Barrientos-Gutiérrez T, Martínez-Alcántara S, Méndez-Ramírez I

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 516-523
PDF size: 129.84 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To evaluate the construct validity and the internal reliability of the Subjective Symptoms of Fatigue Test (SSFT), as well as to establish its best cutoff point. Materials and Methods. The SSFT was developed in Japan to measure fatigue in a population of workers; the test includes 30 items in three spheres. Construct validity was explored through differences among groups, using a population of 1399 workers from eight industries studied in Mexico City in 1999. We used the Theorell and Karasek’s control-demand model as our nomological network, from which we derived two work hypotheses. Workers were divided into nine groups according to their level of control-demand; fatigue differences were assessed using analysis of covariance. The internal reliability level was tested with Cronbach’s alpha. The cutoff point was obtained by means of the expected linear relation between the labor demands and fatigue. Results. The distribution of SSFT values was similar to the expected values, increasing proportionally with increasing demands or with decreasing control. The differences between groups were statistically significant. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89, while the value per sphere was always above 0.70. The cut-off points most closely correlated were 6 and 7 affirmative answers. Conclusions. The observed score obtained in the distinct groups was as expected, in agreement with the study hypotheses. The internal reliability of the test was adequate. The proposed cutoff point for the general population was seven affirmative responses.

REFERENCES

1. 1 Martínez S. El estudio de la integridad mental en su relación con el proceso de trabajo. México, DF: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco; 2000; serie académicos CBS; vol. 23: 187-199.

2. 2 Saito Y, Kogi K, Kashiwagi S. Factors underlaying subjective feelings of fatigue. J Sci Lab 1970; 46(4): 205-224.

3. 3 Yoshitake H. Three characteristic patterns of subjective fatigue symptoms. Ergonomics 1978; 21 (3): 231-233.

4. 4 Almirall P, Seyes M. Relación entre índices subjetivos y objetivos de fatiga. Validación de una prueba. Rev Cub Hig Epid 1982; 20: 239-248.

5. 5 Escalona E, De Urosa E, González R, Romero E, Lamarca R, Jirón C et al. Fatiga laboral en controladores de tránsito aéreo. Rev Salud Trabajo 1996; 4(2): 99-108.

6. 6 Noriega M, Laurell C, Martínez S, Méndez I, Villegas J. Interacción de las exigencias de trabajo en la generación de sufrimiento mental. Cad Saude Publica 2000; 16(4):1011-1019.

7. 7 Martínez S, Tamez S, Ortiz L, Méndez I. Control del trabajo, exigencias laborales y daños a la salud en trabajadores de un diario informativo en la Ciudad de México. Rev Salud de los Trabajadores 2000; 8(1):5-22.

8. 8 Coelho F, Sawada N. A fadiga nos pacientes com cáncer de laringe. Rev Latinoam Enfermagem 1999; 7(5):103-107.

9. 9 Milligan R, Parks P, Kitzman H, Lenz E. Measuring women´s fatigue during the postpartum period. J Nurs Meas 1997; 5(1):3-16.

10. 10 Cronbach L, Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955; 52: 281-302.

11. 11 Grandjean E. Fatigue in industry. Brit J Ind Med 1979; 36: 175-186.

12. 12 Stellman J, Daum S. El trabajo es peligroso para la salud. México, DF: Siglo XXI; 1986: 89-104.

13. 13 Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Nueva York: Basic Books Inc; 1990.

14. 14 Noriega, M. El trabajo, sus riesgos y la salud. En defensa de la salud en el trabajo. México, DF: SITUAM; 1989: 5-12.