Cited by 38Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and BurnoutHealth Education and Validation

Validation of the Italian version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale in nurses

Open access
Cicolini, Giancarlo, Della Pelle, Carlo, Cerratti, Francesca, Franza, Marcello, Flacco, Maria E.·2016·Journal of Nursing Management

Abstract

AIMS: To ascertain the validity and reliability of the Italian version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6). BACKGROUND: Presenteeism has been associated with a work productivity reduction, a lower quality of work and an increased risk of developing health disorders. It is particularly high among nurses and needs valid tools to be assessed. METHODS: A validation study was carried out from July to September 2014. A three-section tool, made of a demographic form, the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) was administered to a sample of nurses, enrolled in three Italian hospitals. RESULTS: Cronbach's α for the entire sample (229 nurses) was found to be 0.72. A significant negative correlation between SPS and perceived stress scores evidenced the external validity. The factor analysis showed a two-component solution, accounting for 71.2% of the variance. The confirmatory factor analysis showed an adequate fit. CONCLUSION: The Italian SPS-6 is a valid and reliable tool for workplace surveys. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Since the validity and reliability of SPS-6 has been confirmed for the Italian version, we have now a valid tool that can measure the levels of presenteeism among Italian nurses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jonm.12362

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Demerouti E., Le Blanc P.M., Bakker A.B., Schaufeli W.B. & Hox J. (2009) Sickness absence as risk-taking behaviour: a study of organisational and cultural factors in the public sec- tor. Career Development International 14 (1), 50-68.
  2. Falco A., Girardi D., Parmiani G. et al. (2013) Presenteismo e salute dei lavoratori: effetti di mediazione sullo strain psico- fisico in un'indagine longitudinale. Giornale Italiano Medicina del Lavoro Ergonomico 35 (3), 138-150.
  3. SPS-6 Italian validation 13652834, 2016, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jonm.12362 by Mount Vernon Nazarene University, Wiley Online Library on [27/08/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License · DOI
  4. Laranjeira C.A. (2013) Validation of the Portuguese version of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale in nurses. International Jour- nal of Nursing Practice 19 (6), 644-650.
  5. Lowe G. (2002) Here in body, absent in productivity: presen- teeism hurts output, quality of work-life and employee health. Canadian HR Reporter: The National Journal of Human Resource Management 2 (1), 1-2.
  6. Turpin R., Ozminkowski R.J., Sharda C.E. et al. (2004) Relia- bility and validity of the Stanford Presenteeism Scale. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46, 1123- 1133.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cicolini, G., Della Pelle, C., Cerratti, F., Franza, M., & Flacco, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
  • Department of Medicine and Science of Aging; University “G. d'Annunzio” of Chieti; Chieti Abruzzo Italy
Venue
Journal of Nursing Management
Published
2016-03-03
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
598-604
ISSN
0966-0429 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2290378491
Cited by
38
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nursing Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
presenteeism, Stanford Presenteeism Scale, nurses, Italian translation, psychometric validation, perceived stress, labor productivity, occupational health, scale reliability, factor structure
MeSH terms
Presenteeism, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Translating, Reproducibility of Results, Workplace, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review