Nurse Education Today 34 (2014) 904–905
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Commentary
Validity of the Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale Juan M. Picardo a,b,⁎, Consuelo López-Fernández a,c, María José Abellán Hervás c a b c
Laboratorio de Inteligencia Emocional (HUM843), Universidad de Cádiz, Spain Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Cádiz, Spain Departamento de Enfermería y Fisioterapia, Universidad de Cádiz, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 31 January 2014 Keywords: Emotional labour Emotional work Nursing Factor analysis
s u m m a r y In this article we address concerns raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013) regarding the validity of the Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale (ELS). We respond to requests in relation to the translated version of the scale and the eigenvalue series. We also give an explanation of the differences in results between the original version and the Spanish version of the scale. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
First, we want to thank Brumit and Glenn (2013) for the constructive nature of their comments which allowed us to clarify some issues on which we all agree. We have no option but to agree with Brumit and Glenn (2013) when they pointed out signs of discrepancies in wording. Brotheridge and Lee (2003) describe the duration subscale of the ELS as a question of “how much time” workers devote to client interactions while in the validation study of the Spanish version of the scale, the same dimension is defined as “how many times a professional dedicates to one emotional interaction with the client.” It is obvious that there is a significant difference between the two definitions; in fact, two different things are being defined. We can only regret this error, an error which we attribute to the translation process of the article from Spanish to English. We do not, however, believe that this occurred during the process of translation and adaptation of the English version of the ELS in which the duration subscale was conceptualized in the same way as Brotheridge and Lee (2003). In the English version of the ELS (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003), the first item assesses the Duration dimension and it is as follows: “A typical interaction I have with a customer takes about … minutes.” In the Spanish version of ELS, the same item is translated as: “En una interacción normal con un usuario/paciente suelo emplear unos … minutos.” In the process of adaptation of the original scale to the context in which it would be used, we add the word patient (paciente) along with the word customer (usuario) to adapt the scale to the healthcare arena. Apart from the above mentioned word: patient; the first item of the Spanish version of the ELS is a fairly accurate translation of the statement in the original version. Despite this, we regret our error and appreciate the comment
⁎ Corresponding author at: Laboratorio de Inteligencia Emocional (HUM843), Universidad de Cádiz, Spain. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Picardo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.01.014 0260-6917/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
made by Brumit and Glenn (2013) as we have had the opportunity to clarify an issue which certainly compromises our conclusions. The second issue raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013) refers to the lack of information about the eigenvalue series in our study (Picardo et al., 2013). Brotheridge and Lee (2003) used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the multidimensional factor structure of ELS and then validated it using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data of full- or part-time workers in a variety of occupations: sales and office clerks, restaurant servers, professionals, outdoor workers and other workers in a variety of occupations. They performed an EFA using principal factors extraction with varimax rotation on the items from all the scales developed in their study (intensity, frequency, duration, deep acting and surface acting). They extracted four factors; all of them with eigenvalues greater than 1.00, accounting for a total of 60.5% of the variance. We agree with Brumit and Glenn (2013) that information of this nature is absent in our study. However, their comment allows us to include it on these subsequent pages. When an EFA was performed using principal factor extraction with varimax rotation on all of the items of the Spanish version of the ELS, five factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 (3.73; 2.23; 1.51; 1.25 and 1.01) accounting for a total of 64.91% of the variance. The factor that accounted for the largest amount of variance (24.87%) contained all the items for variety (#11, #6 and #13) with the higher loadings. The second factor accounted for a total of 14.89% of the variance and contained all the items for deep acting (#4, #10 and #15) with the higher loadings. The third factor, accounting for a total of 10.06% of the variance, contained all the items for surface acting (#12, #8 and #14) with the higher loadings. The fourth factor, accounting for a total of 8.35% of the variance, contained all items for frequency (#2, #5 and #7) with the higher loadings. The fifth factor with only one item was duration and accounted for 6.75% of the variance.
