Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36608043›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Face, content, criterion and construct validity assessment of a newly developed tool to assess and classify work-related stress (TAWS- 16).

Runalika Roy, Gautham Melur Sukumar, Mariamma Philip, Gururaj Gopalakrishna

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reliability of a Newly Developed Tool to Assess and Classify Work-related Stress (TAWS-16) for Indian Workforce.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2023
    Observational
  9. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Runalika RoyDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Gautham Melur SukumarDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-8294-005X
Mariamma PhilipDepartment of Biostatistics, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Gururaj GopalakrishnaDepartment of Epidemiology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs work-stress, is associated with Non Communicable Diseases, and decreased work productivity, health and economic benefits are expected from periodic work-stress screening among employees using valid and reliable tools. Tool to Assess and classify Work Stress (TAWS- 16) was developed to overcome limitations in existing work-stress assessment tools in India. This study aims to test face, content, criterion and construct validity of TAWS- 16 in a sample of managerial-supervisory employees.

methodsNine domain experts rated face and content validity of TAWS- 16. Content validity was measured by Content Validity Indices (I-CVI, S-CVI) and Modified Kappa statistics. Empirical validity was tested by analysing data reported from 356 Information Technology (IT) professionals wherein Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted for the assessment of Construct Validity. Self-reported data was collected in an unlinked and anonymous manner using a web-link, which was emailed to the study subjects, after initial introductory telephone or personal conversation. Criterion Validity was tested against stress sub-scale of DASS- 21. This study was approved by NIMHANS ethics committee.

resultsFindings revealed that TAWS- 16 has good face validity. The content validity is acceptable (CVI = 0.829). Construct Validity is appropriate as 60.8% of the total variance was explained by the factors identified in our study. Criterion Validity was moderate (Kappa Value 0.208) due to inappropriate work-stress instrument for comparison with TAWS- 16.

conclusionsOverall, TAWS- 16 demonstrated good face, content and construct validity. It measures work-stressors, coping abilities and psycho-somatic symptoms associated with work-stress. We recommend use of TAWS- 16 for periodic screening and classification of work-stress among employees.

Indexed as

Occupational StressAdaptation, PsychologicalHumansReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36608043
PMCPMC9821462
OpenAlexW4313639557

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.