CC BY
0
Research article UDC 159.9
https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2024.1.10
Illegitimate Police Task Stress Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Evaluation
Saleha Iqbal1* , Rozmi Ismail1 , Abdul Rahman Ahmad bin Badayai1 , Umbreen Khizar2 Rizwana Amin3
1 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
2 Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan, Pakistan
3 Effat University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudia Arabia
* Corresponding author: p97188@siswa.ukm.edu.my
Abstract
Introduction. In the police profession, illegitimate tasks have detrimental impacts on personal and organizational wellbeing. It affects job performance, job satisfaction level and relationship between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. There is no valid questionnaire to measure illegitimate police task stress. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric features of illegitimate police tasks stress questionnaire (IPTSQ). Methods. The present study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore illegitimate tasks among police officials (N=620) in Pakistan. We conducted exploratory factor analysis on 160 employees and later cross validated on best factor structure identified by way of confirmatory factor analysis on 460 police officials. Results. The result showed that the illegitimate police tasks stress questionnaire was composed of 21 items with 2 factors (unnecessary tasks and unreasonable tasks). The composite reliability of IPTSQ was 0.89. Discussion. In conclusion, it is valid, reliable and easy to use scale. The psychometric properties of this scale are satisfactory, making it well-suited for research purposes, policies, or decision makers in police department. This scale would help the police department evaluate and prioritize tasks in a way that is consistent with their fundamental goal of maintaining public safety and enforcing the law.
ПСИХОЛОГИЯ ТРУДА
Keywords
Illegitimate tasks, police stress, unnecessary police tasks, unreasonable police tasks, police employees, scale, questionnaire
For citation
Iqbal, S., Ismail, R., Ahmad bin Badayai, A. R., Khizar, U., Amin, R., (2024). Illegitimate Police Task Stress Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Evaluation. Russian Psychological Journal, 21(1), 184-209. https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2024.110
Introduction
Stress is a mental and emotional state that increases in critical and demanding circumstances of a job. Employees are doing several tasks that do not meet the specified requirements. and surpass the reasonable expectations of employees (Semer et al., 2015), including unnecessary and unreasonable tasks. Tasks that fail to make sense are deemed unnecessary. Organizational inefficiency and leadership preferences are the usual outcomes of these sorts of activities. Additionally, unreasonable tasks are irrelevant to employees' core role or assignments, that impose undue constraints and making the employee feel unconformable (Pindek, Demircioglu, Howard, Eatough & Spector, 2019). Illegitimate stressors are hard to avoid (Fein & McKenna, 2022) and it may experience adverse mental health concerns (Mensah et al., 2022). From an emotional standpoint, Pindek and colleagues discovered that employees' negative emotions stem from illegitimate tasks. From a behavioural perspective, they are linked to the inactive or passive activities of employees (Pindek et al., 2019). For example, Ouyang and his colleagues observed that employees experience more burnout when assigned illegitimate tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022). Another study indicated that illegitimate tasks drastically reduce proactive customer service performance (Zhao, Jolly & Zhao, 2023), lower wellbeing (Semmer et al., 2020; Mensah et al., 2022), and increase counterproductive behaviours among employees (Ahmad et al., 2022). In various workplaces, illegitimate tasks can be a serious obstacle including healthcare, (Kilponen et al., 2021; Valdivieso Portilla et al., 2021; Anskar et al., 2019; Stein et al., 2020), higher education (Bramlage, Julmi, Pereira & Jackenkroll, 2021), IT professionals (Apostel, Syrek & Antoni, 2018), teachers (Faupel, Otto, Krug & Kottwitz, 2016), engineers (Pindek et al., 2019), administrative staff (Eatough et al., 2015), blue-collar workers (Mauno, Minkkinen & Shimazu, 2022), and also Red Cross volunteers (van Schie, Guntert & Wehner, 2014). Illegitimate tasks are specified to profession. So measurement tool should be adapted or designed according to occupation. Recently, most of the studies use Bern Illegitimate Task Scale (Semmer et al., 2010) to investigate the illegitimate tasks among employees of different organizations (Cheng et al., 2022;
Ouyang et al., 2022; Zong et al., 2022; Faes et al., 2021; Mauno et al., 2022; Zeng et al., 2021; Semmer et al., 2021; Ilyas et al., 2020; Fila & Eatough, 2019), university faculty members (Ahmad et al., 2022), primary school teachers (van Niekerk et al., 2021) and general practitioners (Werdecker & Esch, 2021). There are several limitations for this scale, although, it is designed in academic settings and psychometrically evaluated on different occupations.
Very few scales are designed for targeted population. Anskar and his colleagues explored the illegitimacy of tasks among physicians and nurses (Anskar et al., 2022) and another study developed illegitimate scale for school teachers (van Niekerk et al., 2021). Illegitimate tasks are frequently observed in the workplace. The potential impact of these factors on organizational effectiveness may be detrimental. Additionally, these practices have the potential to negatively impact the overall well-being of employees and influence their behaviour within the organization, extending their effects beyond the workplace and into other aspects of their lives.
As far as the researchers' knowledge, no metric assesses the illegitimate tasks of police officials. In general, there is a need for a standardized scale to measure illegitimate police tasks. The primary objective of this research study was to develop a comprehensive and reliable scale that can be used to evaluate the illegitimate task stress of police officers. The development process involved several stages, including extensive literature review, expert consultation, and pilot testing. The resulting scale was then subjected to rigorous validation procedures to ensure its reliability, validity, and sensitivity to changes in performance. The scale is expected to provide an objective and standardized way of measuring the effectiveness of police officers in carrying out their duties, which can ultimately contribute to improving the quality of law enforcement services and enhancing public safety. It is essential for understanding the problem, identifying patterns of tasks, informing policies, ensuring accountability, and ultimately improving the professionalism and ethical standards within law enforcement agencies.
