Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Atencion Primaria logoLink to Atencion Primaria
. 2008 Nov 24;40(7):327–334. [Article in Spanish] doi: 10.1157/13124124

Medición de la capacidad evaluadora del cuestionario CVP-35 para la percepción de la calidad de vida profesional

Measurement of the evaluative capacity of the CVP-35 questionnaire for perceiving quality of professional life

Jesús Martín Fernández a,⁎, Tomás Gómez Gascón b, Carlos Martínez García-Olalla c, María Isabel del Cura González d, María del Carmen Cabezas Peña e, Salvador García Sánchez f
PMCID: PMC7659823  PMID: 18620633

Abstract

Objective

To establish the CVP-35 evaluative properties to measure the professional quality of life (PQL).

Design

Prospective, observational study.

Setting

A primary care area in the Community of Madrid, Spain.

Participants

A total of 149 sanitary workers with some burnout sign measured by Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) participated.

Measurements

They fulfilled MBI, Goldberg Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28), and CVP-35 questionnaires at the beginning and after a year of follow-up, in which 73 subjects took part in activities for coping stress. It was assessed the change of PQL and their domains managerial support (PQL-MS), work load (PQL-WL), intrinsic motivation (PQL-IM) for the subjects with variations at the MBI, or GHQ-28 punctuation greater than 0.5 SD of the initial distribution.

Results

Variations in CVP-35 and their domains correlate weakly with changes in MBI and GHQ-28 (r<0.500), but they are congruent with the conceptual model. In the individuals with significant variations in the GHQ-28, they appreciate an average change in PQL and their domains between 0.18 and 0.55 points (absolute value). In those with significant variations in the MBI domains, PQL presented average absolute variations between 0.23 and 0.45 points, PQL-MS between 0.30 and 0.67, PQL-WL between 0.01 and 0.55 and PQL-IM between 0.22 and 0.83 points.

Conclusions

CVP-35 is a sensitive-to-change instrument under population point of view. Changes in PQL perception or in any of their domains of 0.5 points could be pointed as relevant.

Key words: Job satisfaction, Questionnaires, Validation, Sensitivity-to-change

Bibliografía

  • 1.Verhaeghe R., Vlerick P., Gemmel P., Van Maele G., De Backer G. Impact of recurrent changes in the work environment on nurses’ psychological well-being and sickness absence. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:646–656. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04058.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Martín-Fernández J., Gómez-Gascón T., Beamud-Lagos M., Cortés-Rubio J.A., Alberquilla-Menéndez-Asenjo A. Professional quality of life and organizational changes: a five-year observational study in Primary Care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:101. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Escribá-Aguir V., Martín-Baena D. Psychosocial work environment and burnout among emergency medical and nursing staff. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;80:127–133. doi: 10.1007/s00420-006-0110-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Van Vegchel N., De Jonge J., Bosma H., Schaufeli W. Reviewing the effort-reward imbalance model: drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1117–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Johnson J.V., Stewart W., Hall E.M., Fredlund P., Theorell T. Long- term psychosocial work environment and cardiovascular mortality among Swedish men. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:324–331. doi: 10.2105/ajph.86.3.324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Siegrist J. Place, social exchange and health: proposed sociological framework. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1283–1294. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00092-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Karasek R. The political implications of psychosocial work redesign: a model of the psychosocial class structure. Int J Health Serv. 1989;19:481–508. doi: 10.2190/66AM-Q4PF-PUHK-5BT1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.García Sánchez S. La qualitat de vida professional com a avantatge competitiu. Revista de Qualitat. 1993;11:4–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cabezas Peña C. La calidad de vida de los profesionales. FMC. 2000;7(7):53–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Warren N., Hodgson M., Craig T., Dyrenforth S., Perlin J., Murphy F. Veterans Health Administration. Employee working conditions and healthcare system performance: the Veterans Health Administration experience. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49:417–429. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31803b94ce. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Escriba-Aguir V., Mas R., Flores E. Validación del Job Content Questionnaire en personal de enfermería hospitalario. Gac Sanit. 2001;15:142–149. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(01)71533-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Meliá J.L., Peiró J.M. El cuestionario de satisfacción S10/12: estructura factorial, fiabilidad y validez. Rev Psicol Trab Org. 1989;4:179–187. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mira J.J., Vitaller J., Buil J.A., Aranaz J., Rodríguez-Marín J. Satisfacción y estrés laboral en médicos generalistas del sistema público de salud. Aten Primaria. 1994;14:1135–1140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martín J., Cortés J.A., Morente M., Caboblanco M., Garijo J., Rodríguez A. Características métricas del Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida Profesional (PQL-35) Gac Sanit. 2004;18:129–136. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(04)71817-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jorge Rodríguez F., Blanco Ramos M., Issa Pérez S., Romero García L., Gayoso Diz R. Relación de la calidad de vida profesional y el burnout en médicos de atención primaria. Aten Primaria. 2005;36:442–447. doi: 10.1157/13081058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alonso M., Iglesias A.I., Franco A. Percepción de la calidad de vida profesional en un área sanitaria de Asturias. Aten Primaria. 2002;30:483–489. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(02)79084-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cortés Rubio J.A., Martín Fernández J., Morente Páez M., Caboblanco Munoz M., Garijo Cobo J., Rodríguez Balo A. Clima laboral en atención primaria: ¿qué hay que mejorar? Aten Primaria. 2003;32:288–295. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(03)79277-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Muñoz-Seco E., Coll-Benejam J.M., Torrent-Quetglas M., Linares-Pou L. Influencia del clima laboral en la satisfacción de los profesionales sanitarios. Aten Primaria. 2006;37:209–214. doi: 10.1157/13085951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guyatt G.H., Feeny D.H., Patrick D.L. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–629. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Van Saane N., Sluiter J.K., Verbeek J.H., Frings-Dresen M.H. Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction-a systematic review. Occup Med (Lond) 2003;53:191–200. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqg038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maslach C., Jackson S.E. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occup Behav. 1981;2:99–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gil-Monte P.R., Peiro J. Un estudio comparativo sobre criterios normativos y diferenciales para el diagnóstico del síndrome de quemarse en el trabajo (burnout) según el MBI-HSS en España. Rev Psicol Trab Org. 2000;2:135–149. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lobo A., Pérez-Echeverría M.J., Artal J. Validity of the scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in a Spanish population. Psychol Med. 1986;16:135–140. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700002579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wyrwich K.W., Bullinger M., Aaronson N., Hays R.D., Patrick D.L., Symonds T. The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:285–295. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moreno Jiménez B., Bustos R., Matallana A., Miralles T. La evaluación del burnout. Problemas y alternativas. El CBB como evaluación de los elementos del proceso. Rev Psicol Trabajo Org. 1997;13:185–207. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guyatt G.H., Osoba D., Wu A.W., Wyrwich K.W., Norman G.R., Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383. doi: 10.4065/77.4.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Norman G.R., Sridhar F.G., Guyatt G.H., Walter S.D. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39:1039–1047. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Norman G.R., Sloan J.A., Wyrwich K.W. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–592. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Juniper E.F., Guyatt G.H., Willan A., Griffith L.E. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–87. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Proyecto AP21. Estrategias para la Atención Primaria del siglo XXI. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2006.

Articles from Atencion Primaria are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES