Journal of Occupational
Health and Epidemiology
Rafsanjan university Of medical sciences
Volume 11, Issue 4 (Autumn 2022)
J Occup Health Epidemiol 2022, 11(4): 281-290 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abdali E, Talebi B, Khadivi A. Validation of Rosenberg Teachers' Occupational Stress Scale on Iranian Teachers. J Occup Health Epidemiol 2022; 11 (4) :281-290
URL: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-582-en.html
URL: http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-582-en.html
Related article in
Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Similar articles
1- Ph.D Student in Educational Administration, Dept. of Educational Administration, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
2- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Educational Administration, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran. ,btalebi1972@gmail.com
3- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Educational Administration, Tabriz Branch, Farhangian University, Tabriz, Iran.
2- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Educational Administration, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran. ,
3- Assistant Prof., Dept. of Educational Administration, Tabriz Branch, Farhangian University, Tabriz, Iran.
Article history
Received: 2022/04/25
Accepted: 2022/08/17
ePublished: 2022/12/26
Accepted: 2022/08/17
ePublished: 2022/12/26
Subject:
Occupational Health
Keywords: Occupational Stress [MeSH], Teacher [MeSH], Teaching [MeSH], Scale [MeSH], Validation [MeSH]
Full-Text [PDF 487 kb]
(1334 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (1580 Views)
Table 2. The number of final items in the occupational stress validation process
Table 3. Results of principal component analysis using varimax rotation (percentages of variance and eigenvalues of factors)
Table 4. Factor load of approved items for occupational stress factors
.jpg)
Fig. 1. Values of the standardized path coefficients for teachers' occupational stress components
HR (Human Relations), TM (Time Management), JI (Job Identity), JR (Job Relationships), OS (Organizational Support), SE (Stress Experience), CC (Classroom Control), JM (Job Motivation) SP (Students' Parents), ES (Emotional Stress), SHE (Students' Home Environment)
.jpg)
Fig. 2. T-values of teachers' occupational stress components
HR (Human Relations), TM (Time Management), JI (Job Identity), JR (Job Relationships), OS (Organizational Support), SE (Stress Experience), CC (Classroom Control), JM (Job Motivation) SP (Students' Parents), ES (Emotional Stress), SHE (Students' Home Environment)
Table 6. Results of the goodness-of-fit index for the confirmed model
Full-Text: (102 Views)
Introduction
In the last decade, the issue of stress and its effects on organizations [1-2] have been among the most interesting topics of organizational behavior management in all types of organizations, especially at school and among teachers. Occupational stress has turned into a common and costly problem in the workplace [3], which is considered a global epidemic experienced by a large part of the working population [4], being more common among teachers. Occupational stress is an employee’s emotional, physiological, cognitive, and behavioral response to undesirable factors in the organizational environment [5]. This response can be given in the form of violent behaviors, accidents, work injuries, various physical illnesses, and even deaths [6], which has many adverse consequences for teachers, students, and the educational system [7]. Research shows that occupational stress is associated with many diseases and organizational variables [8], inflicting measurable losses on teachers’ abilities [9]. By taking a closer look, occupational stress can be considered a threat to mental health [10] and psychological wellbeing [11]. In addition, it can lead to changes in the heart rate [12], suicidal tendencies [13], and depression [14].
Teaching is a stressful job [15], with teachers reporting high levels of stress [16], which is common among them [17]. This issue is more prevalent among primary school teachers due to the children’s special behaviors [18]. Similarly, Kim et al (2019) reported a high level of stress and burnout among teachers, which was due to the nature of long-term interactions with people, including students and staff, as well as heavy workloads [19]. The results of a study showed that 42% of teachers experienced high stress levels, and 36% of them experienced the highest stress level [20]. The results of some studies indicated the need for better the understanding of sources of stress among teachers, indicating that research would be effective in better understanding this issue [21]. Currently in Iran, researchers in the field of teachers’ occupational stress use occupational stress questionnaires of other researchers, such as the Kyriacou and Sutcliffe questionnaire, the Britain Health and Safety Executive Questionnaire, and the Hellriegel and Slocum questionnaire. Questionnaires on teachers’ occupational stress assessment either measure sources of teachers' occupational stress, or they are not comprehensive enough, with their validation steps not having been reported. Given special conditions and restrictions during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, accurate measurement of teachers' occupational stress is a necessity. Accordingly, this study seeks to validate the Rosenberg’s Occupational Stress Scale [22] among Iranian teachers.
Materials and Methods
In this research, a quantitative approach was adopted. In addition, the survey method and psychometrics were used to assess validity and reliability of the scale. Besides, the Rosenberg’s Teachers’ Stress Assessment Scale (2010) was used in this study. This scale is a 36-item self-report stress inventory developed by Rosenberg for teachers at elementary and secondary levels. In fact, each of the 36 items was scored.
The items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never and 5 = very often). Items’ scores were summed to yield the total scale score, which ranged from 36 to 180 (36 to 72 = low stress; 73 to 108 = moderate stress; 109 to 180 = high stress) [22]. In fact, Rosenberg reported adequate internal reliability (α = .83) for this scale.
In December 2020, the questionnaire was translated from English into Persian. Next, its Persian version was translated into English by three translators again. In addition, to fix possible problems in terms of semantic loads and terms used, it was matched with the original version.
To assess content validity of the Persian translation of the questionnaire, 16 experts in the fields of educational sciences, psychology, and psychiatry from Tabriz universities were selected and employed by the purposive sampling method. The inclusion criteria of the study at this stage were PhD education, faculty membership, and at least 5 years of academic teaching experience. The purposeful sampling method included the maximum variation, snowball, captive, and reputational cases. The reason for the low sample size at this stage was its judgmental nature and the estimation of acceptable values of content validity indicators based on Waltz and Basel and Lawshe's theory [23].
