Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Bangla Quantitative Workload Inventory among Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment Workers: Evidence from Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory

The quantitative workload is the most crucial factor influencing employee well-being and mental health, especially in Bangladeshi garment workers. This study aimed to culturally adapt and validate the Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI). The adaptation process followed established cross-cultural guidelines, including forward and backward translation, expert review, and pre-testing. The finalized Bangla QWI was administered to 406 ready-made garment (RMG) workers, and its psychometric properties were evaluating classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) approaches. Findings revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .821, McDonald’s ω = .834), satisfactory item discrimination, an acceptable test-retest reliability (r = .728), and a single-factor structure of the Bangla-QWI supported by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Graded Response Model (GRM) analysis supported item performance. Measurement invariance findings across gender showed configural, metric, and scalar invariance, supporting the scales’ comparability between male and female workers. Convergent validity was evidenced by a significant positive association with mental health difficulties (r = .330, p = < .001). It is a valid and culturally reliable tool for measuring workload among RMG workers. It helps researchers and organizations in designing interventions to manage workload and promote worker health.

Keywords

Adaptation, IRT analysis, Psychometric validation

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Akhter, S., Rutherford, S., Akhter Kumkum, F., Bromwich, D., Anwar, I., Rahman, A., & Chu, C. (2017). Work, gender roles, and health: neglected mental health issues among female workers in the ready-made garment industry in Bangladesh. Taylor & FrancisS Akhter, S Rutherford, F Akhter Kumkum, D Bromwich, I Anwar, A Rahman, C ChuInternational Journal of Women’s Health, 2017•Taylor & Francis, 9, 571–579. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S137250 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baka, Ł., & Bazińska, R. (2016). Polish adaptation of three self-report measures of job stressors: The interpersonal conflict at work scale, the quantitative workload inventory and the organizational constraints scale. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 22(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2015.1116816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Baker, F. B. (2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory. Second Edition. Eric.Ed.Gov, 1–187. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bakhshi, E., Mazloumi, A., Hoseini, S. M., Bakhshi, E., Mazloumi, A., Hoseini, S. M., Bakhshi, E., Mazloumi, A., Hoseini, S. M., Bakhshi, E., Mazloumi, A., & Hoseini, S. M. (2019). Relationship Between Mental Fatigue and Mental Workload Among Nurses. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2019 21:1, 21(1), e83082. https://doi.org/10.5812/ZJRMS.83082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115/FULL/HTML [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bakker, A., health, E. D.-J. of occupational, & 2017, undefined. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Psycnet.Apa.OrgAB Bakker, E DemeroutiJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2017•psycnet.Apa.Org, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Balducci, C., Alessandri, G., Zaniboni, S., Avanzi, L., Borgogni, L., & Fraccaroli, F. (2021). The impact of workaholism on day-level workload and emotional exhaustion, and on longer-term job performance. Taylor & Francis, 35(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2020.1735569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Basheer, M., Hafeez, M., Hassan, S., Paradigms, U. H.-, & 2018, undefined. (n.d.). Exploring the role of TQM and supply chain practices for firm supply performance in the presence of organizational learning capabilities: a case of textile firms in. Researchgate.NetMF Basheer, MH Hafeez, SG Hassan, U HaroonParadigms, 2018•researchgate.Net. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Journals.Lww.ComDE Beaton, C Bombardier, F Guillemin, MB FerrazSpine, 2000•journals.Lww.Com, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bowling, N. A., Alarcon, G. M., Bragg, C. B., & Hartman, M. J. (2015). A meta-analytic examination of the potential correlates and consequences of workload. Taylor & FrancisNA Bowling, GM Alarcon, CB Bragg, MJ HartmanWork & Stress, 2015•Taylor & Francis, 29(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1033037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Wiley Online LibrarySR Briggs, JM CheekJournal of Personality, 1986•Wiley Online Library, 54(1), 106–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6494.1986.TB00391.X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chen, W., and, D. T.-J. of E., & 1997, undefined. (1997). Local dependence indexes for item pairs using item response theory. Journals.Sagepub.ComWH Chen, D ThissenJournal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 1997•journals.Sagepub.Com, 22(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003265 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsem, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Taylor & FrancisED Diener, RA Emmons, RJ Larsen, S GriffinJournal of Personality Assessment, 1985•Taylor & Francis, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA4901_13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121-149. https://doi.org/10.11177/0748175610373459 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage publications limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journals.Sagepub.ComDC Ganster, CC RosenJournal of Management, 2013•journals.Sagepub.Com, 39(5), 1085–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Goldberg, D., medicine, V. H.-P., & 1979, undefined. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Cambridge.OrgDP Goldberg, VF HillierPsychological Medicine, 1979•cambridge.Org, 9, 139–145. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/scaled-version-of-the-general-healthquestionnaire/855845C6B366DB4AEDD66C350320D2A9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2014). Introduction to the t statistic. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences, 8(252). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hays, R., Morales, L., care, S. R.-M., & 2000, undefined. (n.d.). