IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i5p1503-d325281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the Brief Thai Version of the Work-Related Quality of Life Scale (Brief THWRQLS)

Author

Listed:
  • Teerayut Kongsin

    (Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Naesinee Chaiear

    (Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
    Occupational Health and Safety Office, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Nikom Thanomsieng

    (Department of Biostatistics and Demography, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

  • Sirintip Boonjaraspinyo

    (Division of Occupational Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand)

Abstract

The Work-Related Quality of Life Scale (WRQLS) was developed by Van Laar et al. The Thai version was developed and could be completed in 13.4 min on average with some items having a factor loading of less than 0.4. The aims of this study were (a) to develop a brief Thai version of the WRQLS (brief THWRQLS), and (b) to assess its validity and reliability. A descriptive correlation study was performed with the components of THWRQLS selected based on statistical and judgmental criteria. The statistical criteria were developed using secondary data from 320 physicians identifying discrimination, internal consistency and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The judgmental criteria included content validity and agreement by five experts. The web-based brief THWRQLS was then used by 250 health personnel, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted and internal consistency assessed. The brief THWRQLS consisted of seven dimensions, encompassing 25 of the original 32 items. The CFA revealed that most of the standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.5. The χ 2 goodness of fit was 268.772 ( p < 0.01), the comparative fit index was 0.971, the root mean square error of approximation was 0.039, and the standardized root mean square residual was 0.049. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.94, and almost all dimensions were greater than 0.7 except for that of “stress at work,” which was 0.53. In conclusion, the brief THWRQLS appeared to be valid, and the reliability was acceptable, except in the dimension of “stress at work.”

Suggested Citation

  • Teerayut Kongsin & Naesinee Chaiear & Nikom Thanomsieng & Sirintip Boonjaraspinyo, 2020. "Validation of the Brief Thai Version of the Work-Related Quality of Life Scale (Brief THWRQLS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-10, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1503-:d:325281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1503/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1503/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Firth-Cozens, Jenny & Greenhalgh, Joanne, 1997. "Doctors' perceptions of the links between stress and lowered clinical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1017-1022, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Nerves of steel? Stress, work performance and elite athletes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(19), pages 2423-2435, July.
    2. Siegrist, Johannes & Shackelton, Rebecca & Link, Carol & Marceau, Lisa & von dem Knesebeck, Olaf & McKinlay, John, 2010. "Work stress of primary care physicians in the US, UK and German health care systems," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 298-304, July.
    3. Cristina Di Tecco & Karina Nielsen & Monica Ghelli & Matteo Ronchetti & Ivan Marzocchi & Benedetta Persechino & Sergio Iavicoli, 2020. "Improving Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction in Healthcare: A Study Concept Design on a Participatory Organizational Level Intervention in Psychosocial Risks Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-14, May.
    4. David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Nerves of steel? Stress, work performance and elite athletes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(19), pages 2423-2435, July.
    5. Shailesh Kumar & Jesse Fischer & Elizabeth Robinson & Simon Hatcher & R.N. Bhagat, 2007. "Burnout and Job Satisfaction in New Zealand Psychiatrists: a National Study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 53(4), pages 306-316, July.
    6. Elham Dehghani & Somayeh Hadad Ranjbar & Moharram Atashafrooz & Hossein Negarestani & Amir Mosavi & Levente Kovacs, 2021. "Introducing Copula as a Novel Statistical Method in Psychological Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-10, July.
    7. Schafheutle, Ellen Ingrid & Seston, Elizabeth Mary & Hassell, Karen, 2011. "Factors influencing pharmacist performance: A review of the peer-reviewed literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 178-192.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1503-:d:325281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.