In the third stage in January 2021, to evaluate reliability of the questionnaire, initial implementation was performed on 35 purposefully selected elementary teachers in Tabriz. The inclusion criteria for the study at this stage were to have at least a bachelor's degree and a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience in the elementary school. The purposeful sampling method included maximum variation, snowball, and captive cases. The reason for the low sample size at this stage of the research was that an increase in the sample size would lead to an increase in the reliability value; thus, the sample size was recommended to be around 30 people [24].
In the next step, to assess construct validity of the scale, the items confirmed in the previous stages were applied to 365 primary school teachers who were selected by the simple random sampling method in educational districts of Tabriz City. The inclusion criterion for the study at this stage was having at least 3 years of teaching experience in the elementary school. The reason for selecting teachers with this criterion was that the studied teachers had experienced face-to-face training both before the COVUD-19 pandemic and virtual training during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample size at this stage was a function of the population size, which was determined using the Krejcie and Morgan’s framework.
The exclusion criterion for all stages of this research was the subjects’ willingness to get
excluded from the study. In this research, since the purposeful sampling method was used in the first and second stages, there were no missing or distorted values. In the third stage of the research, when the random sampling method was used in the sample selection process, distorted questionnaires were discarded and replaced by the random sampling method.
To analyze the data in the content validity assessment stage, the method of content validity estimation of Waltz and Basel and Lawshe's indexes was used, with all 36 items of the questionnaire approved. In the reliability assessment stage of the questionnaire, the reliability coefficient was estimated suing the Cronbach's alpha formula with SPSS V.25.0. Besides, in the construct validity assessment stage, the exploratory factor analysis with SPSS software, as well as first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis with SPSS and PLS software were used. Based on the results of SPSS, 35 items with a factor load of above 0.4 were confirmed, which were classified into 11 factors. The reason for using PLS was that one of the extracted factors in the factor analysis stage with SPSS included one item; thus, the use of one item could cause difficulty in identifying and analyzing data in covariance-based SEM, yet this difficulty was less likely in PLS-SEM [25]. This article was an excerpt from a PhD dissertation under ethics code IR.SSRC.REC, 1400.111. In addition, ethical considerations, including fidelity in translating texts, obtaining informed consent of the research participants, and maintaining confidentiality of information during the research were considered by the researchers.
Results
The findings of this study have been presented in the following part, aimed at validating the occupational stress questionnaire in three stages.
The first stage of validity assessment of the questionnaire was to assess content validity. Content validity depends on the logical analysis of the content of a test, being determined based on mental and individual judgment. Using this method, test questions were given to specialists or some subjects who were asked to determine if the test questions measured the desired concept and if the questions covered the entire content of the test. If there was an agreement among different people in
terms of the validity of the questionnaire, that questionnaire would have content validity [23]. In fact, the following two indicators were calculated in the content validity assessment:
In the last decade, the issue of stress and its effects on organizations [1-2] have been among the most interesting topics of organizational behavior management in all types of organizations, especially at school and among teachers. Occupational stress has turned into a common and costly problem in the workplace [3], which is considered a global epidemic experienced by a large part of the working population [4], being more common among teachers. Occupational stress is an employee’s emotional, physiological, cognitive, and behavioral response to undesirable factors in the organizational environment [5]. This response can be given in the form of violent behaviors, accidents, work injuries, various physical illnesses, and even deaths [6], which has many adverse consequences for teachers, students, and the educational system [7]. Research shows that occupational stress is associated with many diseases and organizational variables [8], inflicting measurable losses on teachers’ abilities [9]. By taking a closer look, occupational stress can be considered a threat to mental health [10] and psychological wellbeing [11]. In addition, it can lead to changes in the heart rate [12], suicidal tendencies [13], and depression [14].
Teaching is a stressful job [15], with teachers reporting high levels of stress [16], which is common among them [17]. This issue is more prevalent among primary school teachers due to the children’s special behaviors [18]. Similarly, Kim et al (2019) reported a high level of stress and burnout among teachers, which was due to the nature of long-term interactions with people, including students and staff, as well as heavy workloads [19]. The results of a study showed that 42% of teachers experienced high stress levels, and 36% of them experienced the highest stress level [20]. The results of some studies indicated the need for better the understanding of sources of stress among teachers, indicating that research would be effective in better understanding this issue [21]. Currently in Iran, researchers in the field of teachers’ occupational stress use occupational stress questionnaires of other researchers, such as the Kyriacou and Sutcliffe questionnaire, the Britain Health and Safety Executive Questionnaire, and the Hellriegel and Slocum questionnaire. Questionnaires on teachers’ occupational stress assessment either measure sources of teachers' occupational stress, or they are not comprehensive enough, with their validation steps not having been reported. Given special conditions and restrictions during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, accurate measurement of teachers' occupational stress is a necessity. Accordingly, this study seeks to validate the Rosenberg’s Occupational Stress Scale [22] among Iranian teachers.
Materials and Methods
In this research, a quantitative approach was adopted. In addition, the survey method and psychometrics were used to assess validity and reliability of the scale. Besides, the Rosenberg’s Teachers’ Stress Assessment Scale (2010) was used in this study. This scale is a 36-item self-report stress inventory developed by Rosenberg for teachers at elementary and secondary levels. In fact, each of the 36 items was scored.
The items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never and 5 = very often). Items’ scores were summed to yield the total scale score, which ranged from 36 to 180 (36 to 72 = low stress; 73 to 108 = moderate stress; 109 to 180 = high stress) [22]. In fact, Rosenberg reported adequate internal reliability (α = .83) for this scale.
In December 2020, the questionnaire was translated from English into Persian. Next, its Persian version was translated into English by three translators again. In addition, to fix possible problems in terms of semantic loads and terms used, it was matched with the original version.
