Artigos

Conteúdo (article):

Trabalho precário: Dos atributos teóricos à proposta de um instrumento de medida
Precarious Work: from theoretical attributes to a proposed measurement instrument
Authors:

Katia Puente-Palacios
Universidade de Brasília
0000-0001-5598-8069

Carla Itzuri Guerrero Frausto
Universidade de Brasília
0000-0003-3501-9062

Abstract:
Precarious work is a reality that has spread and become a global phenomenon. Although there is no consensus on the definition, it can be described as unstable, insecure work characterised by the limitation of the worker\'s power vis-à-vis employers or customers. It is therefore a multifaceted, complex phenomenon, the analysis of which requires a clear delineation of its components. This study aimed to develop a subjective measurement instrument from a theoretical framework for precarious work with satisfactory validity indexes. The study was conducted with data collected from two samples, one of Brazilian workers and the other of Mexican workers. While in the first sample the internal structure of the instrument was investigated and validity evidence for the three retained factors was identified, evidence of model fit was obtained in the second sample. The findings demonstrated the adequacy of the three factors: Feelings of Vulnerability (α=0.84); Reward Adequacy Ratings (α=0.90); and Perceptions of Exercising Rights (α=0.83). The fit indexes obtained (CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06) revealed the suitability of the instrument and together provided evidence of the theoretical-empirical relevance of the proposed measurement instrument.
Keywords: precarious work; rating scale; factor structure.
Introduction:
Precarious work is a reality of the labour world, and, contrary to what may be imagined, is not only present in geographical regions described as the economically most vulnerable, a fact that explains the recurrence of studies from countries such as the United States1, Canada2 and Spain3, or even from different regions of Latin America4 or Asia5.
Objective number eight of United Nations Agenda 2030 proposes promotion of economic growth in an inclusive, sustainable manner, coupled with decent work, which must be inclusive and productive. This shows an institutionalised concern6 with the conditions under which workers perform their activities. The current labour scenario, however, is characterised by an increase in precariousness, which reveals a contradiction, and shows the need to study the current working conditions and their various attributes, as suggested by scholars in this field7.
Despite their interest in the theme, Campbell and Price8 warn of the lack of conceptual clarity regarding precarious work, a fact that hinders advance in discussions based on systematic empirical results. They emphasise, for example, that conception may be different if analysed at the individual level (people who work under these conditions) rather than social groups (groups that live in deprived economic and social situations), or that adopted in the studies conducted at the macro level (precarious profile in a geographical location).
These considerations make evident the need for a clear definition and description of what precarious work is in order to properly support one’s study, which becomes even more pressing in the process of constructing a diagnostic instrument, given that the proper definition and theoretical delimitation constitute the basis of support of the measurement instrument. In this regard, it is also worth noting the lack of diagnostic and assessment tools for precarious work in Portuguese that have demonstrated satisfactory evidence of validity in a Brazilian sample. This emphasises the importance of this study that established as its objective to develop a subjective assessment measure of precarious work that, being theoretically adherent to the phenomenon, has satisfactory validity indexes.
Precarious work
The study of precarious work represents a challenge due to the absence of a clear conceptualisation. Scholars in the field repeatedly point out that every researcher seems to have developed his/her own definition, which makes dialogue difficult within and among the various disciplines. For this reason, the description by Kalleberg and Vallas9 is of great importance as it mentions it is a work characterised by uncertainty, instability and insecurity, in which workers are constantly at risk, have scarce social protection, and limited possibilities to enjoy legal remedies.
Regarding the vague nature of the construct, Rodgers and Rodgers10 highlight the tendency to consider precarious all work as not adherent to attributes such as regularity, permanence and a guaranteed salary. They warn about the error of this conception, as they claim that various forms of work may not have these characteristics, and yet they are not necessarily precarious. For these authors, a better understanding of precarious work is achieved by describing their constitutive dimensions. In this proposal, the first dimension is related to the uncertainty of continuity of work, which means that the work maintenance horizon may be short, as the employment link can end at any time. The second refers to lack of control over work, whether over the general conditions, salaries or activities. Third is the lack of protection for the worker, both for not being covered by legal rights and an absence of collective bargaining power. Finally, the issue of remuneration is focused by clarifying that it encompasses both the amount received, and the fact that this can put the worker in a vulnerable situation due to his/her perception of an insufficient salary. Thus, it is a dimension that has objective and subjective elements. Based on this understanding, the authors argue that precarious work involves instability, absence of protection, insecurity and economic and social vulnerability, and, as can be observed, the proposal is similar to the description provided by Kalleberg and Vallas9.
A more recent study11 conceives precarious work as possessing three structuring dimensions. The first is insecurity, encompassing aspects such as contractual insecurity, involuntary temporary contracts and outsourcing. The second involves the economic sphere, and concerns the earnings received for the work. Also, in this case, it is not limited to the amount of money, as it addresses the sense of insecurity and/or financial vulnerability. This dimension, according to Kreshpaj et al.12 is affected by contextual aspects of work, the workers themselves, as well as the socioeconomic structure of the country. Finally, the third dimension concerns the insufficiency of rights and legal protection, which includes lack of protection through collective organisation (trade union), loss of social security, and legal insecurity (enjoyment of rights).
These propositions show that, although a unique and widely accepted definition has not been identified, there is a set of repeatedly mentioned attributes, which help in characterising the phenomenon. In this effort to define the theoretical boundaries of precarious work, it is appropriate to include the description provided by the International Labour Organization (ILO)13, which defines it as a combination of objective and subjective aspects of insecurity and uncertainty. Of these, the most notable elements are the duration of employment, the presence of multiple employers, the employee-employer relationship characterised by vague and imprecise rules, the limited access to social protection and regular benefits, the low salaries, and the impediments of a diverse nature for collective organisation (trade union). It also mentions that these attributes can be manifested with varying degrees of intensity, and place the worker in an insecure condition by hindering both the planning of the future and by removing from the his/her various legal and social protections.