J.M. Picardo et al. / Nurse Education Today 34 (2014) 904–905
From the above results we can conclude that the factor solution is congruent with the proposed multidimensionality of the original scale (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003). All subscales of the English version of ELS appear as separate and distinct factors in the EFA performed on the Spanish version. But Brotheridge and Lee (2003), in relation to their results in EFA, reported that “the items for intensity, variety and duration formed the second factor, perhaps reflecting a lack of distinctiveness as perceived by respondents.” This is not the case in the EFA performed on the Spanish version of the ELS in which respondents were able to differentiate accurately between all dimensions or subscales. It seems that the Spanish version of the ELS is more consistent than the English version with the theoretical framework from which both scales were constructed; or perhaps nurses and nursing students studying in Spain knew perfectly well what was being asked of them because as Brumit and Glenn (2013) point out: emotional work is an “important topic” in nursing. Emotional management is mandatory in nursing, and nurses and nursing students are aware of its importance and they are immersed in its disciplinal and scientific discussion. It is possible that the sellers, office clerks, restaurant servers, professionals, outdoor workers and other workers in the study of Brotheridge and Lee (2003) found it harder to know exactly what was being asked of them. Furthermore, and in relation to the third issue raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013), it is possible that what we have covered up until this point clarifies more reasons for the differences between the testing results in the English and Spanish versions of the ELS. For the purposes of validating the Spanish version for all professions dedicated to working with people, we agree with the above authors that “a more
905
effective method would have been obtaining a sample that resembled the one used for the English version as closely as possible,” but our purpose was to validate the Spanish version of the ELS as an instrument to be used in research by nurses and other health care providers, and this justified the choice of our sample as well as the journal in which it was published. We seek to provide Spanish-speaking nurses with a relevant tool to study an important professional topic and with significant results for the health care arena. In fact, practically the whole conceptual framework where this study features is directed to emphasize the importance of working with emotions for the nursing profession. The validation study of the Spanish version of the ELS was the first step towards a larger project aimed at justifying the need to develop emotional management competencies in health care professionals. Finally we would like to thank Brumit and Glenn (2013) once more because sometimes errors and omissions do occur and sometimes there are different views and opinions, or simply different ways to analyse the same data. Ultimately, the way in which the above authors raise their discussion on the accuracy of the Spanish version of the ELS promotes scientific development. References Brotheridge, C.M., Lee, R.T., 2003. Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 76 (3), 365–379. Picardo, J.M., et al., 2013. The Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale (ELS): a validation study. Nurse Educ. Today 33 (2013), 1130–1135. Brumit, E.M., Glenn, L.L., 2013. Accuracy of the Spanish Emotional Labour Scale. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.05.013.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt
Commentary
Validity of the Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale Juan M. Picardo a,b,⁎, Consuelo López-Fernández a,c, María José Abellán Hervás c a b c
Laboratorio de Inteligencia Emocional (HUM843), Universidad de Cádiz, Spain Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Cádiz, Spain Departamento de Enfermería y Fisioterapia, Universidad de Cádiz, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 31 January 2014 Keywords: Emotional labour Emotional work Nursing Factor analysis
s u m m a r y In this article we address concerns raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013) regarding the validity of the Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale (ELS). We respond to requests in relation to the translated version of the scale and the eigenvalue series. We also give an explanation of the differences in results between the original version and the Spanish version of the scale. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
First, we want to thank Brumit and Glenn (2013) for the constructive nature of their comments which allowed us to clarify some issues on which we all agree. We have no option but to agree with Brumit and Glenn (2013) when they pointed out signs of discrepancies in wording. Brotheridge and Lee (2003) describe the duration subscale of the ELS as a question of “how much time” workers devote to client interactions while in the validation study of the Spanish version of the scale, the same dimension is defined as “how many times a professional dedicates to one emotional interaction with the client.” It is obvious that there is a significant difference between the two definitions; in fact, two different things are being defined. We can only regret this error, an error which we attribute to the translation process of the article from Spanish to English. We do not, however, believe that this occurred during the process of translation and adaptation of the English version of the ELS in which the duration subscale was conceptualized in the same way as Brotheridge and Lee (2003). In the English version of the ELS (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003), the first item assesses the Duration dimension and it is as follows: “A typical interaction I have with a customer takes about … minutes.” In the Spanish version of ELS, the same item is translated as: “En una interacción normal con un usuario/paciente suelo emplear unos … minutos.” In the process of adaptation of the original scale to the context in which it would be used, we add the word patient (paciente) along with the word customer (usuario) to adapt the scale to the healthcare arena. Apart from the above mentioned word: patient; the first item of the Spanish version of the ELS is a fairly accurate translation of the statement in the original version. Despite this, we regret our error and appreciate the comment
