Open AccessSTREQ-25: CONSTRUÇÃO E VALIDAÇÃO DE UM INSTRUMENTO PARA AVALIAR ESTRESSE
Author(s) -
Heleise F. R. Oliveira,
Angela F. Stockler M. Barros,
Cláudio Novelli,
Fábio da Silva Ferreira Vieira,
Fernanda C. Turrioni,
Gustavo Celestino Martins,
Kelmerson Henri Buck,
José Ricardo Lourenço de Oliveira,
Leandro Borelli de Camargo,
Raul Marcel Casagrande,
Elto Legnani,
Valter R. Moraes,
Ricardo Pablo Passos,
Guanis de Barros Vilela
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
revista cpaqv
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2178-7514
DOI - 10.36692/v9n2-1
Subject(s) - psychology , construct validity , discriminant validity , stressor , applied psychology , reliability (semiconductor) , concurrent validity , internal consistency , quality of life (healthcare) , content validity , quality (philosophy) , construct (python library) , external validity , social psychology , psychometrics , clinical psychology , computer science , psychotherapist , philosophy , power (physics) , physics , epistemology , quantum mechanics , programming language
Quality of life (QOL) may refer to a conceptual and quite complex discussion due to specific definition lack and poor procedures and instruments able to measure it. In this study, QOL’s instrument validation is based upon stressor and stress triggering agents. Foreign instruments may not always reach their goals as Brazilian and Latin American cultural differences shall compromise the data quality. In Brazil, questionnaires assessing organizational environment stress are scarce and often not validated. Objective: to demonstrate the construction and validation of an easy to apply instrument gathering stress and QOL. As a question problem, it was asked: What steps are to be followed for the construction and validation of an instrument? Methods: A 25 questions instrument was divided into four areas: Work environment; social relations; leisure; sleep. Six steps for instrument validation were followed: 1- Content Validity (or construct); 2- Internal Consistency; 3- Discriminant Validity; 4- Criterion Validity; 5- Concurrent Validity; and 6- Temporal Reproducibility. Results: The data is coherent to the instrument initially thought. Conclusions: The instrument is valid and reliable. It may be concluded that it effectively measures what it proposes to, consistently demonstrating success