Taking into account the dimensions proposed by the aforementioned authors, in order to conduct this study satisfactorily, precarious work is understood as a way of hiring the services of the workers, with limited benefits and legal rights, insecurity, lack of stability, inadequate salaries and working conditions that involve various risks. Thus, in line with scholars in the field9,11,12, it is acknowledged that the central aspects revolve around uncertainty, insecurity and instability. This is not proposed as a new conceptualisation, but as the description of the phenomenon and its principal attributes.
Another challenge for scholars in this field is the differences in the focused level (the worker or the context), or the attributes effectively addressed (objective and subjective). Regarding the latter, Allan and collaborators11 point out that, although there are studies that analyse the objective aspects (temporality of the contract, salary amount or benefits), the quantity of research focusing on the worker\'s experience is increasing. In this sense, for example, in the case of salary, the value would not only be raised, but the worker would be called upon to judge his adequacy or sufficiency. The authors point out that, in this type of evaluation, centrality is given to the worker\'s experience, which is already prioritised in studies14 that argue it is an important predictor of individual level results.
Based on these considerations, the focus of interest in this study was defined as the worker’s set of subjective experiences related to their work activities and workplace conditions. Thus, the aim is to gather evidence of validity for a specific measurement instrument of the subjective assessment of precarious work, focusing on the worker’s perspective.
Among the studies related to precarious work that share, albeit partially, the subjective dimensions adhering to the theoretical framework that underlies this article is the Vives et al.15 Employment Precariousness Scale - EPRES. This instrument addresses aspects such as temporality, disempowerment, vulnerability, remuneration, rights, and the exercise of rights, which are represented by specific factors. The response options available to the instrument items are different depending on the attribute assessed. They can be five-point numerical scales on a frequency scale, five-point on an ordinal scale, or even three points on a nominal scale, and, despite the denomination of the instrument, precarious work is the construct that is effectively being addressed. The authors of the measurement instrument argue that all factors are equally important and propose that a general precariousness score be derived from them.
Another instrument designed to assess precarious work is the questionnaire by Julià et al.3, which is based on the EPRES, but the authors mention that a fundamental theoretical restriction of the EPRES is the fact of addressing five of the seven dimensions considered by them as structuring the construct. Thus, they propose the addition of the dimensions: “Lack of training and employability opportunities”; and the “Disparity in the worker’s relationships with his/her employer, customers/clients and colleagues”.
Regarding this proposition, it should be noted that training and professional growth opportunities go beyond the scope of the construct, as they are more adherent to concepts such as decent work16. On the other hand, the aspects related to the disparity in relationships is covered by dimensions such as Vulnerability, Disempowerment or even Exercise of rights. Thus, the proposal does not seem to provide theoretical improvements to the concept.
Another measure of precarious work assessment is authored by Creed et al.14 who sought to map the reality of the work of young students. These researchers criticise the binary nature of some items (with answers, “Yes” or “No”), such as those relating to the temporality of the employment contract, and the fact of assessing complex dimensions from only two questions (e.g. temporality or disempowerment), as in the case of the questionnaire proposed by Vives et al.15.
Based on these criticisms, a new instrument is proposed that starts from the theoretical basis of Vives et al.15 and comprises precarious work as a construct composed of six dimensions called: Temporality, Disempowerment, Vulnerability, Remuneration, Rights, and Use of rights. They defend this decision considering the theoretical nature of the phenomenon, as well as the practical application derived from the discussions on precarious work presented by the ILO. Thus, disagreement with the EPRES is not because of a different understanding of what precarious work is, but by the way the measurement was operationalised.
The process of generating the items was based on a literature review and available scales, and established the precarious work of students as the focus of interest. For this reason, the items of the instrument were restricted to dimensions related to this group, which resulted in the extraction of the factors named: Working conditions; Occupational safety; Work remuneration; and Work flexibility. On the other hand, theoretical dimensions considered central to precarious work are not part of the proposed measure or did not emerge as independent factors, such as Disempowerment or Exercise of rights. Despite the measure’s optimal indexes of validity, in view of the specificity of the public to which it is aimed, the scale proposed by Creed et al.14 is not suitable for application to samples of workers.
The study by Vives-Vergara et al.4 was also based on EPRES, but adjustments and adaptations to the instrument were performed in order to focus the authors’ needs (Chilean work scenario), even though the six original dimensions were maintained. According to the authors, the most significant changes were implemented in the dimension Rights, and some items had the wording adjusted. Several response scales were used, as four frequency points to assess Vulnerability and Exercise of rights, four ordinal scale points for Remuneration, five points on categorical scale for Temporality and Disempowerment, and three points on categorical scale to measure Rights.
The results achieved by the authors showed weaknesses in certain dimensions, just as had occurred in the original study15. These were evidenced by an unacceptable reliability coefficient, as in the case of the Rights factor (α = 0.414), or by a weak reliability coefficient, as in the case of the Temporality factor (α = 0.624). Thus, even recognising the robust theoretical referential of EPRES, it became evident there was a need to implement adjustments by seeking to improve their psychometric indexes.
The results of studies by Vives et al.15 and Vives-Vergara et al.4 elicit considerations regarding the adequacy of joint assessment of objective and subjective aspects as latent elements of the same instrument. Even if it is worth considering that attributes, such as Temporality or Rights, do not involve opinion, these focus on the description of working conditions. On the other hand, the vulnerability or adequacy of the remuneration constitute components susceptible to judgment or subjective assessment. Thus, the purpose of this study is to focus on the dimensions, Vulnerability, Remuneration (perception of sufficiency of earnings received) and Exercise of rights. The objective aspects related to the temporality of the contract, the rights of the worker or the margin of decision (disempowerment) are also raised, but do not constitute key elements in the proposed measurement instrument.