To assess content validity of the Persian translation of the questionnaire, 16 experts in the fields of educational sciences, psychology, and psychiatry from Tabriz universities were selected and employed by the purposive sampling method. The inclusion criteria of the study at this stage were PhD education, faculty membership, and at least 5 years of academic teaching experience. The purposeful sampling method included the maximum variation, snowball, captive, and reputational cases. The reason for the low sample size at this stage was its judgmental nature and the estimation of acceptable values of content validity indicators based on Waltz and Basel and Lawshe's theory [23].
In the third stage in January 2021, to evaluate reliability of the questionnaire, initial implementation was performed on 35 purposefully selected elementary teachers in Tabriz. The inclusion criteria for the study at this stage were to have at least a bachelor's degree and a minimum of 5 years of teaching experience in the elementary school. The purposeful sampling method included maximum variation, snowball, and captive cases. The reason for the low sample size at this stage of the research was that an increase in the sample size would lead to an increase in the reliability value; thus, the sample size was recommended to be around 30 people [24].
In the next step, to assess construct validity of the scale, the items confirmed in the previous stages were applied to 365 primary school teachers who were selected by the simple random sampling method in educational districts of Tabriz City. The inclusion criterion for the study at this stage was having at least 3 years of teaching experience in the elementary school. The reason for selecting teachers with this criterion was that the studied teachers had experienced face-to-face training both before the COVUD-19 pandemic and virtual training during the COVID-19 pandemic. The sample size at this stage was a function of the population size, which was determined using the Krejcie and Morgan’s framework.
The exclusion criterion for all stages of this research was the subjects’ willingness to get
excluded from the study. In this research, since the purposeful sampling method was used in the first and second stages, there were no missing or distorted values. In the third stage of the research, when the random sampling method was used in the sample selection process, distorted questionnaires were discarded and replaced by the random sampling method.
To analyze the data in the content validity assessment stage, the method of content validity estimation of Waltz and Basel and Lawshe's indexes was used, with all 36 items of the questionnaire approved. In the reliability assessment stage of the questionnaire, the reliability coefficient was estimated suing the Cronbach's alpha formula with SPSS V.25.0. Besides, in the construct validity assessment stage, the exploratory factor analysis with SPSS software, as well as first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis with SPSS and PLS software were used. Based on the results of SPSS, 35 items with a factor load of above 0.4 were confirmed, which were classified into 11 factors. The reason for using PLS was that one of the extracted factors in the factor analysis stage with SPSS included one item; thus, the use of one item could cause difficulty in identifying and analyzing data in covariance-based SEM, yet this difficulty was less likely in PLS-SEM [25]. This article was an excerpt from a PhD dissertation under ethics code IR.SSRC.REC, 1400.111. In addition, ethical considerations, including fidelity in translating texts, obtaining informed consent of the research participants, and maintaining confidentiality of information during the research were considered by the researchers.
Results
The findings of this study have been presented in the following part, aimed at validating the occupational stress questionnaire in three stages.
The first stage of validity assessment of the questionnaire was to assess content validity. Content validity depends on the logical analysis of the content of a test, being determined based on mental and individual judgment. Using this method, test questions were given to specialists or some subjects who were asked to determine if the test questions measured the desired concept and if the questions covered the entire content of the test. If there was an agreement among different people in
terms of the validity of the questionnaire, that questionnaire would have content validity [23]. In fact, the following two indicators were calculated in the content validity assessment:
- Content Validity Ratio Index (CVR): This indicator was designed by Lawshe. To calculate this index, the opinions of experts in the field of the content of the questionnaire were used. Accordingly, they were asked to categorize each item based on the 3-point Likert scale, with the options of "the item is necessary", "the item is useful but not necessary", and "the item is not necessary". Depending on the number of the experts who evaluated the items, the minimum acceptable CVR for 15 and 20 specialists would be 0.49 and 0.42, respectively.
- Content Validity Index (CVI): The Waltz–Basel index was used to evaluate the content validity index. Experts defined each item as "relevant," "clear," and "simple" based on a 4-point Likert scale. Besides, the experts’ rate of the relevance of the items ranged from 1(not relevant), 2 (relatively relevant), 3 (relevant), to 4 (absolutely relevant). In addition, the simplicity of the items ranged from 1 (not simple), 2 (relatively simple), 3 (simple), to 4 (simple is relevant). Additionally, the clarity of the items ranged from 1 (not clear), 2 (relatively clear), 3 (clear), to 4 (relevantly clearly). Besides, the minimum acceptable value for the CVI index was 0.79, and if the CVI index was an item less than 0.79, that item would be removed [23]. At this stage, the judgment of 16 experts was used. Accordingly, among the 16 experts, 8 had the academic rank of assistant professors, 5 were associate professors, and 3 were professors. In terms of specialization, 5 people were specialized in educational management, 2 in curriculum planning, 5 in educational psychology, 3 in clinical psychology, 2 in psychiatry, and 2 in general psychology.
Table 1 shows the results of content validity estimation for the two indicators of CVR and CVI. According to Table 1, the value of CVI was greater than 0.79 for all the studied items, and the value of CVR was greater than 0.49 for all the studied items.
Table 1. Content validity evaluation results
| Result | CVI | CVR | Item |
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 1 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 1 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 1 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 1 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 0.62 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 1 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 1 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 0.87 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.87 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.93 | 1 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
| √ | 0.81 | 0.75 |
|
* The text of the items is quoted exactly from Rosenberg.
Initial implementation of the questionnaire: In the next stage of the test construction, a questionnaire whose content validity has been confirmed will be handed out to a limited number of people in the target group. The initial test meant to eliminate possible problems in performing the test, giving test instructions, and explaining how to complete the items to evaluate reliability of the test. Items with an alpha coefficient of less than 0.7 were removed at this stage. In fact, at this stage of the research, a questionnaire was handed out to 35 primary school teachers in Tabriz, 18 of whom were female and 17 were male. In terms of education levels, 13, 12, and 10 people had bachelor's, master's, and higher than master's degrees (students or specialized doctorate graduates), respectively. A total of 7 people were in the age group of 25-30, and 9, 8, 6, and 5 people were in the age groups of 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, and over 45, respectively.