Methods
Design and setting
This study is a subset of mixed-method research. It was conducted on police officials in Pakistan in 2023. The scale underwent qualitative and quantitative phases for design and psychometric evaluation. Primarily, three phases were established (Boateng et al., 2018). The first phase involved item generation and content validity. The second phase entailed scale development which consisted on pre-testing of generated questions, survey administration, reduction of the number of items, and factor analysis. The third phase involved assessing the validity and testing the reliability of the scale, as well as testing the number of dimensions it contained, which are all necessary stages in the evaluation of the scale phase. The following sections detail all the steps performed in each stage.
Phase 1: Item Development
Identification of the Domain and Item Generation: The first step described the construct of illegitimate police task stress. After the domain is defined, its dimensions are explained to generate the item pool. This process is also known as scale development" (Kline, 2013) or "item generation" (Hinkin, 1995). This study used deductive and inductive methods (Hinkin, 1995). Combining deductive and inductive methods is considered best practice (Loevinger 1957; Clark & Watson 2016). Items were extracted through a review of the relevant literature and assessment of the existing Bern Illegitimate Tasks Scale (Semmer et al. 2010) and by an inductive method, purposive sampling was used to gather data with variation in terms of demographic variables (place of service, age, gender, work experience, and service area). In this phase, 15 police officials were interviewed. Each interview lasted 30-40 min. Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were employed. The primary key questions posed to the participants about tasks ...they must be done at all? as (impractical/outdated ways of working), ... they make sense at all? like (insufficient or dysfunctional information system and other technology), ... If things were organized differently, these tasks could either not exist or require less effort.? (like unnecessary procedures, operations, and measurement), ... Do they only exist because some people insist on having things that way? (as tasks related to bureaucratic demands, administration, and organizational structure). ... Should this task be delegated? Is it beyond your scope? (unclear or unreasonable demands of work),... put you into an awkward position? (as tasks with insufficient resources), ... are unfair for you to have to deal with? (as unethical tasks or difficult situations). Initially, 80 items were generated. The initial inventory pool was twice as large as the desired target scale (Kline 2013; Schinka et al., 2012). Five point Likert scale (never - frequently) was used to measure illegitimate tasks stress during work (Likert et al.,1932; 1993). Five point likert is more reliable than two or three points (Rossi et al., 2013).
Content Validity: Content validity was assessed through evaluation by 5 experts (2 qualitative research experts in psychology and 3 police officials) through the Delphi method which structures the group communication process (Keeney, 2011; Yousaf, 2019). Low-frequency items were discarded. Then choose the questions that were suitable, precise, and understandable. Then, impartial evaluations were conducted by an expert panel. Acceptance, rejection, or modification of item decision was based upon majority opinion (Augustine et al. 2012).
Content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) were utilized to assess content validity. To determine CVR, 5 experts were requested to review each statement on a 3-point scale (essential, not essential, and modify), and according to Lawshe's table the items with CVR >.90 were kept (Polit et al., 2007; Kaewkungwal, 2023). Intending to assess the CVI, five experts observed the relevancy of items on 3 point likert scale criteria. Every item's I-CVI and the total scale's S-CVI were subsequently calculated. The items that had an I-CVI score of 1 were retained in the scale because they were deemed appropriate.
To obtain scale scale-wise content validity index (S-CVI), for every item, the average of the computed item wise content validity index(I-CVI) was utilized. Polit and Beck proposed a score of >0.90 for items are considered accepted items (Polit et al., 2007; Kaewkungwal, 2023). Then high frequency items were retained. 32 items were finalized.
Phase 2: Scale Development
Pre-testing Questions: Following item development and expert judgment, ten cognitive interviews were conducted in order to fine-tune and evaluate the significance of the items and to polish the item structure so that respondents can articulate the cognitive process that went into giving their responses. Respondents represent similar characteristics to the target population. Before administering the survey, pre-testing is done to ensure that the questions are easily comprehensible by the target population. This helps to avoid any misunderstandings and poorly worded items, and facilitates revision of phrasing to be maximally understood. Additionally, it reduces the cognitive load on research participants (Beatty et al., 2007). 22 items were selected for final scale.
Survey Administration and Sample Size: The survey done on 160 police officials (Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988) who were selected through simple random sampling from different police stations in Sindh, Pakistan followed by inclusion criteria (in-service police officials between 20-60 years age). The recommended sample size should be 5 to 10 times as much as the total number of items (Ebadi et al., 2019J.
Extraction of Factors: In order to develop a scale with complete cases, it is important to ensure their availability. the author deleted or imputed missing cases before factor analysis. To find out how many factors or domains best fit a given set of elements, a factor analysis was conducted. In factor analysis, standardised, observable variables are regressed on latent, or hidden, variables. The bivariate regression coefficients, which represent the loading of each observable variable on each component, are also correlations because both the variables and the factors have been standardized. The degree of internal consistency between items and their underlying structure can be understood through factor analysis (McCoach et al., 2013).
