Ospina Maria B, Dennett Liz, Waye Arianna, Jacobs Phillip, Thompson Angus H
Institute of Health Economics, Ste 1200, 10405 Jasper Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, Canada T5J 3N4. E-mail:
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Feb 1;21(2):e171-85.
Presenteeism (decreased productivity while at work) is reported to be a major occupational problem in many countries. Challenges exist for identifying the optimal approach to measure presenteeism. Evidence of the relative value of presenteeism instruments to support their use in primary studies is needed.
To assess and compare the measurement properties (ie, validity, reliability, responsiveness) and the quality of the evidence of presenteeism instruments.
Systematic review.
Comprehensive searches of electronic databases were conducted up to October 2012. Twenty-three presenteeism instruments were examined. Methodological quality was appraised with the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) checklist. A best-evidence synthesis approach was used in the analysis.
The titles and abstracts of 1767 articles were screened, with 289 full-text articles reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 40 studies assessing the measurement properties of presenteeism instruments were identified. The 3 presenteeism instruments with the strongest level of evidence on more than 1 measurement property were the Stanford Presenteeism Scale, 6-item version (content validity, internal consistency, construct validity, convergent validity, and responsiveness); the Endicott Work Productivity Scale (internal consistency, convergent validity, and responsiveness); and the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ; internal consistency and structural validity). Only the HWQ was assessed for criterion validity, with unknown quality of the evidence.
Most presenteeism instruments have been examined for some form of validity; evidence for criterion validity is virtually absent. The selection of instruments for use in primary studies depends on weak forms of validity. Further research should focus on the goal of a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of existing tests of presenteeism, with emphasis on criterion validity.
在许多国家，出勤主义（工作时生产力下降）据报道是一个主要的职业问题。在确定测量出勤主义的最佳方法方面存在挑战。需要有证据证明出勤主义测量工具的相对价值，以支持其在初级研究中的使用。
评估和比较出勤主义测量工具的测量特性（即效度、信度、反应度）以及证据质量。
系统评价。
截至2012年10月，对电子数据库进行了全面检索。对23种出勤主义测量工具进行了审查。使用COSMIN（基于共识的健康状况测量工具选择标准）清单对方法学质量进行评估。分析中采用了最佳证据综合方法。
筛选了1767篇文章的标题和摘要，对289篇全文文章进行了资格审查。其中，确定了40项评估出勤主义测量工具测量特性的研究。在不止一项测量特性上证据水平最强的3种出勤主义测量工具分别是斯坦福出勤主义量表6项版本（内容效度、内部一致性、结构效度、收敛效度和反应度）；恩迪科特工作生产力量表（内部一致性、收敛效度和反应度）；以及健康与工作问卷（HWQ；内部一致性和结构效度）。只有HWQ进行了效标效度评估，证据质量未知。
大多数出勤主义测量工具都已针对某种形式的效度进行了检验；几乎没有效标效度的证据。在初级研究中选择使用的工具取决于效度的薄弱形式。进一步的研究应侧重于对现有出勤主义测试的心理测量特性进行全面评估的目标，重点是效标效度。