Method:
This study can be described as having an instrumental, field and exploratory nature, which uses quantitative analysis techniques. For its empirical operationalization, data were gathered from two groups, one from Brazil and one from Mexico. Access to participants occurred through the use of social networks (LinkedIn, WhatsApp groups, Facebook) of the authors of this manuscript, and by means of personal contacts, depending on the feasibility of access to workers from the locations where the study was conducted. The distribution of the questionnaire was performed by adopting the process called Snowball, in which the instrument is socialised among a set of people who are requested to continue with the divulgation process. In Brazil, the collection occurred during February 2023, and in Mexico during April. In both groups the questionnaires were presented in electronic format using the SurveyMonkey platform, and, first of all, the participant was asked to sign the informed consent form. The latter described the specificities of the research, the anonymous, voluntary character of participation, as well as the absence of any harmful consequence. Only people who expressly agreed to participate were granted access to the questionnaire. Thus, the ethical principles that govern research with humans were respected. A declaration of not working was adopted as an exclusion criterion, even if the person had signed the consent term.
Instruments: The starting point for the development of the instrument was the EPRES15 scale. However, considering that the focus of this study was subjective assessment, the dimensions effectively included were those related to: Vulnerability (6 items), Exercise of rights (5 items) and Remuneration (3 items), totalling 14 items.
This set of items was initially assessed by four researchers specialised in human behaviour at work, all with experience in the organisational research field. The authors of this manuscript were not part of this team. The task of these experts was to analyse the adequacy of items to capture the phenomenon of interest, besides faithfully representing the construct; thus, it involved assessment of the questions in terms of quantity and content. As a result, some changes were made to the original texts, additions were included, and a single response scale was chosen to apply to all items, opting for one of the 5-point Likert, which included values from 0 to 4 (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = almost always and 4 = always). The final composition of the instrument was: Vulnerability with 5 items, Exercise of rights with 6, and Remuneration with 4, totalling 15 items. This new set was subjected to semantic assessment, and was found to suit the target public. A pilot study was not conducted due to the instrumental objective of the research, as it would have required a large sample to carry out the intended analyses. However, the semantic analyses done with each version (Portuguese and Spanish) showed that the instrument was intelligible for the workers to whom it was intended.
Although the data survey occurred sequentially (first in Brazil and then in Mexico), since there was no change in either application, both were described concomitantly. The need to have two samples complied with the statistical requirement of having independent groups to perform, in one of them, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and, in the other, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), besides allowing the development of a diagnostic tool with evidence of validity in its Portuguese and Spanish versions. For the translation of the Portuguese version into Spanish, all the required procedures were followed for back-translation, and a new semantic analysis was performed before the application in Spanish.
Samples: The sample group of Brazilian respondents totalled 288 participants, who were primarily female (62.9%), with a complete postgraduate course (57.5%), followed by complete undergraduate course (18.6 %), employed in private companies (51.3%), followed by those who worked in public companies (36.7%), and with a mean age of 37.6 years (standard deviation 9.9 years). On the other hand, the Mexican sample totalled 304 participants, characterised by a concentration of 69.9% females, with complete undergraduate course (70.3%), followed by the postgraduate group (15.2%). Most worked in private companies (69.4%), and the mean age was 30.7 years (standard deviation = 7.9 years).
The data analyses performed were EFA and CFA. In the case of EFA, the purpose was to identify the underlying factor structure and the reliability of the retained factors. In the case of CFA, the model fit was analysed from a number of indexes. According to Damasio17, fit indexes (e.g. TLI or CFI) report on the adequacy of empirical data to the proposed model, which is why high values (≥ 0.90) are demanded, whereas the residual values (e.g., RMSEA or SMRM) reveal the discrepancies between the expected and the observed scores, which justifies the requirement of low values (≤ 0.10). The analyses were executed using the Factor (version 2.3.21) and Jamovi (version 12.04.04) programmes.
Data adherence to the requirements of the analytical strategies adopted was also examined. Following the guidelines of Miles and Shevlin18, it was sought to identify variables (items) with asymmetry greater than 2 (absolute value), as this magnitude signals a data distribution extremely different from normality. The results showed the adequacy of the distributions of the 15 items of the instrument, as none reached the value mentioned previously. In the investigation of the presence of extreme multivariate cases by calculating the Mahalanobis distance, an absence of such cases was found. Thus, there was verification of the adequacy of the data mass for the planned analyses. The minimum residual method was used for factor extraction, and Promax rotation was adopted for factor rotation, as it allows the extracted factors to be correlated with one another.