For Exploratory Factor Analysis, the author used scree plots, parallel analysis, minimum average partial procedure. Factors extraction utilized to trim down the items. In the context of factor analysis, items that exhibit factor loadings of less than 0.30 are regarded as insufficient since they contribute less than 10% of the variation in the latent construct that is being measured. Consequently, it is generally recommended that items with factor loadings of 0.40 or higher should be retained. This approach ensures that the retained items are more likely to accurately represent the underlying construct and, therefore, provide more meaningful results. (Nunnally 1978; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2011). EFA was performed using SPPSS 28.
Phase 3: Scale Evaluation
Tests of Dimensionality: Dimensionality can be tested using independent cluster model (ICM) confirmatory factor analysis, bifactor modeling, or measurement invariance.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: It was utilized to evaluate the most prevalent goodness of fit indicators of the proposed model against the maximum likelihood estimation threshold (Morin et al. 2016). CFA was performed using AMOS 21. Therefore, the chi-square test of exact fit, Goodness of fit index (GFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were investigated (Bond & Fox 2013).
Tests of Reliability and Validity: A composite reliability index was used and Cronbach's alpha was applied to assess internal consistency. The validity of an instrument can be assessed in multiple ways. Content validity, which is performed before administering the instrument to the target population, is the most common validity test (as described in Step 2). Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the AVE of each variable factor with maximum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV). AVE exceeded of shared variance which indicates that the construct has discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Ethical Considerations
The research was carried out with the approval of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Ethics Committee (UKM PPP/111/8/JEP-2023-475) and all subjects gave their informed permission before taking part.
Results
Table 1 displays the demographic information of law enforcement personnel that were used in the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. EFA had an average age of 3.01 ± 0.56 years, while CFA had an average age of 2.43 ± 1.16 years (Table 1). In the qualitative phase, initially, 80 items were obtained. Afterward, items were evaluated by experts. The expert team reviewed, rewritten or removed the items. Items agreed by experts by indicating items are essential, not essential or modified. At the end, 22 items remained in the final scale (Fig. 1). In the evaluation phase, the Cronbach value of IPTSQ was 0.88. All of the items in the column for Cronbach's Alpha value of if item deleted were greater than 0.85.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Police Officials
Variables Mean (SD)/ N(%) Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis Variables Mean (SD)/ N(%) Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Age: Education 160 (100) 460 (100)
21-30 Years M.Phil/above 1 (.6) 148 (32.2)
31-40 Years Mean (SD) 3.01 (.56) 2.43 (1.16) M.A B.A N (%) 6(3.8) 30(18.8) 127 (27.6) 137 (29.8)
41-50
Years F.A. 59(36.9) 46 (10.0)
51-60 Years Matriculation 64 (40.0) 2 (0.4)
160 460
Gender (100) (100) Work hours
Mean
Male N (%) 145 402 1-8 1.81 (.39) 1.72 (.44)
(90.6) (87.4)
Female 9-16
15 (9.4) 58 (12.6)
(SD)
Designation 460 (100)
Monthly income Constable Head- 160 (100) 5 (3.1) 143 (31.1)
35K-44K, Mean (SD) 2.69 (1.73) Constable 139 (30.2)
45K-54K 55K-64K 65K-74K 2.37 (.92) ASI N (/) 144(90.0) 55 (12.0)
75K-84K 2(1.3)
85K-94K 95K-1lac+ Sub Inspector Inspectors 9(5.6) 88 (19.1) 35 (7.6)
Experience
1-5 Years, 6-10
Years, 1115 Years, 16-20 Years, 2125 Years, 26-30 Years, 3135 Years, >35Yeras
Shift of work 160 (100) 460 (100)
Day, N (/) 49 (30.6) 123 (26.7)
Night 16(10.0)) 33 (7.2)
Both 95 (59.4) 304 (66.1)
Nature of 160 (100) 460 (100)
work
34 (21.3) 82 (17.8)
Mean 3.64 3.51 Office Work N
(SD)' (1.30) (2.24) N (/)
64 (40.0) 186 (40.4)
Field Work
62 (38.8) 192 (41.7)
Both
Figure 1
A summary of the development of IPTSQ
To conduct the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), 22 items were analysed using IBM SPSS 28.0 and the principal component analysis (PCA) method. Before running PCA, we made sure factor analysis was a good fit. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test value was 0.833, which exceeds the recommended value of 0.60 (Kaiser, 1970). Barlett's Test of Sphericity was significant (p<0.001) (Bartlett, 2013). There was enough correlation between the variables to conduct an EFA, as shown by the correlation matrix, which had coefficients of.3 and higher. Factor analysis can now move forward because the study's total sample size was sufficient (Ehido et al., 2020; Muda et al. 2018, 2020; Shkeer & Awang, 2019). PCA showed the presence of five components with eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 27.31%, 11.5%, 6.7%, 5.8%, and 4.77% of the variance, respectively. The observation of the scree plot showed a distinct break after the second component. Two factor solutions were suggested by the scree plot (Fig. 2).
Figure 2
Scree plot
Scree Plot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1:3 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 21 22 Component Number
The decision to investigate further was taken based on Catell's (1966) scree test, which concluded that only two components should be retained. The results from Parallel Analysis supported this conclusion, as only two components had eigenvalues
ПСИХОЛОГИЯ ТРУДА
that exceeded the criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size. (22 variables x 160 respondents) see in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Decision of Retained Factors
Component number Actual Eigenvalue from PCA Criterion value from parallel analysis Decision
1 6.109 1.7361 Accept
2 2.540 1.6017 Accept
3 1.465 1.5003 Reject
4 1.285 1.4198 Reject
5 1.049 1.3416 Reject
Scree plot analysis was rerun with two factors with orthogonal rotation, because three factors did not seem sensible, so it was decided to rerun the analysis with two factor solution with (varimax) rotation. Factors' variances overlap by 10% or more when the correlations are greater than.32.so oblique rotation should be chosen. Otherwise, orthogonal rotation can be used. To better understand the correlation matrix, it is recommended to run oblique rotation initially, which is .24, its means that both components are unrelated so orthogonal rotation (varimax) was run.
