Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38680287›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

First validation of the technical and administrative staff quality of life at work tool (TASQ@work) in academia.

Andreina Bruno, Carmela Buono, Alessandra Falco, Margherita Brondino, Vincenza Capone, Giuseppina Dell'Aversana, Maria Luisa Giancaspro, Silvia Gilardi, Damiano Girardi, Dina Guglielmi and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

16 authors.

Andreina BrunoDepartment of Education Sciences, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy.
Carmela BuonoDepartment of Psychology, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy.
Alessandra FalcoDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Margherita BrondinoDepartment of Human Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Vincenza CaponeDepartment of Humanities, University of Naples "Federico II", Napoli, Italy.
Giuseppina Dell'AversanaDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Maria Luisa GiancasproDepartment of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Silvia GilardiDepartment of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Damiano GirardiDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
Dina GuglielmiDepartment of Education Studies "Giovanni Maria Bertin", Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Emanuela IngusciHuman and Social Sciences Department, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.
Massimo MigliorettiDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Francesco PaceDepartment of Economic, Business and Statistic Science, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Silvia PlataniaDepartment of Educational Sciences, Section of Psychology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Fulvio SignoreDepartment of Humanities, Letters, Cultural Heritage and Educational Studies, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Paola SpagnoliDepartment of Psychology, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Based on the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, the present study aimed to validate "The Technical and Administrative Staff Quality of Life At Work" (TASQ@work), a new tool to assess the quality of life at work in academia focused on technical and administrative staff. Methods: This tool was developed by the QoL@Work research team, a group of expert academics in the field of work and organizational psychology affiliated with the Italian Association of Psychologists. The TASQ@work was elaborated in different steps. The first phase was aimed at the identification of the dimensions of the tool. The second phase was aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the tool. The validation process involved confirmatory analysis and measurement invariance of the various constructs selected. The analyses were performed in a convenience sample of two Italian universities in different regions (one in the Northwest and the second in Central Italy). Results: The sample was composed of 1820 Administrative Staff, comprising 69.4% from University 1 ( Discussion: The results indicate that the tool can be considered a reliable and valid instrument to assess job demands, job resources, and outcomes in the working life of technical and administrative academic staff. In this perspective, the present study represents the first contribution to the debate on the psychosocial risks in academic contexts by presenting a new tool, the TASQ@work, aimed at contextualizing the JD-R model to understand the role played by psychosocial aspects in affecting the well-being of the academic employees.

Indexed as

academiaJD-R modelquality of life at worktechnical and administrative staffvalidationwell-being

Identifiers

PMID38680287
PMCPMC11048465

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.