Results:
The first stage, the Exploratory Factor Analysis, was performed in the sample of Brazilian workers (n = 288), and began with investigation of the factorability of the data matrix. For this purpose, the value of the Determinant of the matrix was verified, which proved to be small (<0.001) but different from zero, besides analysing the value of the KMO (0.86), and performing the Bartlett test (p <0.001). Additionally, the inspection of the scale item correlation matrix showed significant associations among all, oscillating between 0.12 and 0.64 (absolute values). This initial set of findings demonstrated the relevance of seeking to identify specific factors contained in the matrix of the 15 items of the instrument.
For the definition of the proper number of factors to be extracted, both theoretical and psychometric criteria were taken into account. From a theoretical perspective, since the source of the scale was the three dimensions adapted from the EPRES, it was expected that three factors would be identified. Regarding the statistical criteria, the analysis of the Cattell sedimentation graph (scree plot), the quantity of factors with Eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1, and parallel analysis, showed the relevance of retaining three factors. Eigenvalue, as pointed out by Bryant and Yarnold19, can be briefly described as the portion of items whose variance is explained by the extracted factor. The set of indicators obtained revealed a structure composed of three factors. Using the Jamovi programme (version 2.3.21) Principal axis factoring was used for factor extraction and Promax rotation for the rotation of the factors. The results obtained are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Exploratory Factorial Analysis of the precarious work scale composed of the factors Remuneration, Vulnerability and Rights.