The results of calculating the reliability coefficient using the Cronbach's alpha formula showed that the total reliability of the scale was 0.82, and the reliability of each item was higher than 0.7, with no item deleted.
The main implementation phase of the questionnaire among the target group and evaluation of construct validity: At this stage, the questionnaire was handed out to the target group. Due to the small sample size of the subjects in the initial implementation phase, the assumptions of the first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis were not observed; thus, it was not possible to estimate construct validity. Accordingly, at this stage of the research, a questionnaire was distributed to 365 primary education teachers in the education districts of Tabriz. In the main implementation phase of the questionnaire, 365 people were studied, of whom 183 were female and 182 were male. Besides, 92 females would teach at the first level of primary education, and 91 would teach at the second level of primary education. In addition, the ratio of each of the first and second elementary levels in the sample of the males was 50%, which included 91 people in each level. In terms of the studied sample’s education level, 176 (48.22%), 151 (41.36%), and 38 (10.42%) people had bachelor's, master's, and above master's degrees, respectively. Additionally, 14 people (3.84%) of the studied sample aged less than 25. Furthermore, 152 (41.64%), 143 (39.18%), and 56 people (15.34%) were in the age group of 35-25, 35-45, and above 45, respectively. In terms of teaching experience, the highest ratio (37.8%) belonged to 5-10 years of teaching experience with 138 people. Accordingly the teaching experience of 96 people (26.31%), 74 people (20.27%), 49 people (13.42%), and 8 people (2.2%) was 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, and over 30 years, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of this stage of the research via the factor analysis test.
The results of calculating the reliability coefficient using the Cronbach's alpha formula showed that the total reliability of the scale was 0.82, and the reliability of each item was higher than 0.7, with no item deleted.
The main implementation phase of the questionnaire among the target group and evaluation of construct validity: At this stage, the questionnaire was handed out to the target group. Due to the small sample size of the subjects in the initial implementation phase, the assumptions of the first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis were not observed; thus, it was not possible to estimate construct validity. Accordingly, at this stage of the research, a questionnaire was distributed to 365 primary education teachers in the education districts of Tabriz. In the main implementation phase of the questionnaire, 365 people were studied, of whom 183 were female and 182 were male. Besides, 92 females would teach at the first level of primary education, and 91 would teach at the second level of primary education. In addition, the ratio of each of the first and second elementary levels in the sample of the males was 50%, which included 91 people in each level. In terms of the studied sample’s education level, 176 (48.22%), 151 (41.36%), and 38 (10.42%) people had bachelor's, master's, and above master's degrees, respectively. Additionally, 14 people (3.84%) of the studied sample aged less than 25. Furthermore, 152 (41.64%), 143 (39.18%), and 56 people (15.34%) were in the age group of 35-25, 35-45, and above 45, respectively. In terms of teaching experience, the highest ratio (37.8%) belonged to 5-10 years of teaching experience with 138 people. Accordingly the teaching experience of 96 people (26.31%), 74 people (20.27%), 49 people (13.42%), and 8 people (2.2%) was 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, and over 30 years, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of this stage of the research via the factor analysis test.
Table 2. The number of final items in the occupational stress validation process
| Items Steps |
Evaluated | Confirmed |
| Content validity assessment | 36 | 36 |
| Construct validity assessment | 36 | 35 |
According to Table 2, a total of 36 items had acceptable validity in the content validity evaluation stage, which were handed out to teachers to categorize the factors and to assess construct validity. In assessing the construct validity of the questionnaire, firstly, cultural and educational conditions of the study were different from those of the American society of the original questionnaire; secondly, special conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the possibility of different classifications of the factors extracted from the questionnaire existed; thus, exploratory factor analysis was used. To measure adequacy of the data sample and possibility of using EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett's sphericity test were employed. Since the value of the sample suitability statistic was 0.62, having been above 0.5, and the value of the significance level was 0.000, suitability of the sample was confirmed, so the factor analysis test could be used. According to Table 3, the results of EFA showed that after varimax rotation of 36 items in 11 factors whose eigenvalue was higher than 1, a total of 73.58% of the variance of scores was verified; however, item 35 with the factor load of 0.24 did not have sufficient validity due to the factor load of less than 0.3, which had to be removed from the questionnaire. In other words, apart from item 35, the other items of the questionnaire had sufficient validity in explaining the construct of occupational stress.
Table 3. Results of principal component analysis using varimax rotation (percentages of variance and eigenvalues of factors)
| Extraction sums of squared loadings | Initial eigenvalues | Eigenvalue Factor |
||||
| Cumulative % | % of Variance | Total | Cumulative % | % of Variance | Total | |
| 11.358 | 11.358 | 4.089 | 19.276 | 19.276 | 6.939 | 1 |
| 19.785 | 8.427 | 3.034 | 30.005 | 10.728 | 3.862 | 2 |
| 27.940 | 8.155 | 2.936 | 38.784 | 8.779 | 3.160 | 3 |
| 35.682 | 7.742 | 2.787 | 45.708 | 6.924 | 2.493 | 4 |
| 42.129 | 6.447 | 2.321 | 50.754 | 5.046 | 1.817 | 5 |
| 48.163 | 6.034 | 2.172 | 55.588 | 4.834 | 1.740 | 6 |
| 54.017 | 5.854 | 2.108 | 59.813 | 4.225 | 1.521 | 7 |
| 59.259 | 5.241 | 1.887 | 63.729 | 3.916 | 1.410 | 8 |
| 64.217 | 4.958 | 1.785 | 67.563 | 3.834 | 1.380 | 9 |
| 68.974 | 4.757 | 1.712 | 70.761 | 3.197 | 1.151 | 10 |
| 73.580 | 4.606 | 1.658 | 73.580 | 2.819 | 1.015 | 11 |
After identifying the factors, 11 factors were named, via referring to the experts, until an agreement was reached among the experts. Accordingly, the factors were named in the following order of human relations, time management, job identity, job relationships, organizational support, stress experiences, classroom control, job motivation, students' parents, emotional stress, and student's home environment.