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Journals.Lww.ComRD Hays, LS Morales, SP ReiseMedical Care, 2000•journals.Lww.Com. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200009002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Hu, L., a, P. B.-S. equation modeling:, & 1999, undefined. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Taylor & FrancisL Hu, PM BentlerStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999•Taylor & Francis, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hulin, C. (2001). Can a reliability coefficient be too high?. J Consum Psychol, 10(1–2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. International Test Commission. (2018). ITC guidelines... - Google Scholar. (n.d.). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Jama, W. M. A.-, & 2013, undefined. (n.d.). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jamanetwork.Com. Retrieved January 10, 2026, from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1760318/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 285-308. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Linden, W. Van Der, response, R. H.-H. of modern item, & 1997, undefined. (1997). Item response theory: Brief history, common models, and extensions. Springer, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. MacCallum, R., … M. B.-P., & 1996, undefined. (n.d.). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psycnet.Apa.OrgRC MacCallum, MW Browne, HM SugawaraPsychological Methods, 1996•psycnet.Apa.Org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mamun, M. A., Hossain, M. S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2022). Mental health problems and associated predictors among Bangladeshi students. SpringerMA Mamun, MS Hossain, MD GriffithsInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2022•Springer, 20(2), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11469-019-00144-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of mathematical and statistical Psychology, 34(1), 100-117.https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8317.1981.TB00621 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Marsh, H., bulletin, D. H.-P., & 1985, undefined. (n.d.). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psycnet.Apa.OrgHW Marsh, D HocevarPsychological Bulletin, 1985•psycnet.Apa.Org. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Perneger, T. V., Courvoisier, D. S., Hudelson, P. M., & Gayet-Ageron, A. (2015). Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. SpringerTV Perneger, DS Courvoisier, PM Hudelson, A Gayet-AgeronQuality of Life Research, 2015•Springer, 24(1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11136-014-0752-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rasul, F., & Masood, S. (2022). Reliability and Validity Estimation of Job Stressor Measures Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory and Organizational Constraints Scale in Urdu Language. Foundation University Journal of Psychology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.33897/fujp.v6i1.354 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Salsabilla, A., Setiawan, M., & Juwita, H. A. J. (2022). The effect of workload and job stress on job satisfaction mediated by work motivation. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 11(9). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Schermelleh-Engel, K., … H. M.-… psychological research, & 2003, undefined. (n.d.). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Stats.Ox.Ac.Uk. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Taylor & FrancisJB Schreiber, A Nora, FK Stage, EA Barlow, J KingThe Journal of Educational Research, 2006•Taylor & Francis, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Sijtsma, K., & Molenaar, I. (2002). Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xxJaRuLC_4sC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=Sijtsma,+K.,+%26+Molenaar,+I.+W.+(2002).+Introduction+to+nonparametric+item+response+theory.+SAGE+Publications.&ots=votqjCzku6&sig=XOHJz13kc4VsnS7p5D1XtXRrBGw [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Sorcar, N. R., & Rahman, A. (1990). Occupational stress, marital status and job satisfaction of working women. The Dhaka University Studies, 11(1), 55-61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Sousa RN, V. D., Rojjanasrirat RNC IBCLC, W., & Valmi Sousa, C. D. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Wiley Online LibraryVD Sousa, W RojjanasriratJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2011•Wiley Online Library, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2753.2010.01434.X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Spector, P., psychology, S. J.-J. of occupational health, & 1998, undefined. (1998a). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload. Psycnet.Apa.OrgPE Spector, SM JexJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1998•psycnet.Apa.Org, 3(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Spector, P., psychology, S. J.-J. of occupational health, & 1998, undefined. (1998b). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload. Psycnet.Apa.OrgPE Spector, SM JexJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1998•psycnet.Apa.Org, 3(4), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Strout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55(2), 293-325. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Tate, R. (2003). A comparison of selected empirical methods for assessing the structure of responses to test items. Applied psychological measurement, 27(3), 159-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621602250510 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Wicaksono, W., Tangibali, C., … A. U.-P. J. of L., & 2024, undefined. (n.d.). The Happiness Factor: Job Satisfaction as a Buffer between Workload-Included Stress and Productivity. Pjlss.Edu.Pk, 12(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jemis.2024.012.01.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Yen, W. M. (1984). Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168400800201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Yuan, D., Gazi, M. A. I., Rahman, M. A., Dhar, B. K., & Rahaman, M. A. (2022). Occupational stress and health risk of employees working in the garments sector of Bangladesh: An empirical study. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.938248 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Bangla Quantitative Workload Inventory among Bangladeshi Ready-Made Garment Workers: Evidence from Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory

Authors

Article Information

Publication Timeline

Abstract

Keywords

Downloads

References

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles