MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability and Validity of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale

2004· article· en· W2124998276 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsStuart Olson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresenteeismReliability (semiconductor)Cronbach's alphaScale (ratio)PsychologyValidityApplied psychologyDistractionWork (physics)Predictive validityClinical psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyAbsenteeismEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study reports the reliability and validity of the 13-item Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS). The SPS differs from similar scales by focusing on knowledge-based and production-based workers. METHODS: Data were obtained from administrative and medical claims databases and from a survey that incorporated the SPS, SF-36, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent (7797) of employees responded. Cronbach's alpha (0.83) indicates adequate reliability. Factor analysis identified two underlying factors, "completing work" and "avoiding distraction." Knowledge-based workers load on "completing work" (alpha = 0.97), whereas production-based workers load on "avoiding distraction" (alpha = 0.98). There were significant and positive relationships between the SPS, SF-36, and Work Limitations Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The SPS demonstrates a high degree of reliability and validity and may be ideal for employers who seek a single scale to measure health-related productivity in a diverse employee population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it