It was clear from the eigenvalues that the first component accounted for 27.31% of the variance, second factor explained 11.55% of the variance, and in combination explained 38.86 % of the variance. The eigenvalues of two factor solution were 6.10 and 2.54 respectively. Factor loadings of the rotated component matrix were considered because it provided the well-structured factor solution. These two factors contained 12 (unreasonable police tasks) and 9 (unnecessary police tasks) respectively. Reliability analysis of these two factors revealed Cronbach's alpha for factor 1 unreasonable illegitimate police tasks stress = .87 and factor 2 unnecessary illegitimate police tasks stress.72. Loadings of the rotated component matrix were used to select items with a criterion of 0.40 or higher (Brown et al., 2012). See table 3:
Table 3
Illegitimate Police Task Stress Questionnaire exploratory factor analysis
Factors Items Factor Loadings % Variance
Unreasonable
illegitimate It is unreasonable to compel .843 27.31
police task investigation of false cases.
stress
Forcing me to file false cases is unreasonable.
.800
It is unreasonable to perform illegal or unlawful work for political people's pleasure.
.757
It is unreasonable to abuse subordinates.
.736
Improper and inadequate weapons and untimely duty on processions are .596 unreasonable.
Deploying unorganized personnel on processions and crowds is .573
unreasonable
It gets me into trouble when not letting the right people into the .539
investigation.
It is unfair for employees to spend petrol from their own pocket for duty.
.538
Using the police for unconstitutional purposes is unreasonable.
.528
It is unreasonable to burden subordinate officials with personal affairs by removing them from departmental affairs.
.524
Factors Items Factor Loadings % Variance
Demonstration of work/work
for show in the department is .512
unreasonable.
It is unreasonable to alter the crime .489
statistics.
Unnecessary
illegitimate police task Giving VVIP protocol is unnecessary. .629 11.55
stress
In the age of modern technology, artificial blockade is unnecessary.
Artificial blockade is unnecessary
To present the accused from the
judicial lockup to the court is unnecessary in the age of modern technology
Additional duty is unnecessary
It is unnecessary for the police to perform traffic duties on the roads.
To investigate as per the will of the superior officers is unnecessary.
Keep the traditional paper record is unnecessary in the presence of the front desk computer system
Making political arrests are unnecessary.
It is unnecessary to go to remote areas with very limited resources to catch criminals.
In exploratory factor analysis, one item (statement# It is unnecessary to go to remote areas with very limited resources to catch criminals) was taken off the scale because it failed to meet the minimum factor loading requirement. 21 items persisted in the final questionnaire. Item characteristics of IPTSQ are mentioned in table 4.
.606 .581
.576
.565 .530
.517 .412 .410 .396
Table 4
Item Characteristics of Subscales of Illegitimate Police Task Stress Questionnaire (IPTSQ)
M
SD
rit
a if item deleted
Additional duty is unnecessary
3.1 1.06
.31
.86
Artificial blockade is unnecessary 2.5 1.19 .28
.86
To investigate as per the will of the superior officers is unnecessary.
3.0 1.55 .32
.85
Making political arrests are unnecessary.
Keep the traditional paper record is unnecessary in the presence of the front desk computer system
2.6 1.46 .20
3.4 1.47 .25
.85
.86
In the age of modern technology, artificial blockade is unnecessary.
Giving VVIP protocol is unnecessary.
Using the police for unconstitutional purposes is unreasonable.
2.9 1.44 .35
3.1 1.52 .31
3.1 1.73
.18
.86
.85
.85
9g
It is unreasonable to alter the crime statistics.
2.7 1.70 .24
.85
10
11
To present the accused from the
judicial lockup to the court is unnecessary in the age of modern technology.
Demonstration of work/work for show in the department is unreasonable.
2.9 1.65
.14
3.0 1.72 .13
.86
.85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M SD rit a if item
deleted
It is unreasonable to burden
12 subordinate officials with personal affairs by removing them from departmental affairs. 3.1 1.74 .18 .85
13 It is unnecessary for the police to 2 6 1.67 .16 .86
perform traffic duties on the roads. It is unreasonable to perform С— - VJ
14 illegal or unlawful work for political people's pleasure. 3.7 1.65 .10 .85
15 It is unreasonable to abuse 3 6 1.69 .01 .85
subordinates. It gets me into trouble when not 3.0
16 letting the right people into the investigation. It is unfair for employees to spend 3.6 1.51 .06 .85
17 petrol from their own pocket for duty. 4.4 1.2 .13 .86
18 Forcing me to file false cases is unreasonable. Deploying unorganized personnel 3.8 1.57 .02 .85
19 on processions and crowds is unreasonable. Improper and inadequate weapons 3.7 1.49 .01 .85
20 and untimely duty on processions are unreasonable 3.6 1.54 .13 .85
21 It is unreasonable to compel investigation of false cases. 3.8 1.50 .13 .85
Note: rit = Item total Correlation
The alpha reliability of all the subscales ranged from .72 to .87. The correlation among the factors is 0.40 wit ***p<.001 which shows that factor-1 (unreasonable illegitimate police tasks) was positively and significantly related to factor-2 (unnecessary illegitimate police tasks). There were moderate relationship between the two factors of Illegitimate
Police tasks. In exploratory factor analysis, one item removed from the scale for not reach the minimum factor loading. 21 items remained in the final questionnaire.
