Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35506027›Full record

ArticleQuality & quantity2023

Development and validation of the Remote Working Benefits & Disadvantages scale.

Emanuela Ingusci, Fulvio Signore, Claudio Giovanni Cortese, Monica Molino, Paola Pasca, Enrico Ciavolino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & quantity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emanuela IngusciDepartment of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, Studium 2000 - Building 5 - Via di Valesio, 24 - Lecce (LE) Office 18, Ground Floor, Lecce, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6633-9937
Fulvio SignoreDepartment of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, Studium 2000 - Building 5 - Via di Valesio, 24 - Lecce (LE) Office 18, Ground Floor, Lecce, Italy.
Claudio Giovanni CorteseDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10124 Torino, Italy.
Monica MolinoDepartment of Psychology, University of Turin, Via Verdi 10, 10124 Torino, Italy.
Paola PascaDepartment of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, Studium 2000 - Building 5 - Via di Valesio, 24 - Lecce (LE) Office 18, Ground Floor, Lecce, Italy.
Enrico CiavolinoDepartment of History, Society and Human Studies, University of Salento, Studium 2000 - Building 5 - Via di Valesio, 24 - Lecce (LE) Office 18, Ground Floor, Lecce, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The changes that are constantly occurring in the labour sector have led organisations and companies to move towards digital transformation. This process was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and  conducted to a massive recourse to the practice of remote working, which in this study is understood as the term for the way of performing work outside the usual workplace and with the support of ICT. Currently, there are no flexible scales in the literature that allow measuring the benefits and disadvantages of remote working with a single instrument. Thus, the distinction between the positive and negative consequences of working remotely, substantiated by a solid literature, provides a framework for a systematical understanding of the issue. The aim of the present study is to develop and validate a scale on remote working benefits and disadvantages (RW-B&D scale). For this end, a preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with 304 participants, a tailored EFA with a sample of 301 workers and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with 677 workers were conducted. Participants were all Italian employees who worked remotely during the period of the COVID-19 health emergency. Data were collected between October 2020 and April 2021. The psychometric robustness of the model was assessed through bootstrap validation (5000 resamples), fit indices testing and measurement of factorial invariance. The statistical analyses demonstrated the bifactorial nature of the scale, supporting the research hypothesis. The model showed good fit indices, bootstrap validation reported statistically significant saturations, good reliability indices, and convergent and discriminant validity. Measurement invariance was tested for gender and organisational sector. The results suggested that the novel scale facilitates the quantitative measurement of the benefits and disadvantages associated with remote working in empirical terms. For this reason, it could be a streamlined and psychometrically valid instrument to identify the potential difficulties arising from remote working and, at the same time, the positive aspects that can be implemented to improve organisational well-being.

Indexed as

BenefitsDisadvantagesRemote-workingScaleSEMValidation

Identifiers

PMID35506027
PMCPMC9052188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.