Psychometric study of the Mentallypro Scale for the evaluation of exposure to psychological risk factors in the work environment.

Authors

  • Joan Guardia i Olmos Universidad de Barcelona
  • Maribel Peró-Cebollero Departament de Psicología Social & Psicología Quantitativa. Facultat de Psicología. Universitat de Barcelona (Spain) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8793-5284
  • Maria Carbó-Carreté Departament de Cognició, Desenvolupament i Psicologia de l'Educació. Facultat de Psicología. Universitat de Barcelona (Spain) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0383-0643
  • Cristina Cañete-Massé Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport, Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull (Spain) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3101-2923
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.579231
Keywords: Psychosocial Risk Assessment, Psychometrics, Mentallypro

Supporting Agencies

  • Bosch Gimpera Foundation

Abstract

Background: This paper presents the new Mentallypro Scale for the Assessment of Exposure to Psychological Risk Factors in the Work Environment. Its appearance comes to solve some of the limitations of the current scales that either do not present updated scales or have mismatches to the current work environment. Method: 6881 workers distributed in 11 different sectors of activity completed the final scale, obtained after a test scale. The final scale consists of 56 ipsative items presented in blocks of four, so that the respondent can order them based on their highest to lowest identification with the item's content. The items define 14 factors and standardized scores have been obtained for each factor and sector of activity based on the distribution of Intellectual Quotients (IQ) [μ = 100 and σ = 15]. Results: All the psychometric indicators show a high degree of validity and reliability. Additionally, scores have been corrected for Age and Gender to remove the item differential effect. Conclusions: The scale presented meets the psychometric requirements and resolves the limitations of other scales in terms of ease, speed, and utility in the work environment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V. & García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud [Measurement in social and health sciences]. Síntesis.

Anderson, L. M., Reilly, E. E., Gorrell, S., Schaumberg, K. & Anderson, D. A. (2016). Gender-based differential item function for the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 87-91.

Barber, L. K., Barnes, C. M. & Carlson, K. D. (2013). Random and systematic error effects of insomnia on survey behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 616-649. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493120

Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230-258.

Cedeño Bravo, A. P. & Chávez Carrillo, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of ISTAS 21 and FPSICO tools in financial sector personnel. Revista San Gregorio, (39), 143-162.

Ergashev Farrux Alijon Ugli,& Turdiev Pakhlavon Kakhramonovich (2022). Epidemiology of Psychiatric Disorders. Texas Journal of Medical Science, 12, 102–105.

Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Hernández-Dorado, A. & Muñiz, J. (2022). Decalogue for the factor analysis of test items. Psicothema, 34(1), 7. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2021.456

Galanis, P., Vraka, I., Fragkou, D., Bilali, A. & Kaitelidou, D. (2021). Nurses' burnout and associated risk factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(8), 3286-3302.

Hazell, C. M., Chapman, L., Valeix, S. F., Roberts, P., Niven, J. E. & Berry, C. (2020). Understanding the mental health of doctoral researchers: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 9(1), 1-30.

Hossain, MM., Tasnim, S., Sultana, A., Faizah, F., Mazumder, H., Zou, L., McKyer, ELJ., Ahmed, HU. & Ma, P. (2020). Epidemiology of mental health problems in COVID-19: a review. F1000Research, 23(9), 636. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24457.1.

Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Huarcaya-Victoria, J. (2020). Consideraciones sobre la salud mental en la pandemia de COVID-19 [Considerations about mental health in the CO-VID-19 pandemic]. Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud pública, 37, 327-334.

