Adaptation of Stanford Presenteeism Scale-6 in Indonesia

Authors

Fery Alfaro Tanama, Occupational Medicine Residency Program, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia
Nuri Purwito Adi, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas IndonesiaFollow
Retno Asti Werdhani, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas IndonesiaFollow
Herqutanto Herqutanto, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas IndonesiaFollow

Abstract

Background: Presenteeism has been identified to cause productivity loss more than 50% greater than absenteeism. Currently in Indonesia there are no standardized tools to assess presenteeism among workers. Therefore, we intended to adapt and validate SPS-6 in Indonesia.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional study with cross-cultural adaptation refers to the ISPOR method, with a validity and reliability statistical test. Total respondents were 112 white-collars workers. Inter-item correlation was used for validity test and Cronbach’s Alpha was used for reliability test.

Results: Cross-cultural adaptation of SPS-6 has been successfully done. The most significant change occurred in the explanation of the health problem definition. All item and item’s dimension were statistically significant correlated with total score. Cronbach’s alpha of work focus dimension and psychological dimension was 0.657 and 0.646, respectively.

Conclusion: The Indonesian version of the SPS-6 questionnaire was valid and reliable and could be used as an instrument to identify presenteeism for office workers (white collar workers) in Indonesia.

References

[1] Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda 2010;31:519–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.630.

[2] Kinman G. Sickness presenteeism at work: prevalence, costs and management 2019;129:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy043.

[3] Yoshimoto T, Oka H, Fujii T, Nagata T, Matsudaira K. The Economic Burden of Lost Productivity due to Presenteeism Caused by Health Conditions Among Workers in Japan 2020;62:883–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002001.

[4] Masuda M, Ishimaru T, Hino A, Ando H, Tateishi S, Nagata T, et al. A Cross-Sectional Study of Psychosocial Factors and Sickness Presenteeism in Japanese Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic 2022;64:e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002415.

[5] Media KC. Menaker Hanif: Produktivitas Tenaga Kerja Indonesia Terus Meningkat 2017. https://biz.kompas.com/read/2017/12/09/094833528/menaker-hanif-produktivitas-tenaga-kerja-indonesia-terus-meningkat (accessed March 3, 2023).

[6] Scuffham PA, Vecchio N, Whiteford HA. Exploring the validity of HPQ-based presenteeism measures to estimate productivity losses in the health and education sectors 2014;34:127–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13497996.

[7] Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The Work Limitations Questionnaire 2001;39:72–85.

[8] Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument 1993;4:353–65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006.

[9] Koopman C, Pelletier KR, Murray JF, Sharda CE, Berger ML, Turpin RS, et al. Stanford Presenteeism Scale: Health Status and Employee Productivity 2002;44:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-200201000-00004.

[10] Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation 2005;8:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.

[11] Radhakrishna RB. Tips for Developing and Testing Questionnaires/Instruments 2007;45.

[12] Jiang XW, Liu JN, Liu FJ, Zheng ZJ, Chang C. [Reliability and validity of Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) in Chinese occupational population] 2020;38:898–902. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20191114-00529.

[13] Abdi F, Jahangiri M, Kamalinia M, Cousins R, Mokarami H. Presenteeism and work ability: development of the Persian version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (P-SPS-6) and measurement of its psychometric properties 2021;9:120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00617-3.

[14] Baldonedo-Mosteiro M, Sánchez-Zaballos M, Rodríguez-Díaz FJ, Herrero J, Mosteiro-Díaz MP. Adaptation and validation of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale-6 in healthcare professionals 2020;67:109–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12544.

[15] Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach’s alpha 1997;314:572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.

[16] Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. 2019;31:1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626.

[17] Streiner DL. Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency 2003;80:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.

[18] Babbie ER. Survey research in The Practice of Social Research. Mason, OH: Cengage; 2020. p267-70.

Recommended Citation

Tanama, Fery Alfaro; Adi, Nuri Purwito; Werdhani, Retno Asti; and Herqutanto, Herqutanto (2024) "Adaptation of Stanford Presenteeism Scale-6 in Indonesia," Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal of Indonesia: Vol. 2: No. 2, Article 38.
DOI: 10.7454/oemji.v2i2.1047
Available at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/oemji/vol2/iss2/38