Psychometric properties of scales in the General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work (QPSNordic): Confirmatory factor analysis and prediction of certified long-term sickness absence

Psychometric properties, particularly predictive validity, of scales in the General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work (QPS_Nordic) were assessed. The analysis is confined to the scales in the QPS_Nordic, and 24 of the 26 scales are included. A large group of Swedish county council employees ( n = 3,976; response rate = 65%) participated in a study and were given the QPS_Nordic. Register data for long-term sick leave (>90 days), with diagnosis, were used for predictive analysis. The following main results were obtained: Reliability was generally satisfactory, confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit, concurrent validity was good, some less often investigated organizational variables predicted sickness absence, and scales were differentially associated with absence due to psychiatric and musculoskeletal disorders. In conclusion, the psychometric testing of the QPS_Nordic so far suggests that it is a good instrument for assessing health-related factors at work.     

Is there an optimal factor structure of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale in patients with first‐episode psychosis?

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is the most widely used scale to assess a variety of symptoms in patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses. The factor structure of the PANSS has been examined with confirmatory factor analyses in several studies, but not in a well‐defined first‐episode psychosis sample. The aim of this paper is to examine the statistical fit of five different PANSS models in a first‐episode, non‐affective psychosis sample. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on PANSS data (n = 588). A main criterion for best fit was defined as the Expected Cross Validation Index (ECVI). No tested model revealed an optimally satisfactory model fit index. The Wallwork/Fortgang five‐factor model demonstrated the most optimal psychometric properties. The corresponding subscales of all evaluated five‐factor models were strongly intercorrelated. The Wallwork/Fortgang five‐factor model was found to be statistically and clinically ideal among patients with first‐episode psychosis. Therefore, we recommend this model in forthcoming studies among patients with first‐episode psychosis. However, to prevent the loss of clinically valuable information on an item level, we do not recommend removing any items from the original form. Our study also implies that the specific choice of model will not have a substantial effect on outcome results in studies on the course and outcome in first‐episode psychosis.     

AN EXPLORATION OF MEMBER ROLES AS A MULTILEVEL LINKING MECHANISM FOR INDIVIDUAL TRAITS AND TEAM OUTCOMES

We use data from 220 individuals in 45 teams to examine team member roles as a cross-level linking mechanism between personality traits and team-level outcomes. At the individual level, peer ratings of task role behavior relate positively with Conscientiousness and negatively with Neuroticism and Extraversion. Peer ratings of social role behavior relate positively with Agreeableness and negatively with Openness to Experience. At the team level, a composition process of aggregation operates such that the mean for social roles corresponds with social cohesion. Compilation processes of aggregation also occur, as the variance of social roles corresponds negatively with task performance, and the variance of task roles corresponds negatively with cohesion. Skew of the distribution for social roles within each team—a measure of critical mass of members individually enacting the role—also correlates with social cohesion.     

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale III in a Norwegian Sample

Olson's Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales (FACES III) and Beavers' Self-report Family Inventory (SFI) were administered to 177 young Norwegian adults. Three questions were raised: (1) do the two-factor structure and curvilinear hypothesis of Olson's model of family functioning find support cross-culturally; (2) does curvilinearity depend on whether families of origin or procreation are described; and (3) does the data analytic technique dictate the results. In 1985, in their manual, Olson and his associates proposed the use of Distance from Center (DFC) scores to test the curvilinear hypothesis, a procedure that presupposes orthogonality between the dimensions of Cohesion and Adaptability, which was not found in several other samples nor in the present study. Using DFC scores, the curvilinear hypothesis received moderate support only when families of origin were described. A polynomic regression analysis gave clear evidence, however, of a linear relationship between the FACES dimensions and SFI Health Scores for both families of origin and families of procreation. The findings suggest that respondents do not have an implicit bipolar model of cohesion and adaptability.     

