Factorial Validity Structure of Occupational Stress

exhaustion, job depersonalization and professional frustration. These investigations shown that stress is influenced by interpersonal and intergroup relations. In this sense, group dynamics has been identified as the main mechanism of influence that, from conflicts, modifies the work structure of an organization [8]. In the case of stress, relationship conflicts and task conflicts are the main causes of emotional exhaustion and job depersonalization. Some studies show that the conflict in relationships influences this last (García, 2020d). Others argue that organizational climate would not have a significant effect on emotional exhaustion or in The objective of the present work was to specify a model for the study of work stress, considering a review of the literature that emphasizes three components related to exhaustion, neglect, and frustration. A non-experimental, cross-sectional, and correlational study was carried out with a selection of 100 workers from a public hospital, considering their working hours, as well as their seniority. A structural equation model was established in which exhaustion was the hegemonic component that explained the highest percentage of variance with 2 7%, although the research design limited the results to the research scenario, suggesting its extension to another.


Introduction
Work stress understood as the somatization of an occupational disease and indicated by high levels of exhaustion and resistance, negligence and commitment, as well as frustration and violence has been a central theme and theme of the organizational agenda [1]. Work stress understood as the somatization of an occupational disease and indicated by high levels of exhaustion and resistance, negligence and commitment, as well as frustration and violence has been a central theme and theme of the organizational agenda [2]. It is an adaptive syndrome and it develops in three phases;

1.
Resistance to the increase in demands and the reduction of psychological and organizational resources, professional frustration [9]. However, it is evident that the factors that make up a structure of job happiness are determinants of professional frustration [10]. Such causal variables are dedication, enjoyment, and work vigor [11]. As happiness factors at work increase, professional frustration decreases. However, these studies show causal relationships between factors without having demonstrated their structure [2]. Therefore, this research is to goose demonstrate the three -dimensional structure supported by the theory of job stress [12].
The theory of work stress raises three explanatory dimensions of exhaustion, frustration and neglect observed in health and education professionals predominantly in their occupational field [13]. These are three components that by themselves suggest a prevalence of stress, although together they denote a mental illness known as the syndrome of overwork and which is indicated by high levels of conflict within the organization [14]. It is assumed that in occupational settings, since occupational health is focused on people rather than organizations, there are signs of exhaustion, as would be the case of those who carry out exhaustive work based on their degree of competence, relationship with superiors or peers [15]. These types of workers suffer from exhaustion due to their function, although as they gather the merits to perform another function they continue to act with occupational sacrifice, assuming that their merits are not enough [16]. It is a very

Studies of Occupational Stress
In the framework of the strategic alliances between organizations and institutions for the labor insertion of talents, the models and instruments that measure the problem have focused their attention on the skills determined by self-confidence, selfefficacy and self-esteem [23].The Stress Control Scale states that the worry of error and the somatization of anxiety are determinants of skills and is in the prevention of an accident [24]. The Perceived Stress Scale includes reagents alluding to stressors; assessment of the situation, resources and environment, as well as emotional and behavioral responses, associated with sociodemographic variables as determinants of the physiology of somatization of disease, although it only refers to working hypotheses to be tested in differential situations of resources and demands [25].Both models generalize their relationships from considering that the demands of the environment affect the resources of organizations, including the psychological resources of those who suffer from stress [26].
In a more specific sense and continuing with this principle of external influence on biomedical aspects [27]. The Psychological Stress Scale sets out to differentiate chronic and acute levels to establish its relationship with the metabolic syndrome, indicated by the waist circumference, and the level of trigricerides, cholesterol, glucose and pressure [28]. This biomedical model links the internal factors of the individual with molecular biomedical aspects [29].
The three models with their corresponding instruments seem to demonstrate that the work environment even affects biomedical aspects that would indicate a level of resistance, alarm or exhaustion [30]. Consequently, the measurement of factors related to this process of internalization of demands and externalization of effects involves at least three components that would make up a robust structure [31].

Instrument
Is utilize the Scale Job Stress, that measurement exhaustion, depersonalization and frustration of staff. It includes 138 items, with four response options ranging from 0 = "strongly disagree" to 5 = "strongly agree".

Procedure
Respondents were informed that the results of the study would not positively or negatively affect their contractual employment status with the institutes where they work. Once solved the questionnaire, the trend of answers and verified, in cases where its response or he focused on a choice, he asked the participants to write on the back the reasons for their decisions. The data was processed in the SPSS and LISREL software, in their student versions [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41].

Results
A normality analysis was performed to establish the distribution of the answers to the questions and questions of the instrument. The

Volume 29-Issue 3
selection criteria included the values that are between -3 to +3. The items and questions excluded for exceeding the allowable range.
Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis of main components with varimax rotation to corroborate the three -dimensional structure.
The selection criteria reagent was configured factors higher correlation 0 300 between each reagent and the appropriate factor.
The first factor, referred to emotional exhaustion, explained 27% of the variance; the second, related to labor depersonalization, 7%, and the third, which refers to the frustration staff, the 5 %. Once the normality, validity and reliability of the subscales were demonstrated, a correlation was carried out between the factors to establish their direct and significant associative relationships.
It shows three significant associations between the factors. Only in the established one between professional frustration and depersonalization is there a negative relationship. In other words, as the lack of achievement increases, personalized attention increases.
In this sense, the lack of socialization is to link with stress at work.
Finally, another contributing factor to stress is lack of achievement.
Associative relationships are preliminary to causal relationships.
Therefore, a successive step multiple linear regression analysis was performed to establish the main effect of the exposed factors.
The causal relationships between the factors. From the successive step's technique, it was established that the factor corresponding to personal frustration has a direct positive and significant effect on work stress. In a second moment, the factor that alludes to personal depersonalization turned out to be the determining variable in work stress. In this sense, the negative and significant association between the factors suggests the absence of effects of variables not included in the model. However, to demonstrate non-collinearity, a covariance analysis was performed.
The analysis of covariances was carried out with the LISREL software. Consider is to r on the "phi" parameters and "zeta" to In the case of organizational variables such as work environment, training and training centered on objectives, tasks and goals, indicators of job demand, this study indicates that its effects must be observed in exhaustion. As goals become more complex, tasks are intensified, and goals are prolonged, work-related stress seems to fall on the exhaustion of those who are responsible for carrying out the strategies and tasks to achieve these ends.Regarding the effects of stress and exhaustion on performance, competitiveness and innovation, this study has shown a 27% variance explained by this factor, which suggests the inclusion of other factors such as neglect or frustration. Research lines concerning external factors as determinants of other variables concomitant to exhaustion will allow us to explain occupational risks and their effects on occupational health.