Items extracted from the exploratory factor analysis were reevaluated and tested by confirmatory factor
analysis via PLS software. The calculation of CFA showed that the confirmed items had a factor load of above 0.3 (first-order confirmatory factor analysis) for the 11 factors. In addition, each factor had a significant relationship with occupational stress (second-order confirmatory factor analysis). Table 4 shows the items by factors, item number, and factor load, which were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis via PLS software. As Table 4 shows, 35 out of 36 items were valid in measuring occupational stress.
Items extracted from the exploratory factor analysis were reevaluated and tested by confirmatory factor
analysis via PLS software. The calculation of CFA showed that the confirmed items had a factor load of above 0.3 (first-order confirmatory factor analysis) for the 11 factors. In addition, each factor had a significant relationship with occupational stress (second-order confirmatory factor analysis). Table 4 shows the items by factors, item number, and factor load, which were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis via PLS software. As Table 4 shows, 35 out of 36 items were valid in measuring occupational stress.
Table 4. Factor load of approved items for occupational stress factors
| Factor load | Items | Occupational stress factors | |
| 0.58 | 4 | Human relations | 1 |
| 0.69 | 7 | ||
| 0.5 | 11 | ||
| 0.45 | 12 | ||
| 0.49 | 10 | ||
| 0.82 | 22 | ||
| 0.63 | 23 | ||
| 0.71 | 17 | Time management | 2 |
| 0.78 | 18 | ||
| 0.68 | 19 | ||
| 0.49 | 20 | ||
| 0.42 | 21 | Job identity | 3 |
| 0.78 | 24 | ||
| 0.65 | 25 | ||
| 0.78 | 26 | ||
| 0.85 | 3 | Job relationships | 4 |
| 0.53 | 5 | ||
| 0.44 | 6 | ||
| 0.71 | 8 | Organizational support | 5 |
| 0.79 | 9 | ||
| 0.36 | 36 | ||
| 0.72 | 28 | Stress experience | 6 |
| 0.67 | 29 | ||
| 0.64 | 33 | ||
| 0.61 | 34 | ||
| 0.65 | 1 | Classroom control | 7 |
| 0.68 | 2 | ||
| 0.86 | 27 | Job motivation | 8 |
| 0.67 | 32 | ||
| 0.307 | 13 | Students' parents | 9 |
| 0.72 | 14 | ||
| 0.62 | 15 | ||
| 0.71 | 30 | Emotional stress | 10 |
| 0.67 | 31 | ||
| 0.85 | 16 | Students' home environment | 11 |
Table 5 shows the calculation results of the second-order CFA using PLS software, T-values, and the significance level of path coefficients for each of the occupational stress factors. According to Table 5, all 11 extracted factors had a valid relationship with occupational stress. According to Table 5, the values of discriminant and convergent validity had high reliability. Besides, the value of convergent validity was higher than 0.5 based on Average Variance Extracted (AVE) in all components. Furthermore, the value of discriminant validity in all components was greater than their correlation value with other factors, based on Fornell and Larcker's formula.
Statistically, convergent validity would be confirmed if AVE was > 0.50. According to Fornell and Larcker’s criterion, discriminant validity would be confirmed if the square root of AVE for a certain construct was greater than its correlation with all other constructs.
Statistically, convergent validity would be confirmed if AVE was > 0.50. According to Fornell and Larcker’s criterion, discriminant validity would be confirmed if the square root of AVE for a certain construct was greater than its correlation with all other constructs.
Table 5. Path coefficients, T-values, and the level of significance of factor relationships with occupational stress constructs
| Factors | Path coefficients | T-test | P-value | Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker’ Criterion) |
Convergent validity (AVE) |
| Human relations | 0.72 | 24.94 | 0.001 | 0.78 | 0.76 |
| Time management | 0.86 | 47.88 | 0.001 | 0.75 | 0.81 |
| Job identity | 0.78 | 41.92 | 0.001 | 0.84 | 0.78 |
| Job relationships | 0.7 | 18.13 | 0.001 | 0.83 | 0.77 |
| Organizational support | 0.79 | 31.87 | 0.001 | 0.86 | 0.78 |
| Stress experience | 0.57 | 13.56 | 0.001 | 0.84 | 0.81 |
| Classroom control | 0.37 | 6.27 | 0.001 | 0.82 | 0.81 |
| Job motivation | 0.5 | 10.02 | 0.001 | 0.87 | 0.87 |
| Students' parents | 0.65 | 11.41 | 0.001 | 0.9 | 0.73 |
| Emotional stress | 0.43 | 7.34 | 0.001 | 0.87 | 0.83 |
| Students' home environment | 0.58 | 10.48 | 0.001 | 0.8 | 0.92 |
According to Figs. 1 and 2, all the extracted factors significantly explain the teachers’ occupational stress. Accordingly, time management had the highest coefficient of 0.86, and class control had the lowest path coefficient of 0.37.