The Sociomoral Reflection Measure: Applicability to Swedish children and adolescents

The Sociomoral Reflection Measure (SRM; Gibbs & Widaman, 1982) was developed as a group administerable instrument for measuring developmental stages of moral reasoning. The aim of this study was to examine its reliability and construct validity, employing a sample of 542 Swedish elementary and high school students (aged 8-17), from schools within metropolitan Stockholm. Interrater reliability varied between 0.83 and 0.92, and the internal consistency coefficient was 0.76. Factor analyses of the norms (on which the overall score is based) revealed one factor for the oldest age group (16-17 years), but two factors among the younger subjects (8-15 years), clearly separating the norms related to each of the two moral dilemmas. The Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score was moderately, but significantly, related to both age and grade. The results suggests that, although used in a non-American context and with self-trained raters, the SRM seems highly applicable in Sweden, at least for research purposes.     

Psychological distress and subjective well‐being in partners of somatically ill or physically disabled: The Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study

Borren, I., Tambs, K., Idstad, M., Ask, H. & Sundet, J. M. (2012). Psychological distress and subjective well‐being in partners of somatically ill or physically disabled: The Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 475–482. This study investigated the cross‐sectional associations between various somatic conditions in one partner and the level of distress and well‐being in the spouse. The study is based on survey data from the Norwegian Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study, HUNT II (1995–1997). A sample of 9,797 married or cohabiting couples with valid data on subjective well‐being (SWB), psychological distress (Hopkins Symptom Check List (SCL)‐10) and somatic illness were identified. Regression analyses stratified by sex were conducted with SCL‐10 and SWB scores as dependent variables and a joint somatic score as predictor, including; stroke, cancer, angina, myocardial infarction and physical disability (PD). The contribution of each somatic condition was also explored. Spouses of persons previously diagnosed with at least one somatic condition scored significantly lower on SWB and significantly higher on SCL‐10 than spouses of healthy persons, though effect sizes were small. The effect seems to be at least partly mediated by the ill partner’s psychological distress. Of the specific conditions, PD had the most significant contribution for both genders, though an association between male angina and spousal distress/SWB was also demonstrated.     

Validation of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder

Hellvin, T., Sundet, K.,Vaskinn, A., Simonsen, C.,Ueland, T., Andreassen, O.A. & Melle, I. (2010). Validation of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51, 525–533. Studies of social functioning in severe mental disorders are disadvantaged by the multitude of different assessment instruments in use. The present study aims to establish reliability and validity of the Norwegian version of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) and to examine social functioning in bipolar disorder (BD) compared to schizophrenia (SZ) and healthy controls (HC). SFS, a 76 item questionnaire divided into seven subscales measuring various aspects of daily life functioning, was administered to samples diagnosed with BD (n = 100) or SZ (n = 100) and to HC (n = 100), recruited from the ongoing Tematic Organized Psychosis (TOP) study. Reliability analyses prove adequate psychometric properties both for the composite full scale score (α: 0.81) as well as for the seven subscale scores (α: 0.60–0.88). Principal component analysis of the subscales confirms a one‐component structure, explaining 59% of the variance. Although significantly correlated with the Global Assessment of Functioning, our results indicate that the SFS measures different aspects of social functioning, is less influenced by demographic and clinical characteristics, but differentiates at the same time significantly BD from SZ. Thus, SFS adds valuable information as a supplement to standard clinician‐rated assessment tools of social functioning, suited both for research and clinical work.     

A new Swedish social attitude scale: Reliability and construct validity

The aim was to construct an updated and balanced version of a previous Swedish social attitude scale (Sidanius, 1976), and to assess the reliability and construct validity, employing a sample of 445 students, aged 14–17, from schools within metropolitan Stockholm. The results showed acceptable precision and internal consistency and reasonably high test-retest reliability for the scale as a whole. The a priori attitude domains (political-economic conservatism, religion, punitiveness, social inequality, ethnocentrism, and environment) were identified through use of confirmatory factor analysis. Most domains showed acceptable reliability. Differing results for the various age groups indicated that the present version of the scale should not be used among subjects below the age of 15.