analysis of occupational fatigue among Chinese nurses in the early post-COVID-19 era.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We translated the Effort-Reward imbalance questionnaire, an instrument for measuring work stress, into the Vietnamese language and investigated its psychometric properties among nurses in Vietnam. In a hospital-based cross-sectional study design, we sampled and interviewed 207 nurses working full-time (response rate 83%). We evaluated the internal consistency using standardized Cronbach's alpha coefficients and structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the measured scores between age groups, gender, education levels, income groups, and job positions. In addition, we confirmed the criterion validity by investigating its association with self-reported health using simple and multiple logistic regression models. Most of the participants were female (73.3%), young (average 28.5 years old), and had education levels of college or higher (53.5%). We observed sufficient internal consistency in effort, reward, and over-commitment scales (Cronbach's alpha 0.80, 0.76, and 0.68, respectively). Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor hierarchical model showed an acceptable fit and fair construct validity with most moderate or stronger (>0.3) factor loading coefficients. Poor self-rated health was more likely in respondents in both Effort-Reward ratio's middle tertile (adjusted Odd-Ratio = 2.80, p-value = 0.031) and highest tertile (adjusted Odd-Ratio = 2.64, p-value = 0.05), adjusting for age, gender, and education levels. The Effort-reward imbalance scale has adequate reliability and validity for assessing work stress among nurses in Vietnam. Its significant association with poor self-rated health warrants further investigation. The validated instrument can help measure the effort-reward imbalance to manage better work-related emotional strains and mental health issues among nurses and ensure human resources' stability in healthcare in Vietnam.
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.