个人感知的发表压力：运用工作压力模型修订发表压力问卷（PPQ）
Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models.
作者信息
Haven Tamarinde L, de Goede Marije Esther Evalien, Tijdink Joeri K, Oort Frans Jeroen
机构信息
1Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management - CAREM, Postbus 814, 1000 AV Amsterdam / Wibautstraat 3b, 1091 GH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
出版信息
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Apr 9;4:7. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0066-6. eCollection 2019.
BACKGROUND
The emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.
METHOD
We constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised PPQ (PPQr) to a convenience sample together with the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). To assess which items best measured publication pressure, we carried out a principal component analysis (PCA). Reliability was sufficient when Cronbach's alpha > 0.7. Finally, we administered the PPQr in a larger, independent sample of researchers to check the reliability of the revised version.
RESULTS
Three components were identified as 'stress', 'attitude', and 'resources'. We selected 3 × 6 = 18 items with high loadings in the three-component solution. Based on the convenience sample, Cronbach's alphas were 0.83 for stress, 0.80 for attitude, and 0.76 for resources. We checked the validity of the PPQr by inspecting the correlations with the MBI and the WDQ. Stress correlated 0.62 with MBI's emotional exhaustion. Resources correlated 0.50 with relevant WDQ subscales. To assess the internal structure of the PPQr in the independent reliability sample, we conducted the principal component analysis. The three-component solution explains 50% of the variance. Cronbach's alphas were 0.80, 0.78, and 0.75 for stress, attitude, and resources, respectively.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the PPQr is a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure in academic researchers from all disciplinary fields. The PPQr strongly relates to burnout and could also be beneficial for policy makers and research institutions to assess the degree of publication pressure in their institute.
背景
对影响因子和出版物数量的强调加剧了研究人员之间的竞争。这种竞争传统上被视为产出高质量研究成果的一种激励，但这种竞争也存在诸如发表压力等不良副作用。为了衡量发表压力对研究人员的影响，开发了《发表压力问卷》（PPQ）。在使用PPQ的过程中，发现了一些问题，促使我们进行修订。
方法
我们采用层面法，基于工作压力模型构建了两个新的分量表。我们将修订后的PPQ（PPQr）与马氏职业倦怠量表（MBI）和工作设计问卷（WDQ）一起施测于一个便利样本。为了评估哪些项目能最好地测量发表压力，我们进行了主成分分析（PCA）。当Cronbach's α>0.7时，信度是足够的。最后，我们在一个更大的、独立的研究人员样本中施测PPQr，以检验修订版的信度。
结果
确定了三个分量，即“压力”“态度”和“资源”。我们在三分量解中选择了3×6 = 18个具有高载荷的项目。基于便利样本，压力分量的Cronbach's α为0.83，态度分量为0.80，资源分量为0.76。我们通过检查与MBI和WDQ的相关性来检验PPQr的效度。压力与MBI的情感耗竭的相关性为0.62。资源与WDQ相关分量表的相关性为0.50。为了评估独立信度样本中PPQr的内部结构，我们进行了主成分分析。三分量解解释了50%的方差。压力、态度和资源分量的Cronbach's α分别为0.80、0.78和0.75。
结论
我们得出结论，PPQr是一种有效且可靠的工具，可用于测量所有学科领域学术研究人员的发表压力。PPQr与职业倦怠密切相关，对政策制定者和研究机构评估其所在机构的发表压力程度也可能有益。
Zotero 插件