The confirmatory factor analysis's general fit indices pointed to the model's accuracy (Table 6). The variables in IPTSQ structure had appropriate factors (table 9). To assess the reliability of the scale 460 police officials were selected. The cronbach's alpha of the entire scale was 0.88. For the factor 1 unreasonable illegitimate police task stress alpha value is 0.89 and for factor 2 which is unnecessary illegitimate police task stress alpha value is 0.79.
For the factorial validity of the illegitimate police task Stress questionnaire, Confirmatory factor analysis was employed through the structural equation model using AMOS. Model fit presented in table 5. Standardized Regression Loadings of First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis presented in fig. 3.
Table 5
Fit Indices of Illegitimate Police Task Stress Questionnaire for Factor
Model
Г
X2/df GFI CFI NNFI(TLI) RMSEA
Initial model
810.308
4.31 .84 .82
.80
.08
Modified first order factor model
489.738 2.76 .90 .90
.89
.06
Note: N=460, AH change in chi square values are computed relative to the model, x2 >.05. GFI= Goodness of fit index, CFI=comparative fit index, NNFI (TLI) =non-normed fit index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation, SRMR=Standardized root mean square, Ax2 = chi square change.
The findings of the fit indices demonstrated for illegitimate police task questionnaire that shown in table 5. The absolute fit of the modified model for factors were X2 (N=460) =489.738, p = .000. The results showed that the data were well-fit by the tested model according to the fit indices. In one key step, the model fit was investigated. Here, we compared the absolute and relative fit indices, which comprise CFI, NFI, and RMSEA. Because of its sensitivity to parameter counts and sample sizes, the chi-square test of absolute model fit is not always the best choice for investigators looking to evaluate a model's overall data fit. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a x2/df ratio between 1 and 3, RMSEA values of .08 or less, and CFI, TLI, NFI, and GFI values of .9 or higher are considered good, while .9 < .8 is considered acceptable. Considering that the initial model had an RMSEA of.08, GFI, CFI, and NNFI values of.84,.82, and.80, respectively, and x2/df of 4.31, the model was determined to not fit well based on the descriptive measures of fit.
Figure 3
Standardized Regression Loadings of First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Following the modification indices, the procedure of model modification commenced and it shown in fig. 4. Modification indices mentioned covariance between errors of items because they are similar in content (Kenny 2011; Tomás & Oliver 1999) the criteria of modification indices of error covariance should be at least 4.0 (Barnidge & De Zúñiga, 2017). Therefore, only the covariance with a chi-square value of 4 or higher was included. Once again, we compared the absolute and relative fit indices (RMSEA, GFI, CFI, and NNFI). The Root Mean Square Error of approximation (RMSEA) for the modified first and second order model after adding covariance was .06, whereas the GFI, CFI and NNFI values were.90, .90, .88 respectively, while x2/df was 2.76. These were accurate enough to fit the model as we can see from the figure 4.
Figure 4
Standardized Regression Loadings of First Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis after Adding Covariance
The two factors' standardised regression loadings of illegitimate police task questionnaire (see table 6).
Table 6 Standardized Regression Loadings of the Items
Item Description Loading
1 Additional duty is unnecessary .47
2 Artificial blockade is unnecessary .48
3 To investigate as per the will of the superior officers is unnecessary. .54
4 Making political arrests are unnecessary. .52
5 6 Keep the traditional paper record is unnecessary in the presence of the front desk computer system In the age of contemporary technology, artificial blockade is unnecessary. .59 .65
7 Giving VVIP protocol is unnecessary. .56
8 It is unnecessary for the police to perform traffic duties on the roads. .55
9 10 11 To present the accused from the judicial lockup to the court is unnecessary in the age of modern technology. It is unreasonable to burden subordinate officials with personal affairs by removing them from departmental affairs. It is unreasonable to perform illegal or unlawful work for political people's pleasure. .59 .54 66
12 It is unreasonable to abuse subordinates. .50
13 14 It gets me into trouble when not letting the right people into the investigation. It is unfair for employees to spend petrol from their own pocket for duty. .64 .65
15 Forcing me to file false cases is unreasonable. .76
16 17 Deploying unorganized personnel on processions and crowds is unreasonable Improper and inadequate weapons and untimely duty on processions are unreasonable .50 .53
18 It is unreasonable to compel investigation of false cases. .73
19 Demonstration of work/work for show in the department is unreasonable. .65
20 Using the police for unconstitutional purposes is unreasonable. .65
21 It is unreasonable to alter the crime statistics. .71
Hair and his colleagues argued that the standardized loading should be 0.50 or greater. (Hair et al., 2017). Table 7 shows all item standardised loadings exceed 0.50. The factor load values of all except two items of factor-1 and one item of factor-2 had low loading however it is .47 to .48 which is not a serious issue regarding factor loading because it is approaching the cited criteria. Presents descriptive statistics, reliability, and validity (see table 7).
