Precarious employment in Chile: psychometric properties of the Chilean version of Employment Precariousness Scale in private sector workers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to perform a psychometric analysis (acceptability, reliability and factor structure) of the Chilean version of the new Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES). The data is drawn from a sample of 4,248 private salaried workers with a formal contract from the first Chilean Employment Conditions, Work, Health and Quality of Life (ENETS) survey, applied to a nationally representative sample of the Chilean workforce in 2010. Item and scale-level statistics were performed to assess scaling properties, acceptability and reliability. The six-dimensional factor structure was examined with confirmatory factor analysis. The scale exhibited high acceptability (roughly 80%) and reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.83) and the factor structure was confirmed. One subscale (rights) demonstrated poorer metric properties without compromising the overall scale. The Chilean version of the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES-Ch) demonstrated good metric properties, pointing to its suitability for use in epidemiologic and public health research.

What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies

“…Within fixed term contracts, some studies included "on demand" contracts as well as seasonal employment (22,32,33,100). Other times fixed-term contracts were identified by contract duration, with inconsistency as to length, ranging from longer than a month but shorter than a year, to contracts lasting <3 months or only a month (12,36,39,61,62). Insecurity deriving from fixed-term contracts and not knowing if, for how long or when these contracts were going to be renewed, was the major feeling experienced by the workers and described in the qualitative studies (67,70,73,74,81).…”

“…Even though this dimension encompasses only one theme -income level -there is a high heterogeneity in how studies have defined and operationalized this variable. Income level was mainly investigated as hourly wage, monthly salary, or annual income (12,27,36,43,(59)(60)(61)(62). One study made a distinction between direct and indirect income in order to be able to differentiate between wage and any supplementary income derived from other sources, such as government transfers and government-and employer-sponsored benefits (75).…”

“…Studies also investigated whether workers had access and/or power to exercise workplace rights such as, protection against unfair dismissal, protection from authoritarian treatment, discrimination or harassment (12,36,60,78,83). Other studies mainly looked at the effect of lack of workplace rights, from unacceptable working practices, forced labor and inability to demand better working conditions (12,36,61,62,66,81).…”

“…In this dimension, diverse themes were collected with the common features that they fall outside the realm of employment and work. The two most dominant themes in this dimension were health outcomes and social deprivation (46,53,62,65,70,77). Social support was also a theme derived from a small number of studies (62,67,77).…”

Precarious employment in occupational health – an OMEGA-NET working group position paper

“…Researchers affiliated with the GREDS-EMCONET (Health Inequalities Research Group -Employment Conditions Network) in Barcelona developed the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES), which includes six dimensions: "temporariness" (contract duration), "disempowerment" (level of negotiation of employment conditions), "vulnerability" Bodin et al (defenselessness to authoritarian treatment), "wages" (low or insufficient; possible economic deprivation), "rights" (such as paid vacations, parental leave, sickleave benefits and pensions), and "exercise rights" (powerlessness, in practice, not being able to exercise the workplace rights listed previously without obstacles) (11). So far, the EPRES scale has only been employed in studies of working populations in Spain (15,16), Chile (17), and Sweden (18). The only other purpose-specific survey instrument to measure PE is from Canada.…”