Adaptation and validation into Spanish of the Workplace Dignity Scale
Adaptación y validación al español de la Escala Dignidad en el Trabajo
Mario Sainz
,
Roberto M. Lobato
,
Frida Porras-Caballero
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, (2021), 53, pp. 64-72.
Received 8 September 2020
Accepted 15 June 2021
Introducción y objetivo: Los trabajadores pueden enfrentar muchas amenazas mientras realizan su rutina diaria que podrían socavar su dignidad, como comentarios denigrantes de supervisores o compañeros de trabajo. Negar la dignidad de los trabajadores constituye una amenaza directa para su bienestar. El objetivo de este artículo fue adaptar y validar la versión en español de la Workplace Dignity Scale (WDS). Método: Se realizó un diseño instrumental con el fin de adaptar la escala al español con población mexicana (N = 588). Después de realizar una traducción inversa, se realizaron tres estudios donde se aplicaron análisis factoriales confirmatorios, correlaciones, regresiones y un análisis de invarianza. Resultados: Los resultados mostraron que la adaptación al español se ajusta a la estructura de seis factores de la escala original y que la deshumanización organizacional y la auto-objetivación de los trabajadores predecían la dignidad en el trabajo; siendo la auto-objetivación de los trabajadores la variable que predecía en mayor medida la dignidad de los trabajadores. Finalmente, también se evaluó la invariancia de medición comparando nuestros datos con los resultados de la escala original. En general, los resultados indicaron que aun cuando la versión en español de la WDS presentaba una estructura factorial adecuada, su medición presentaba cargas factoriales y pendientes diferentes en comparación con la medición de la escala original. Conclusiones: En general, contamos con un instrumento adaptado al contexto mexicano que nos permite evaluar el sentido de dignidad de los trabajadores en el lugar de trabajo.
Palabras clave
Dignidad, indignidad, escala, lugar de trabajo, hispanohablantes
Introduction and objective: Workers contend with many threats while performing their daily routine that could undermine their dignity, such as denigrating comments from supervisors or co-workers. Denying workers’ dignity constitutes a direct threat towards their well-being. The aim of this paper is to adapt and validate the Spanish version of the Workplace Dignity Scale (WDS). Method: An instrumental design was executed in order to adapt the scale to Spanish with a Mexican population (N = 588). Following back-translation, three studies were conducted in which confirmatory factor analysis, correlations, regressions, and invariance analysis were applied. Results: The results showed that the Spanish adaptation conforms to the six-factor structure of the original scale and that organisational dehumanisation and workers’ self-objectification predicted dignity at work; with workers’ self-objectification being the variable that most strongly predicted workers’ dignity. Finally, we also evaluated measurement invariance comparing our data with the results of the original scale. In general, results indicated that even when the Spanish version of the WDS presented an adequate factor structure, its measurement presented different factor loadings and slopes compared with the measurement of the original scale. Conclusions: In general, we have an instrument adapted to the Mexican context that allows us to evaluate workers’ sense of dignity in the workplace.
Keywords:
Dignity, indignity, scale, workplace, spanish speakers
Ackroyd, S. (2007). Dirt, work and dignity. In S. C. Bolton (Ed.), Dimensions of dignity at work (pp. 30-49). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-8333-3.50008-1
Baldissarri, C., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2019). Feeling like an object: A field study on working self-objectification and belief in personal free will. TPM – Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 26, 185-197. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM26.2.1
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33(4), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin S., & De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15328007SEM0902_5
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748
Djurdjevic, E., Stoverink, A. C., Klotz, A. C., Koopman, J., da Motta Veiga, S. P., Yam, K. C., & Chiang, J. T. J. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1124-1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000202
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812-820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & S. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment (pp. 3-38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399-423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press.
Kline, R. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
Leana, C. R., Mittal, V., & Stiehl, E. (2012). Perspective – Organizational behavior and the working poor. Organization Science, 23, 888-906. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0672
Lobato, R. M., Sainz, M., & García-Sánchez, E. (2020). Adaptation and validation of the Self-Censorship Orientation (SCO) Scale into Spanish/Adaptación y validación de la escala de Orientación a la Autocensura (OAC) al español. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 310-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1723367
Lucas, K. (2015). Workplace dignity: Communicating inherent, earned, and remediated dignity. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 621-646. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12133
Lucas, K. (2017). Workplace dignity. In C. R. Scott & L. Lewis (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of organizational communication (Vol. 4, pp. 2549-2562). Wiley Blackwell.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892
Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2010). Developing a new measure of work alienation. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14, 293-309. https://doi.org/10.2190/wr.14.3.c
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
Sayer, A. (2007). Dignity at work: Broadening the agenda. Organization, 14, 565-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508407078053
Spontón, C. L., Trógolo, M. A., Castellano, E., Morera, L. P., & Medrano, L. (2019). Desarrollo y validación de una escala para medir satisfacción con los recursos laborales. Suma Psicológica, 26(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2019.v26.n1.8
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1556375
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812
Thomas, B., & Lucas, K. (2019). Development and validation of the workplace dignity scale. Group and Organization Management, 44, 72-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118807784
Tiwari, A., & Sharma, R. R. (2019). Dignity at the workplace: Evolution of the construct and development of workplace dignity scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02581
Tye-Williams, S., & Krone, K. J. (2015). Chaos, reports, and quests: Narrative agency and co-workers in stories of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914552029
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981-1002. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X481382
Vesga Rodríguez, J. J., Rubiano, M. G., Forero Aponte, C., Aguilar Bustamante, M. C., Jaramillo, J. Á., Quiroz González, E., Castaño González, E. J., Andrade Jaramillo, V., & Gómez Vélez, M. A. (2020). Aspectos de la cultura organizacional y su relación con la disposición al cambio organizacional. Suma Psicológica, 27(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2020.v27.n1.7
Yalden, B. J., & McCormack, B. (2010). Constructions of dignity: A pre-requisite for flourishing in the workplace? International Journal of Older People Nursing, 5, 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-3743.2010.00218.x
Yu, K. H. (2016). Immigrant workers’ responses to stigmatized work: Constructing dignity through moral reasoning. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58, 571-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185615609204