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Validity of the Factors
Factors K M SD CR AVE MSV ASV
Unnecessary Police Tasks 09 24.08 8.40 0.79 0.30 .20 .20
Unreasonable Police Tasks 12 77.67 12.68 0.89 0.42 .20 .20
Note: k = no. of items CR = Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV=Maximum Shared Variance, ASV=Average Shared Variance
Table 8
Accepted index threshold and confirmatory factor analysis fitting model
Fitting Indexes
Acceptable Range
IPTSQ results
P-value RMSEA CFI
NNFI (TLI) GFI
X2/df
>0.05
Good <0.08, medium 0.08 to 0.1, and weak <0.1
>0.9 >0.9 >0.90 Between 1 and 3
0.000 0.08 0.90 0.89 0.90 2.76
A composite reliability index was used to determine the measures' reliability. The composite reliability index is higher than the minimum recommended level of 0.70, as shown in Table 7. (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Hair et al. (2017) states that average variance extracted (AVE) values of 0.50 or higher are required. However, the AVE values for the factors of unnecessary illegitimate police task and unreasonable illegitimate police
task were below this recommended level. However, an acceptable level of convergent validity for a construct is defined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) as an AVE below 0.50 and a composite reliability greater than 0.60. To determine whether the variables have discriminant validity, we compared the AVE of each factor with the MSV and the average shared variance (ASV). AVE exceeded of shared variance which indicates that the construct has discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker 1981).
Discussion
The current research set out and test a scale that police officers can use to quantify the illegitimate tasks during their duties. A total of twenty-one items and two components make up this survey including unreasonable police task and unnecessary police tasks. Illegitimate tasks are a major cause of stress among employees. They entail any duties that violate the norms of what an employee should be responsible for (Semmer et al., 2015; Wang & Jiang, 2023). World Health Organization define that stress arises when employees are presented work demands that are not matched with their knowledge and abilities (WHO, 2020). Police work is most exhausting and stressful profession. Work stress leads to distressing experiences, can have a substantial negative impact on psychological health (Ding & Kuvaas, 2023; Geronazzo-Alman et al., 2017).
These illegitimate police task stress is a fairly new construct that, in contrast to other stressor models, has not yet been absolutely investigated empirically. Since research into illegitimate tasks is yet limited, The primary focus of this research was to determine if this stressor is significant and applicable to the police profession.
At the very pinnacle of our scale, for both of the factors that contribute to illegitimate police tasks, the following statement was added: please provide your opinion on whether or not the following tasks are unreasonable or unnecessary, and rate them on a five-point Likert scale ranging from never to frequently appropriately. The present study's findings demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability. An acceptable range of content validity was achieved. The present study's findings demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability. An acceptable range of content validity was achieved. Polit and his colleagues suggested that in case of five experts the acceptable range of CVI is 1. IPTSQ's factor loading ranged from 0.47 to 0.76.The Spanish version of the Bern Illegitimates Task has a factor loading of 0.53 to 0.89. Moreover, The findings from this research demonstrated 38.86 of the variance in IPTSQ with 21 items and two factors. Another study was done to assess the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of Bern Illegitimate Task Scale on nursing staff. With 8 items and 2 factors (unnecessary and unreasonable). The general BITS of Spanish version described 51.86% of the variance corresponded to items 5-8; for the meantime, the other factor explained 22.1% of the variance for 1-4 items (Valdivieso Portilla et al., 2021). Most of the previous researches used Bern Illegitimate Task Scale (Semmer et al., 2010) for different populations (Bramlage, 2021; Apostel, 2018; Faupal 2016; Eatough, 2016). In contrast, current study is novel as it designed specifically for police
force. It measures unnecessary and unreasonable tasks in police profession. Furthermore, the overall cronbach's alpha reliability of IPTSQ was 0.88 and the Cronbash's alpha of its dimension ranged from 0.79 to 0.89. The other Spanish version of BITS had alpha value 0.89 (Valdivieso Portilla et al., 2021). The Cronbash's alpha for BITS used in another study was 0.92 (Wang, & Zong, 2023). Using confirmatory factor analysis and the chi-square test, authors made sure that the final IPTSQ factor structure model was a satisfactory fit. The significance of the Chi-square test results was determined by considering that the Chi-square value is highly sensitive to the sample size (Kyriazos, 2018), the model fit was also examined regarding other indicators. Two models were proposed by the researchers, and the best fit was chosen. All indications supported the final model fit with two factors.
Conclusion
The present research has played a significant role in developing an indigenous scale on illegitimate police tasks in the context of Pakistani culture. It also help to understand the nature and scope of stress among police employees. This study aimed to design an illegitimate police tasks stress questionnaire consisting of two dimensions and 21 items. The scale is scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "never" to "frequently". The scale was found to demonstrate good content, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as acceptable internal consistency. The IPTSQ is specifically tailored to be utilized by police officials. Furthermore, the use of the IPTSQ in policy-based research can provide valuable insights and information to police department authorities and decision-makers.
Literature
Ahmad, A., Zhao, C., Ali, G., Zhou, K., & Iqbal, J. (2022). The role of unsustainable HR practices as illegitimate tasks in escalating the sense of workplace ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2022.904726/FULL Augustine, L. F., Vazir, S., Fernandez Rao, S., Rao, M. V., Laxmaiah, A., Ravinder, P., Rao, V. V., & Nair, K. M. (2012). Psychometric validation of a knowledge questionnaire on micronutrients among adolescents and its relationship to micronutrient status of 15-19-year-old adolescent boys, Hyderabad, India. Public Health Nutrition, 15(7), 1182-1189. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1368980012000055 Anskar, E., Falk, M., & Sverker, A. (2022). 'But there are so many referrals which are totally ... only generating work and irritation': a qualitative study of physicians' and nurses' experiences of work tasks in primary care in Sweden. Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 40(3), 350-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2022.2139447 Apostel, E., Syrek, C. J., & Antoni, C. H. (2018). Turnover intention as a response to illegitimate tasks: The moderating role of appreciative leadership. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(3), 234. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
academy of marketing science, 16, 74-94. Bartlett, M. S. (2013). The statistical analysis of spatial pattern (Vol. 15). Springer Science & Business Media.