Fig. 1. Values of the standardized path coefficients for teachers' occupational stress components
HR (Human Relations), TM (Time Management), JI (Job Identity), JR (Job Relationships), OS (Organizational Support), SE (Stress Experience), CC (Classroom Control), JM (Job Motivation) SP (Students' Parents), ES (Emotional Stress), SHE (Students' Home Environment)
Fig. 2. T-values of teachers' occupational stress components
HR (Human Relations), TM (Time Management), JI (Job Identity), JR (Job Relationships), OS (Organizational Support), SE (Stress Experience), CC (Classroom Control), JM (Job Motivation) SP (Students' Parents), ES (Emotional Stress), SHE (Students' Home Environment)
Table 6 shows the state of fit for the structural and general model of occupational stress based on the first- and second-order CFA test using PLS software. According to Table 6, in the occupational stress prediction model, the value of the coefficient of determination was 0.74, having been above 0.67. This shows an above-average correlation and a good fit for the structural model. Besides, based on the GOF index for predicting occupational stress, this index was equal to 0.59, having been above 0.36. Accordingly, this shows the model had a good fit, so the general model had high validity. According to Table 6, other fitting indices show high fitness of the structural equation model as well.
Table 6. Results of the goodness-of-fit index for the confirmed model
| Fit Index | Good Fit | Acceptable Fit | Goodness-of-fit Value |
| R2 | 0.99 R2≤ ≤ 0.67 | 0.67 R2≤ ≤ 0.33 | 0.74 |
| GOF | 0.99 GOF ≤ ≤ 0.36 | 0.36 GOF ≤ ≤ 0.25 | 0.59 |
| NFI | 0.95 ≤ NFI ≤ 1 | 0.9 ≤ NFI < 0.95 | 0.97 |
| SRMR | 0 ≤ SRMR < 0.05 | 0.05 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0.08 | 0.04 |
Discussion
In the present study, the teachers' occupational stress scale for 11 components explained 73% of the variance of occupational stress. These components included human relationships, time management, job identity, job relationships, organizational support, stress experience, classroom control, job motivation, students' parents, emotional stress, and students’ home environment. According to the variance explained by each of the components, the components of students' parents, emotional stress, and students' home environment had the least effective role in explaining the variance of occupational stress. Besides, the components of organizational support, stress experience, classroom control, and job motivation played a more moderate role, compared to other dimensions. On the other side, the dimensions of time management, job identity, and job relationships played the greatest role in explaining the variance of occupational stress. Consistent with the EFA calculation results, the dimension of human relations had the greatest role in explaining the total variance of teachers' occupational stress.
In this study, the values of content validity, construct validity, and factor load of each item, as well as the path coefficients for explaining occupational stress based on its dimensions showed that the questionnaire had high validity and reliability in measuring occupational stress among Iranian teachers. In addition, valid results could be expected from the use of this questionnaire. In terms of item validation, item 35 stating "I am now using one or more of the following items to relieve my stress: alcohol, drugs, yelling, blaming, withdrawing, eating, smoking " was not valid and had not been included in the list of approved items in the category of the occupational stress dimension, due to its factor load being less than 0.3. According to the literature review, stress is a function of individual and social factors [26], acting as a person's emotional and behavioral response to unpleasant events [27] and affecting mental and physical health [28]. The findings of this study were consistent with those of earlier ones. Accordingly, the relationship of teachers' occupational stress with school climate [29, 16], mutual relationships and social atmosphere [30], workload and time [31], teachers' capabilities [32], students' issues [33], negative perception of students [34], teacher satisfaction and perception of school [17] were reported in previous research.
Besides, according to the theoretical and research literature, occupational stress is an unpleasant physical and emotional reaction that is caused by workplace conditions, which can adversely affect employees’ progress and general well-being [35]. Besides, it is the result of an unbalanced effort-reward relationship [36], high job demand, and the low control ability of employees at work [37].
McCarthy (2019) explains that stress is a psychological process that arises from teachers' assessment of the balance between demands and resources they have to meet [9]. According to the Coping-Competence-Context (3C) Theory, teacher stress is based on the three major interrelated pathways of coping with stress, stress context, and teacher competency [7]. Occupational stress reduces individuals’ ability to the extent that they cannot perform as expected [38]. This is more common in teaching that is a stressful job and can affect psychological wellbeing, job satisfaction, intentions to leave the job, and even employee health [39]. To explain the results of this research, the dimensions of teachers' occupational stress should be considered. Paying attention to the dimensions of teachers' occupational stress shows that this phenomenon is a function of the school atmosphere, relationships and social atmosphere, workload and time allocated to perform assigned tasks, teachers' abilities in the field of classroom management, teachers' employment motivations, as well as students' and parents' expectations of the teacher. This questionnaire and its application in measuring teachers' occupational stress can remove limitations of previous questionnaires, such as their focus on sources of occupational stress and lack of comprehensiveness.
The major limitation of this research was the study of teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic and specific stresses caused by it, which could have affected the results of this research in some ways. Accordingly, fear of disease transmission as well as the need for following health protocols in working and non-working communities were controlled by researchers.
Conclusion
Regarding the findings of the present study, it is suggested that this questionnaire be used to measure teachers' occupational stress in Iran as part of measuring their health at school. This questionnaire is especially effective in measuring stress in teachers experiencing virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the findings of this research, it is suggested that teachers’ work environment be arranged so that factors, such as students, emotions, parents, stress experiences, time, as well as professional and human relations do not cause severe stress in them. Another limitation of this research was that the test-retest reliability estimation of the questionnaire was not performed, yet only content validity and construct validity were used in two stages.
Acknowledgement
This article was extracted from a research PhD thesis at Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, under ethics code ID IR.SSRC.REC, 1400.111. Accordingly, we would like to acknowledge managers and employers of the Islamic Azad University, education officials of the five districts of Tabriz, as well as schools and teachers who participated in the research.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
In the present study, the teachers' occupational stress scale for 11 components explained 73% of the variance of occupational stress. These components included human relationships, time management, job identity, job relationships, organizational support, stress experience, classroom control, job motivation, students' parents, emotional stress, and students’ home environment. According to the variance explained by each of the components, the components of students' parents, emotional stress, and students' home environment had the least effective role in explaining the variance of occupational stress. Besides, the components of organizational support, stress experience, classroom control, and job motivation played a more moderate role, compared to other dimensions. On the other side, the dimensions of time management, job identity, and job relationships played the greatest role in explaining the variance of occupational stress. Consistent with the EFA calculation results, the dimension of human relations had the greatest role in explaining the total variance of teachers' occupational stress.