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo (INSST) (2022a). FPSICO. Factores psicosociales. Método de evaluación. Versión 4.1 [Psychosocial factors. Evaluation method. Version 4.1](Publicación AIP.29.1.22). Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social de España. https://www.insst.es/documentacion/catalogo-de-publicaciones/fpsico-factores-psicosociales-metodo-de-evaluacion-version-4.1

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo (INSST) (2022b). FPSICO. Factores psicosociales. Método de evaluación. Versión 4.1. Adaptación del método FPSICO a diversos idiomas [FPSICO. Psychosocial factors. Evaluation method. Version 4.1. Adaptation of the FPSICO method to various languages] (Publicación AIP.29.6.22). Ministerio de Trabajo y Economía Social de España. https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/2927460/ FPSICO+4.1+Adaptaci%C3%B3n+a+diversos+idiomas.pdf/dce9dcf 4-ade8-d411-079c-df46d46b0ce5?t=1660117706405

Kisely, S., Warren, N., McMahon, L., Dalais, C., Henry, I. & Siskind, D. (2020). Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1642

López‐López, I. M., Gómez‐Urquiza, J. L., Cañadas, G. R., De la Fuente, E. I., Albendín‐García, L. & Cañadas‐De la Fuente, G. A. (2019). Prevalence of burnout in mental health nurses and related factors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 28(5), 1035-1044.

Martínez, L. M. (2020). Riesgos psicosociales y estrés laboral en tiempos de COVID-19: instrumentos para su evaluación. [Psychosocial risks and work stress in times of COVID-19: instruments for evaluation]. Revista de comunicación y salud, 10(2), 301-321.

Moncada i Lluís, S., Llorens Serrano, C., Salas Nicás, S., Moriña, D. & Navarro Giné, A. (2021). La tercera versión de COPSOQ-ISTAS21. Un instrumento internacional actualizado para la prevención de riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo [The third version of COPSOQ-ISTAS21. An updated international instrument for the prevention of psychosocial risks at work]. Revista Española de Salud Pública, 2021, 95.

Montalvo Sánchez, E., Guerrero Barona, E., Rodríguez Jiménez, M., Agudo Osuna, J., Moreno Manso, J. M. & Paredes Gómez, D. (2020). Prevalencia y niveles de exposición a factores y riesgos psicosociales a través del ISTAS-21 [Prevalence and levels of exposure to psychosocial factors and risks through the ISTAS-21]. Siglo Cero, 51(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14201/scero20205115372

Muñoz del Carpio-Toia, A., Ramos-Vargas, L. F., Ames-Guerrero, R. J. & Yuli-Posadas, R. Á. (2022). Riesgos psicosociales en personal de salud del Perú: análisis de propiedades psicométricas del ISTAS 21 [Psychosocial risks in health personnel in Peru: analysis of psychometric properties of ISTAS 21]. Índex de Enfermería, 31(2), 115-119.

Seguridad Social (2023). Sistema de Seguridad Social Datos Cierre 2022 [Social Security System Closing Data 2022]. Ministerio de Inclusión, Seguridad Social y Migraciones de España. https://www.seg-social.es/wps/portal/wss/internet/EstadisticasPresupuestosEstudios/ Estadisticas/EST45/EST46/46f9f9ea-3122-40af-a1ea-1575083f3e80

Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to SEM, Manwah Ed.

Stanislaw, H. & McCreary, J. (2023). Identifying Core Values with a Hierarchical, Ipsative, Preference Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(3), 329-341. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2022.2090369

Syed, S., Ashwick, R., Schlosser, M., Jones, R., Rowe, S. & Billings, J. (2020). Global prevalence and risk factors for mental health problems in police personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 77(11), 737-747.

Published
03-04-2024
How to Cite
Guardia i Olmos, J., Peró-Cebollero, M., Carbó-Carreté, M., & Cañete-Massé, C. (2024). Psychometric study of the Mentallypro Scale for the evaluation of exposure to psychological risk factors in the work environment. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 40(2), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.579231
Issue
Section
Social and Organizational Psychology

Publication Facts

Metric
This article
Other articles
Peer reviewers 
2
2.4

Reviewer profiles  N/A

Author statements

Author statements
This article
Other articles
Data availability 
N/A
16%
External funding 
N/A
32%
Competing interests 
N/A
11%
Metric
This journal
Other journals
Articles accepted 
52%
33%
Days to publication 
252
145

Indexed in

Editor & editorial board
profiles
Academic society 
N/A
Publisher 
Editum - Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (España)