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research:
A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2018.00149/ BIBTEX
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.
Bramlage, J. K., Julmi, C., Pereira, J. M., & Jackenkroll, B. (2021). When enough is enough: modelling the path from unreasonable tasks to the intention to leave academia. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(4), 386-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2021.187 3160
Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2012). Measuring coalition functioning: refining constructs through factor analysis. Health Education & Behavior, 39(4), 486-497.
Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Cheng, H., Li, Z., Zhao, J., Wang, W., & Zou, R. (2022). The role of cognition, affect, and resources in the influence of unreasonable tasks on work engagement: A moderated chain mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1013773. https://doi.org/10.3389/ FPSYG.2022.1013773/BIBTEX
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2016). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research (4th Ed.)., 187-203. https://doi. org/10.1037/14805-012
Ding, H., & Kuvaas, B. (2023). Illegitimate tasks: A systematic literature review and agenda for future research. Work & Stress, 37(3), 397-420.
Eatough, E. M., Meier, L. L., Igic, I., Elfering, A., Spector, P. E., & Semmer, N. K. (2015). You want me to do what? Two daily diary studies of illegitimate tasks and employee well-being. Wiley Online LibraryEM Eatough, LL Meier, I Igic, A Elfering, PE Spector, NK SemmerJournal of Organizational Behavior, 2016'Wiley Online Library, 37(1), 108-127. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.2032
Ebadi, A., Froutan, R., & Malekzadeh, J. (2019). The design and psychometric evaluation of the emergency medical services resilience scale (EMSRS). International emergency nursing, 42, 12-18.
Ehido, A., Awang, Z., Halim, B. A., & Ibeabuchi, C. (2020). Developing items for measuring quality of work life among Malaysian academics: An exploratory factor analysis procedure. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, eISSN, 2395-6518.
Faes, Y., & Elfering, A. (2021). When unnecessary tasks weigh heavily on the back: A diary study on musculoskeletal pain. Workplace Health & Safety, 69(9), 410-418.
Faupel, S., Otto, K., Krug, H., & Kottwitz, M. U. (2016). Stress at school? A qualitative study on illegitimate tasks during teacher training. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(SEP). https://doi. org/10.3389/FPSYG.2016.01410/FULL
Fein, E. C., & McKenna, B. (2022). Depleted dedication, lowered organisation citizenship behaviours, and illegitimate tasks in police officers. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/JM0.2021.68
Fila, M. J., & Eatough, E. (2019). Extending the Boundaries of Illegitimate Tasks: The Role of Resources, 123(5), 1635-1662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119874292
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Geronazzo-Alman, L., Eisenberg, R., Shen, S., Duarte, C. S., Musa, G. J., Wicks, J., Fan, B., Doan, T., Guffanti, G., Bresnahan, M., & Hoven, C. W. (2017). Cumulative exposure to work-related traumatic events and current post-traumatic stress disorder in New York City's first responders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 74, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. C0MPPSYCH.2016.12.003
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological bulletin, 103(2), 265.
Hair Jr, J. F., Babin, B. J., & Krey, N. (2017). Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and recommendations. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 163-177.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Ilyas, A., Khan, A. H., Zaid, F., Ali, M., Razzaq, A., & Khan, W. A. (2020). Turnover Intention of Employees, Supervisor Support, and Open Innovation: The Role of Illegitimate Tasks. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 128. https://doi. org/10.3390/J0ITMC6040128
Kaewkungwal, J. (2023). The Grammar of Science: How "Good" is Your Instrument?. Outbreak, Surveillance, Investigation & Response (OSIR) Journal, 16(1), 40-45.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.
Kenny, D. A. (2011). Correlated errors. Re-specification of latent variable model. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/respec.html
Kilponen, K., Huhtala, M., Kinn unen, U., Mauno, S., & Feldt, T. (2021). Illegitimate tasks in health care: Illegitimate task types and associations with occupational well-being. Journal of clinical nursing, 30(13-14), 2093-2106.
Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of psychological testing, second edition. Handbook of Psychological Testing, Second Edition, 1-744. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812274/HANDB00K-PSYCHOLOGICAL-TESTING-PAUL-KLINE
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 9(08), 2207.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 5-55.
Likert, R., Roslow, S., & Murphy, G. (1993). A simplified and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. Personnel Psychology, 46, 689-690.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological reports, 3(3), 635-694.
McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain. Springer.
Mauno, S., Minkkinen, J., & Shimazu, A. (2022). Do Unnecessary Tasks Impair Performance Because They Harm Living a Calling? Testing a Mediation in a Three-Wave Study. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211018977
Mensah, A., Toivanen, S., Diewald, M., Ul Hassan, M., & Nyberg, A. (2022). Workplace gender harassment, illegitimate tasks, and poor mental health: Hypothesized associations in a Swedish cohort. Social Science & Medicine, 315, 115520. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. SOCSCIMED.2022.115520
Morin, A. J. S., Katrin Arens, A., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Framework for the Identification of Distinct Sources of Construct-Relevant Psychometric Multidimensionality, 23(1), 116-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.201 4.961800
Muda, H., Loganathan, N., Awang, Z., Jusoh, H., & Baba, Z.S. (2018). Application of theory, methodology and analysis in conducting research. A Practical Guide to Quantitative Research and Thesis Writing. UniSZA Publisher
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Pyschometric Theory. McGraw-Hill.
