Search

Introduction: As work-stress, is associated with Non Communicable Diseases, and decreased work productivity, health and economic benefits are expected from periodic work-stress screening among employees using valid and reliable tools. Tool to Assess and classify Work Stress (TAWS– 16) was developed to overcome limitations in existing work-stress assessment tools in India. This study aims to test face, content, criterion and construct validity of TAWS– 16 in a sample of managerial-supervisory employees. Methods: Nine domain experts rated face and content validity of TAWS– 16. Content validity was measured by Content Validity Indices (I-CVI, S-CVI) and Modified Kappa statistics. Empirical validity was tested by analysing data reported from 356 Information Technology (IT) professionals wherein Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted for the assessment of Construct Validity. Self-reported data was collected in an unlinked and anonymous manner using a web-link, which was emailed to the study subjects, after initial introductory telephone or personal conversation. Criterion Validity was tested against stress sub-scale of DASS– 21. This study was approved by NIMHANS ethics committee. Results: Findings revealed that TAWS– 16 has good face validity. The content validity is acceptable (CVI = 0.829). Construct Validity is appropriate as 60.8% of the total variance was explained by the factors identified in our study. Criterion Validity was moderate (Kappa Value 0.208) due to inappropriate work-stress instrument for comparison with TAWS– 16. Conclusions: Overall, TAWS– 16 demonstrated good face, content and construct validity. It measures work-stressors, coping abilities and psycho-somatic symptoms associated with work-stress. We recommend use of TAWS– 16 for periodic screening and classification of work-stress among employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Global Program to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis aims to interrupt transmission of lymphatic filariasis and manage morbidity in people currently living with the disease. A component of morbidity management is improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients. Measurement of HRQoL in current management programs is varied because of the lack of a standard HRQoL tool for use in the lymphatic filariasis population. Methodology/Principal Findings: In this study, the psychometric properties of three health status measures were compared when used in a group of lymphatic filariasis patients and healthy controls. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and the Lymphatic Filariasis Quality of Life Questionnaire (LFSQQ) were administered to 36 stage II and stage III lymphatic filariasis subjects and 36 age and sex matched controls in Kerala, India. All three tools yielded missing value rates lower than 10%, suggesting high feasibility. Highest internal consistency was seen in the LFSQQ (α = 0.97). Discriminant validity analysis demonstrated that HRQoL was significantly lower in the LF group than in controls for the WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ, but total HRQoL scores did not differ between stage II and stage III lymphedema subjects. The LFSQQ total score correlated most strongly with the WHODAS 2.0 (r = 0.91, p<0.001) and DLQI (r = 0.81, p<0.001). Conclusions/Significance: The WHODAS 2.0, DLQI, and LFSQQ demonstrate acceptable feasibility, internal consistency, discriminate validity, and construct validity. Based on our psychometric analyses, the LFSQQ performs the best and is recommended for use in the lymphatic filariasis population. Author Summary: Lymphatic filariasis affects approximately 120 million people and is the second leading cause of life-long disability worldwide. Because lymphatic filariasis is one of the World Health Organization's six eradicable diseases, much effort has been placed into reducing transmission of the disease and managing morbidity. Novel interventions frequently use health-related quality of life as an outcome measure to monitor efficacy of the intervention. In an effort to delineate the strengths and weaknesses of health status measures and recommend use of a single tool in the lymphatic filariasis population, we compared the use of three health status tools (The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and the Lymphatic Filariasis Quality of Life Questionnaire) in lymphatic filariasis subjects and healthy controls in Kerala, India. The Lymphatic Filariasis Quality of Life Questionnaire performed the best by discriminating well between subjects and controls, possessing significant content overlap with the other two tools, yielding a low missing value rate, and being internally consistent. This is the first study to compare health status measures in lymphatic filariasis subjects and provides insight into the use of the tools in quality of life analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]