In this study, the values of content validity, construct validity, and factor load of each item, as well as the path coefficients for explaining occupational stress based on its dimensions showed that the questionnaire had high validity and reliability in measuring occupational stress among Iranian teachers. In addition, valid results could be expected from the use of this questionnaire. In terms of item validation, item 35 stating "I am now using one or more of the following items to relieve my stress: alcohol, drugs, yelling, blaming, withdrawing, eating, smoking " was not valid and had not been included in the list of approved items in the category of the occupational stress dimension, due to its factor load being less than 0.3. According to the literature review, stress is a function of individual and social factors [26], acting as a person's emotional and behavioral response to unpleasant events [27] and affecting mental and physical health [28]. The findings of this study were consistent with those of earlier ones. Accordingly, the relationship of teachers' occupational stress with school climate [29, 16], mutual relationships and social atmosphere [30], workload and time [31], teachers' capabilities [32], students' issues [33], negative perception of students [34], teacher satisfaction and perception of school [17] were reported in previous research.
Besides, according to the theoretical and research literature, occupational stress is an unpleasant physical and emotional reaction that is caused by workplace conditions, which can adversely affect employees’ progress and general well-being [35]. Besides, it is the result of an unbalanced effort-reward relationship [36], high job demand, and the low control ability of employees at work [37].
McCarthy (2019) explains that stress is a psychological process that arises from teachers' assessment of the balance between demands and resources they have to meet [9]. According to the Coping-Competence-Context (3C) Theory, teacher stress is based on the three major interrelated pathways of coping with stress, stress context, and teacher competency [7]. Occupational stress reduces individuals’ ability to the extent that they cannot perform as expected [38]. This is more common in teaching that is a stressful job and can affect psychological wellbeing, job satisfaction, intentions to leave the job, and even employee health [39]. To explain the results of this research, the dimensions of teachers' occupational stress should be considered. Paying attention to the dimensions of teachers' occupational stress shows that this phenomenon is a function of the school atmosphere, relationships and social atmosphere, workload and time allocated to perform assigned tasks, teachers' abilities in the field of classroom management, teachers' employment motivations, as well as students' and parents' expectations of the teacher. This questionnaire and its application in measuring teachers' occupational stress can remove limitations of previous questionnaires, such as their focus on sources of occupational stress and lack of comprehensiveness.
The major limitation of this research was the study of teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic and specific stresses caused by it, which could have affected the results of this research in some ways. Accordingly, fear of disease transmission as well as the need for following health protocols in working and non-working communities were controlled by researchers.
Conclusion
Regarding the findings of the present study, it is suggested that this questionnaire be used to measure teachers' occupational stress in Iran as part of measuring their health at school. This questionnaire is especially effective in measuring stress in teachers experiencing virtual education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the findings of this research, it is suggested that teachers’ work environment be arranged so that factors, such as students, emotions, parents, stress experiences, time, as well as professional and human relations do not cause severe stress in them. Another limitation of this research was that the test-retest reliability estimation of the questionnaire was not performed, yet only content validity and construct validity were used in two stages.
Acknowledgement
This article was extracted from a research PhD thesis at Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, under ethics code ID IR.SSRC.REC, 1400.111. Accordingly, we would like to acknowledge managers and employers of the Islamic Azad University, education officials of the five districts of Tabriz, as well as schools and teachers who participated in the research.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
References
1. Lal A, Tharyan A, Tharyan P. The prevalence, determinants and the role of empathy and religious or spiritual beliefs on job stress, job satisfaction, coping, burnout, and mental health in medical and surgical faculty of a teaching hospital: A cross-sectional survey. Rev Med Interne. 2020;41(4):232-40. [DOI] [PMCID]
2. Havârneanu C E, Măirean C, Popuşoi S A. Workplace stress as predictor of risky driving behavior among taxi drivers. The role of job-related affective state and taxi driving experience. Safe Sci. 2019;111:264-70. [DOI]
3. Aminian O, Farjami A, Pouryaghoob GH, Sadeghniiat Haghighi KH. The evaluation of effect of job stress on the risk factors of the cardiovascular diseases among the drivers in Tehran in 86. Tibbi-i-Kar. 2011;2(1):26-33. [Article]
4. Sun R, Zhang C, Lv K, Lan Y. Identifying the risk features for occupational stress in medical workers: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022;95(2):451-64. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Luy-Montejo CA, Teves Quispe J, Rojas Rivera W, Ramos Quispe T, Lazo de la Vega Ramos AD, Arias Chavez D, et al. An Analysis of Latin American Scientific Production on Teacher Stress (2010 - 2018). Purp Represent. 2019;7(3):1-11. [DOI]
6. Sakketou A, Galanakis M, Varvogli L, Chrousos G, Darviri C. Validation of the Greek Version of the Job Stress Measure. Psychology. 2014; 5(13):1527-35. [DOI]
7. Herman KC, Reinke WM, Eddy CL. Advances in understanding and intervening in teacher stress and coping: The Coping-Competence-Context Theory. J Sch Psychol. 2020;78: 69-74. [DOI] [PMID]
8. Khalilzadeh A, Talebi B, Khadivi A. Structural Analysis of the Correlation between Occupational Stress and Quality of life in University Administrators Using a PLS Approach. J Occup Health Epidemiol. 2020;9(3):180-8. [DOI]
9. McCarthy CJ. Teacher stress: Balancing demands and resources. Phi Delta Kappan. 2019;101(3):8-14. [DOI]
