The psychometric adequacy of the scales used in the present study was confirmed in two master theses relying on the present study sample (Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016; Ranung and Wramsby, 2016).

Perceived health was assessed with an index combined of two scales. One scale came from the Longitudinal Analysis of Nurses Education/Entry in work life (LANE) project (Gustavsson and Hultell, 2013). That scale consisted of three items [“How well are you,” “How stressed do you feel” (reversed), and “I feel as if I am too tired to go to work in the morning” (reversed)]. It was combined with three items from the Shirom Melamed (Shirom and Melamed, 2006) burnout questionnaire (“I feel tired,” “I feel fed up,” and “I feel physically drained”). Reversing the items means that higher values indicate better perceived health, and lower values the opposite. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1, to a very small; 5, to a very large extent). In the present sample, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed a unidimensional structure, and the scale showed high internal reliability (α = 0,87, Ranung and Wramsby, 2016).

Life satisfaction was assessed with the Swedish version (Hultell and Gustavsson, 2008) of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 7, strongly agree). It contains items such as “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal,” and “I am satisfied with my life.” A unidimensional structure has been confirmed by CFA (Hultell and Gustavsson, 2008). In the present sample, the SWLS showed good internal reliability (α = 0.87; Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016).

Work-related basic psychological needs satisfaction was assessed with the 18-item Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (NSFS; Aurell et al., 2016). The scale consists of three six-item subscales; competence (e.g., “In my job, I feel I am good at the things I do”), autonomy (e.g., “In my job, I have a say in how things are done”), and relatedness (e.g., “In my job, I feel close to other people”), all rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1, to a very low extent, 7, to a very high extent). In the present sample, internal reliability was good for all NSFS subscales (α = 0.83 for the competence subscale, α = 0.86 for the autonomy subscale, and α = 0.92 for the relatedness subscale; Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016).

Work-related psychological flexibility was assessed with the Swedish version of the seven-item Work-related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (WAAQ-S; Bond et al., 2013; Holmberg et al., 2019), rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1, never applies; 7 always applies). It contains items such as “I am able to work effectively in spite of any personal worries that I have” and “I can admit to my mistakes at work and still be successful.” In the present sample, the WAAQ showed good internal reliability (α = 0.83; Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016).

Occupational self-efficacy was measured with a five-item short version of the Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES, Rigotti et al., 2008), rated on a six-point Likert scale (1, strongly agree; 6, strongly disagree). It contains items such as “My past experiences in my job have prepared me well for my occupational future”, “I meet the goals that I set for myself in my job” and “I feel prepared for most of the demands in my job.” The items were accompanied by the stem “[Regarding your] belief in your ability to cope in your work as a psychologist in training/licensed psychologist.” A unidimensional CFA structure has been confirmed in a Swedish sample (Rigotti et al., 2008). In the present sample, the OSES showed good internal reliability (α = 0.85; Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016).

The transition between education and working life was assessed with a five-item scale from the Longitudinal Analysis of Nurses Education/Entry in work life (LANE) and Prospective Analysis of Teachers Health (PATH) projects (Gustavsson and Hultell, 2013). The items address social support and stress perceived during the transition [e.g., “I have had the support I need from coworkers in the transition” and “I have perceived the transition as stressful in a negative way” (reversed)]. In order to fit the present sample, the respondents rated their transition (a) between the university and working as a psychologist in training and (b) between working as a psychologist in training and working as a licensed psychologist. One additional item was added to the scale assessing the transition between university education and employment as a psychologist in training (“I have received the support I needed from my supervisor in the transition”) to fit the working conditions for psychologists in training. In Sweden, psychologists in training are assigned a supervisor (senior psychologist) responsible for their training. The items were rated on a six-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree; 6, strongly agree). In the present sample, both scales showed good internal reliability (α = 0.83 for the six-item transition scale targeting the transition between university studies and working as a psychologist in training, and α = 0.85 for the five-item transition scale targeting the transition between working as a psychologist in training and working as a licensed psychologist; Frelijj Gonzales and Hakola, 2016).

To investigate aspects of the work environment, we used subscales from the long and medium versions of the Swedish version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire – second version (COPSOQ-II; Pejtersen et al., 2010; Berthelsen et al., 2014). Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1, to a very small extent; 5, to a very large extent). In line with the recommended use of the COPSOQ-II (Berthelsen et al., 2014), we selected subscales based on relevance to our research question. The subscales all showed adequate internal reliability in the present sample; emotional demands (four items, α = 0.76), influence at work (three items, α = 0.71), social support (four items, α = 0.75), the social community at work (four items, α = 0.82), and job satisfaction (four items, α = 0.76).

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.



Q&A
Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.



We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.