Ouyang, C., Zhu, Y., Ma, Z., & Qian, X. (2022). Why Employees Experience Burnout: An Explanation of Illegitimate Tasks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, 19(15), 8923. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19158923 Pindek, S., Demircioglu, E., Howard, D. J., Eatough, E. M., & Spector, P. E. (2019). Illegitimate tasks are not created equal: Examining the effects of attributions on unreasonable and unnecessary tasks. Work & Stress, 33(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.20 18.1496160
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to Psychometric theory. Introduction to
Psychometric Theory, 1-335. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841624 Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of survey research. Academic press.
Schinka, J. A., Velicer, W. F., & Weiner, I. B. (2012). Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Handbook of Psychology: Research Methods in Psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Meier, L. L., Facchin, S., & Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks
and counterproductive work behavior. Applied Psychology, 59(1), 70-96. Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Beehr, T. A., Kalin, W., & Tschan, F. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Taylor & Francis, 29(1), 32-56. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996 Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Keller, A. C., & Meier, L. L. (2020). Adding insult to injury: Illegitimate stressors and their association with situational well-being, social self-esteem, and desire for revenge, 35(3), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2020.1857465 Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Keller, A. C., & Meier, L. L. (2021). Adding insult to injury: Illegitimate stressors and their association with situational well-being, social self-esteem, and desire for revenge. Work & Stress, 35(3), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373 .2020.1857465
Stein, M., Vincent-Hoper, S., Schümann, M., & Gregersen, S. (2020). Beyond mistreatment at the relationship level: Abusive supervision and illegitimate tasks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082722 Shkeer, A. S., & Awang, Z. (2019). International review of management and marketing exploring the items for measuring the marketing information system construct: An exploratory factor analysis. International Review of Management and Marketing, 9(6), 87-97. https:// doi.org/10.32479/ irmm.8622 Tomas, J. M., & Oliver, A. (1999). Rosenberg's self-esteem scale: Two factors or method
effects. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 84-98. Valdivieso Portilla, D. L., Gonzalez Rosero, A., Alvarado-Villa, G., & Moncayo-Rizzo, J. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Bern illegitimate tasks scale-Spanish version. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 593870. van Niekerk, Z., Goosen, S., & Adams, S. P. (2021). Illegitimate tasks of primary school teachers at selected schools in the Western Cape: A reality for a developing country? SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 47(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4102/SAJIP.V47I0.1824 van Schie, S., Güntert, S. T., & Wehner, T. (2014). How Dare to Demand This from Volunteers! The Impact of Illegitimate Tasks. Voluntas, 25(4), 851-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11266-013-9375-4/METRICS
Wang, Z., & Jiang, F. (2023). It is not only what you do, but why you do it: The role of attribution in employees' emotional and behavioral responses to illegitimate tasks. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 142, 103860.
Werdecker, L., & Esch, T. (2021). Burnout, satisfaction and happiness among German general practitioners (GPs): A cross-sectional survey on health resources and stressors. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0253447. https://doi.org/10.1371/J0URNAL.P0NE.0253447 WHO (2020). Occupational Health: Stress at the workplace https://www.who.int/news-room/
questions-and-answers/item/ccupational-health-stress-at-the-workplace Yousuf, M. I. (2019). Using expertsopinions through Delphi technique. Practical assessment,
research, and evaluation, 12(1), 4. Zeng, X., Huang, Y., Zhao, S., & Zeng, L. (2021). Illegitimate Tasks and Employees' Turnover Intention: A Serial Mediation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/ FPSYG.2021.739593/FULL Zhao, L., Jolly, P. M., & Zhao, S. (2023). Do illegitimate tasks undermine hospitality employees' proactive customer service performance? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 32(1), 95-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623. 2023.2125474
Zong, S., Han, Y., & Li, M. (2022). Not My Job, I Do Not Want to Do It: The Effect of Illegitimate Tasks on Work Disengagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 719856. https://doi.org/10.3389/ FPSYG.2022.719856/BIBTEX
Received: December 12, 2023 Revision received: December 21, 2023 Accepted: January 21, 2024
Author Contributions
Saleha Iqbal - significant contribution to the planning and conduct of the study, analysis
and interpretation of the results.
Rozmi Bin Ismail - critical revision of methodology and results.
Abdul Rahman Ahmad bin Badayai - critical revision of results.
Umbreen Khizar - critical revision of results.
Rizwana Amin - critical revision of the analysis.
Author Details
Saleha Iqbal - Ph.D Scholar, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4936-0669; e-mail: p97188@siswa.ukm.edu.my Rozmi Ismail - Associate Professor, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6473-6717; e-mail: rozmi@ukm.edu.my Abdul Rahman Ahmad bin Badayai - Dr. (Senior Lecturer), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4821-8239; e-mail: Arab5487@ukm.edu.my
Umbreen Khizar - Dr. (Assistant Professor), Institute of Southern Punjab, Multan, Pakistan; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6730-5234; e-mail: umbreenkhizar@gmail.com
Rizwana Amin - Dr. (Assistant Professor), Effat University Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; ORCHID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3262-6329; e-mail: riamin@effatuniversity.edu.sa
Conflict of Interest Information
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