10. Moreno Fortes A, Tian L, Huebner ES. Occupational Stress and Employees Complete Mental Health: A Cross-Cultural Empirical Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3629. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Suleman Q, Hussain I, Shehzad S, Syed MA, Raja SA. Relationship between perceived occupational stress and psychological well-being among secondary school heads in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208143. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Järvelin-Pasanen S, Sinikallio S, Tarvainen MP. Heart rate variability and occupational stress-systematic review. Ind Health. 2018;56(6):500-511. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Stanley IH, Boffa JW, Smith LJ, Tran JK, Schmidt NB, Joiner TE, et al. Occupational stress and suicidality among firefighters: Examining the buffering role of distress tolerance. Psychiatry Res. 2018;266:90-96. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Jung J, Jeong I, Lee KJ, Won G, Park JB. Effects of changes in occupational stress on the depressive symptoms of Korean workers in a large company: a longitudinal survey. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2018,8;30:39 [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. García-Arroyo JA, Osca Segovia A, Peiró JM. Meta-analytical review of teacher burnout across 36 societies: the role of national learning assessments and gender egalitarianism. Psychol Health. 2019 ;34(6):733-753 [DOI] [PMID]
16. von der Embse N, Ryan SV, Gibbs T, Mankin A. Teacher stress interventions: A systematic review. Psychol Sch. 2019;56(8):1328-43. [DOI]
17. Ramberg J, Låftman S B, Åkerstedt T, Modin B. Teacher Stress and Students' School Well-being: the Case of Upper Secondary Schools in Stockholm. Scand J Educ Res. 2020;64(6):816-30. [DOI]
18. Neuenschwander R, Friedman-Krauss A, Raver C, Blair C. Teacher stress predicts child executive function: Moderation by school poverty. Early Educ Dev. 2017;28(7):880-900. [DOI]
19. Kim L E, Jörg V, Klassen R M. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality on Teacher Effectiveness and Burnout. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;31(1):163-95. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
20. Kourmousi N, Darviri C, Varvogli L, Alexopoulos EC. Teacher Stress Inventory: validation of the Greek version and perceived stress levels among 3,447 educators. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2015;8:81-8 [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
21. MacIntyre PD, Ross J, Talbot K, Mercer S, Gregersen T, Banga CA. Stressors, personality and wellbeing among language teachers. System. 2019;82:26-38. [DOI]
22. Rosenberg T C. Teacher stress: An assessment of teachers' need for and receptiveness towards a stress reduction program within one rural school system. Educ Spec. 2010. [Article]
23. Wilson FR, Pan W, Schumsky DA. Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2012;45(3):197-210 [DOI]
24. Bujang MA, Omar ED, Baharum NA. A Review on Sample Size Determination for Cronbach's Alpha Test: A Simple Guide for Researchers. Malays J Med Sci. 2018;25(6):85-99. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
25. Timothy Adu Gyamfi, Edward Nana-Addy, Wiliam Gyadu-Asiedu. Motivational Strategies to Improve Artisan’s Productivity in the Construction Industry in Ghana. J Constr Build Plan Res. 2020;8(4). [DOI]
26. Chen Y, Liu X, Yan N, Jia W, Fan Y, Yan H, et al. Higher Academic Stress Was Associated with Increased Risk of Overweight and Obesity among College Students in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. 31;17(15):5559. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Taklavi S, Farshi A. Comparison of self-critical levels, perceived stress, positive and negative emotions, in mothers of students with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil. 2017; 7 (2): 7-26. [Article]
28. Robelski S, Mette J, Wirth T, Kiepe N, Nienhaus A, Harth V, Mache S. (Un)bounded Social Work?-Analysis of Working Conditions in Refugee and Homeless Aid in Relation to Perceived Job Stress and Job Satisfaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17;17(2):601. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Barzegar Bafrooee K, Khezri H. Investigating the Relationship Between Type A, Neurotic Personality Type, External Locus of Control and School Climate with School Teachers’ Stress in Yazd. J Except Child.2011;11(1):69-82 [Article]
30. Gagnon S G, Huelsman T J, Kidder-Ashley P, Lewis A. Preschool Student-Teacher Relationships and Teaching Stress. Early Child Educ J. 2019;47(2):217-25. [DOI]
31. Hojo M. Association between student-teacher ratio and teachers' working hours and workload stress: evidence from a nationwide survey in Japan. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1635. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Ahmadi Nik, F, Emami Nik A. Investigating the relationship between quality of work life and job stress of primary school teachers in Bahmaei (Iran). J New Appr Educ Sci. 2021;3(3):76-88. [DOI]
33. Sönmez S, Kolaşınlı IB. The effect of preschool teachers' stress states on classroom climate. Education. 2021;49(2):190-202, [DOI]
34. 34. Harmsen R, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R, van Veen K. The Relationship between Beginning Teachers' Stress Causes, Stress Responses, Teaching Behaviour and Attrition. Teach Teach. 2018;24(6):626-43. [DOI]
35. Suleman Q, Hussain I, Shehzad S, Syed M A, Raja SA. Relationship between perceived occupational stress and psychological well-being among secondary school heads in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PloS One. 2018;13(12):e0208143. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Schilling R, Colledge F, Ludyga S, Pühse U, Brand S, Gerber M. Does Cardiorespiratory Fitness Moderate the Association between Occupational Stress, Cardiovascular Risk, and Mental Health in Police Officers? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2349 [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Akbari J, Akbari R, Shakerian M & Mahaki B. Job demand-control and job stress at work: A cross-sectional study among prison staff. Journal of education and health promotion. 2017; 6; 15. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
38. Sarafis P, Rousaki E, Tsounis A, et al. The impact of occupational stress on nurses' caring behaviors and their health related quality of life. BMC Nurs. 2016; 15, 56. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
39. Porcel-Gálvez AM, Barrientos-Trigo S, Bermúdez-García S, Fernández-García E, Bueno-Ferrán M, Badanta B. The Nursing Stress Scale-Spanish Version: An Update to Its Psychometric Properties and Validation of a Short-form Version in Acute Care Hospital Settings. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8456. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
