ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Re-visiting the six-item Stanford presenteeism scale (SPS-6) and its psychometric properties.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring, valuing, and incorporating patient and caregiver productivity costs in economic evaluations: a scoping review and environmental scan.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Contextually adapted functional and dysfunctional presenteeism during protracted conflict.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presenteeism has often been considered as the correlate of absenteeism and associated to productivity loss. This study sought to re-examine the psychometric properties of the 6-item Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6), a popular measure which has been translated in a number of languages. The study adopted a cross-sectional design with 268 participants aged 18 - 65 working in a multinational IT company with headquarters based in Poland. The respondents participated willingly in an online questionnaire on a presenteeism health-related productivity measure (SPS-6), job resources (peer support), job demands (work-to-family conflict), engagement and burnout. Their responses were subjected to statistical analyses. Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed that the SPS-6 is better represented by two singular and independent components, namely completing work and avoiding distractions, rather than an aggregated measure of health-related productivity. In fact, the aggregated measure had convergent and discriminant validity issues. We also assessed, via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the explanatory role of the SPS-6 within the wider well-being discourse by subjecting its' factors as outcomes using the JD-R framework. Here, burnout was better at explaining its relationship to avoiding distractions and completing work compared to engagement, while avoiding distractions was more dominant than completing work in explaining indirect pathways. Given the convergent and discriminant validity of its two-dimensional measures, we argue that the SPS-6 is a better assessment of health-related productivity in the light of presenteeism when keeping both components separate rather than adding the scores from both dimensions to provide a global score as has been the practice so far. In addition, the SEM findings suggest that both SPS-6 components may require different theoretical explanations. This study supports a growing chorus of scholars who argue the need to look deeper into the presenteeism phenomenon, not least its measures.
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.