An Intercultural Translation and Psychometric Analysis of 18-item Spirituality at Work Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For downloading the full-text of this article please click here. Background and Objective: Spirituality in job is a new topic but with a limited theoretical-scientific development in organizational literature. The importance of this issue and its impact on work efficiency call for a proper instrument for evaluation purposes. Longevity and incomprehensiveness of some of the questionnaires motivated the authors to provide an Intercultural Translation and psychometric analysis of the standard comprehensive instrument of Spirituality at Work. Methods: In this cross-sectional descriptive study, English version of Spirituality at Work scale, adopted from Val Kinjersk’s study, was used as the main instrument. An attempt was made to complete English-to-Persian translation as well as to provide cultural conformities using the Wild pattern and recursive translation method and retranslation phases, respectively. Afterwards, face validity was performed based on 10 experts’ views and 18 accessible samples and then reliability and validity of the questionnaire were examined and internal correlation was determined in a cross-sectional study on 393 health workers. Construct validity was assessed with a sample size of 268 people through factor analysis. In this study, all the ethical considerations have been observed and no conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Results: To determine construct validity, principal components analysis was performed using Varimax rotation method, in which 70.31% of total variance was explained by two factors. Its face validity was also desirable. In assessing the questionnaire’s reliability using internal consistency method, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 96%, which ranged from 78% to 91% for the subscales. There was a high correlation among subscales of this questionnaire (0/82-0/97). Conclusion: The questionnaire had good consistency and the high correlation between the subscales is indicative of a god cultural consistency in translation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire of Spirituality at Work, which aimed at assessing the experience of spirituality in job based on individuals’ experience of spirituality and workplace morale has proper construct validity and face validity.For downloading the full-text of this article please click here. Please cite this article as: Shojaei S, Tavafian SS, Wagner J, Jamshidi AR, Mohammadi-Valadani A. An Intercultural Translation and Psychometric Analysis of 18-item Spirituality at Work Questionnaire. Pizhūhish dar dīn va salāmat. 2020; 5(4): 114-126. https://doi.org/10.22037/jrrh.v5i4.22349
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".