ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2022
Further psychometric evaluation of the Structured Multidisciplinary Work Evaluation Tool (SMET) questionnaire: Practical implications in healthcare settings.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific research has identified a lack of psychometrically well-tested methods for evaluation of the work environment in healthcare settings. The Structured Multidisciplinary Work Evaluation Tool (SMET) questionnaire has been evaluated and has shown good content validity, as well as intra-rater and test-retest reliability. There are, however, still unknowns regarding the psychometric properties. If the SMET questionnaire is to be used in practical occupational health service (OHS) work and scientific research in healthcare settings, further psychometric evaluation is needed.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to gain further understanding of the psychometric properties of the SMET questionnaire when used in research and clinical OHS practice in healthcare settings.
methodsThe psychometric evaluation was conducted using classical test theory (Cronbach's alpha, explorative factor analysis) and Rasch analysis (measurement targeting, category threshold order, person separation index) on data previously collected in development projects within the healthcare sector.
resultsThe results support the use of the SMET questionnaire as a psychometrically well-tested method for evaluation of the work environment in healthcare settings. They support the use of the initial 1-10 scale since all 10 steps are used. The results also support the trichotomization procedure since the trichotomized scale captures the construct of the work environment with good measurement targeting and good category threshold order.
conclusionThe results of this study support the use of the SMET questionnaire as a psychometrically well-tested method for a broad multifactorial evaluation of the work environment in healthcare settings.
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.