⁎ Corresponding author at: Laboratorio de Inteligencia Emocional (HUM843), Universidad de Cádiz, Spain. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Picardo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.01.014 0260-6917/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
made by Brumit and Glenn (2013) as we have had the opportunity to clarify an issue which certainly compromises our conclusions. The second issue raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013) refers to the lack of information about the eigenvalue series in our study (Picardo et al., 2013). Brotheridge and Lee (2003) used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the multidimensional factor structure of ELS and then validated it using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data of full- or part-time workers in a variety of occupations: sales and office clerks, restaurant servers, professionals, outdoor workers and other workers in a variety of occupations. They performed an EFA using principal factors extraction with varimax rotation on the items from all the scales developed in their study (intensity, frequency, duration, deep acting and surface acting). They extracted four factors; all of them with eigenvalues greater than 1.00, accounting for a total of 60.5% of the variance. We agree with Brumit and Glenn (2013) that information of this nature is absent in our study. However, their comment allows us to include it on these subsequent pages. When an EFA was performed using principal factor extraction with varimax rotation on all of the items of the Spanish version of the ELS, five factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 (3.73; 2.23; 1.51; 1.25 and 1.01) accounting for a total of 64.91% of the variance. The factor that accounted for the largest amount of variance (24.87%) contained all the items for variety (#11, #6 and #13) with the higher loadings. The second factor accounted for a total of 14.89% of the variance and contained all the items for deep acting (#4, #10 and #15) with the higher loadings. The third factor, accounting for a total of 10.06% of the variance, contained all the items for surface acting (#12, #8 and #14) with the higher loadings. The fourth factor, accounting for a total of 8.35% of the variance, contained all items for frequency (#2, #5 and #7) with the higher loadings. The fifth factor with only one item was duration and accounted for 6.75% of the variance.
J.M. Picardo et al. / Nurse Education Today 34 (2014) 904–905
From the above results we can conclude that the factor solution is congruent with the proposed multidimensionality of the original scale (Brotheridge and Lee, 2003). All subscales of the English version of ELS appear as separate and distinct factors in the EFA performed on the Spanish version. But Brotheridge and Lee (2003), in relation to their results in EFA, reported that “the items for intensity, variety and duration formed the second factor, perhaps reflecting a lack of distinctiveness as perceived by respondents.” This is not the case in the EFA performed on the Spanish version of the ELS in which respondents were able to differentiate accurately between all dimensions or subscales. It seems that the Spanish version of the ELS is more consistent than the English version with the theoretical framework from which both scales were constructed; or perhaps nurses and nursing students studying in Spain knew perfectly well what was being asked of them because as Brumit and Glenn (2013) point out: emotional work is an “important topic” in nursing. Emotional management is mandatory in nursing, and nurses and nursing students are aware of its importance and they are immersed in its disciplinal and scientific discussion. It is possible that the sellers, office clerks, restaurant servers, professionals, outdoor workers and other workers in the study of Brotheridge and Lee (2003) found it harder to know exactly what was being asked of them. Furthermore, and in relation to the third issue raised by Brumit and Glenn (2013), it is possible that what we have covered up until this point clarifies more reasons for the differences between the testing results in the English and Spanish versions of the ELS. For the purposes of validating the Spanish version for all professions dedicated to working with people, we agree with the above authors that “a more
905
effective method would have been obtaining a sample that resembled the one used for the English version as closely as possible,” but our purpose was to validate the Spanish version of the ELS as an instrument to be used in research by nurses and other health care providers, and this justified the choice of our sample as well as the journal in which it was published. We seek to provide Spanish-speaking nurses with a relevant tool to study an important professional topic and with significant results for the health care arena. In fact, practically the whole conceptual framework where this study features is directed to emphasize the importance of working with emotions for the nursing profession. The validation study of the Spanish version of the ELS was the first step towards a larger project aimed at justifying the need to develop emotional management competencies in health care professionals. Finally we would like to thank Brumit and Glenn (2013) once more because sometimes errors and omissions do occur and sometimes there are different views and opinions, or simply different ways to analyse the same data. Ultimately, the way in which the above authors raise their discussion on the accuracy of the Spanish version of the ELS promotes scientific development. References Brotheridge, C.M., Lee, R.T., 2003. Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 76 (3), 365–379. Picardo, J.M., et al., 2013. The Spanish version of the Emotional Labour Scale (ELS): a validation study. Nurse Educ. Today 33 (2013), 1130–1135. Brumit, E.M., Glenn, L.L., 2013. Accuracy of the Spanish Emotional Labour Scale. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.05.013.