As can be observed, the three retained factors show compatibility with the theoretical dimensions proposed for the subjective assessment scale of precarious work. Factor 1 focuses on the remuneration received by the worker, and the most representative question, with the highest factor loading, concerns the ability to cover unforeseen expenses. According to the statements regarding these items, close to zero values reveal a greater precariousness condition. Factor 2 addresses the feeling of vulnerability experienced by the worker. The most representative item of this factor describes the sensation of the worker being defenceless in the face of unfair treatment. Considering the statements, low values show weaker perceptions of precariousness. Finally, Factor 3 asks how much the worker considers he can enjoy his rights. The item that had the highest factor loading enquires about the possibility of taking a holiday. Low scores in this factor mean less precariousness.
After that, the reliability of the retained factors was analysed by calculating Cronbach\'s alpha and the mean value of the item-total correlation. The results show the adequacy of the measurement, as the lower value of Alpha was 0.83 and the lower mean value of the item-total correlation was 0.61. Thus, EFA provided evidence of the adequacy of the proposed instrument, since the factors extracted are adherent to the theoretical dimensions.
Continuing the analysis, a correlation matrix was constructed with the factor scores. The results show low associations, with values oscillating between 0.34 and 0.51 (Table 1), which reveals that each factor addresses a different aspect of precariousness, since around 75% of variance is not shared. This demonstrates the need to be treated separately, which is why the composition of a single or general score is discouraged.
The set of findings is initial evidence of validity of the instrument developed, but this study also sought to verify the adjustment of the proposed model. Thus, the second part of the analyses was performed with the sample of 304 Mexican participants, with whom Confirmatory Factor Analysis procedures (CFA) were performed.
In this phase, initially, the basic requirements that demonstrated the adequacy of the data set for the intended analyses were also verified. Afterwards, the relevance of the model composed of 15 items organised in three factors was assessed. The findings were encouraging, as all fit indexes were adequate (χ2= 193, gl=87, p<0.001; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95), according to the recommendations of authors such as Ullman20 or Damásio17, and those of residual values were acceptable (RMSEA = 0.06), according to Canivez et al.21. These indicators reveal that the precarious work assessment scale properly captures the three dimensions defined in this study, related to Vulnerability, Remuneration and Exercise of rights. Therefore, these can be considered constitutive elements of the phenomenon known as precarious work.
As the final stage of Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the fit of a global model was investigated. To this end, all the items were treated as components of a single factor that represents precarious work, as suggested by Vives et al. 15 and Vives-Vergara et al.4 in defending the composition of a single score. The fit indexes of this global model were unacceptable (χ2 = 841, gl=90, p<0.001; CFI = 0.61; TLI = 0.53 and RMSEA = 0.17), thus confirming the inadequacy of composing a general score of work precariousness.
These results reveal the adequacy of the subjective assessment measure of precarious work, composed of three factors, the first grouping together four items, the second, five items, and the third factor, six items. The implications of these findings are discussed below in the light of the theory of the area.

Discussion:
The expansion of precarious work in the contemporary world highlights the need for a deeper study of its various manifestations, aiming to identify its causes, propose alternatives to mitigate its occurrence, and alleviate the consequences it brings to individuals, families, and society as a whole. However, the study of this phenomenon has as its central challenge the absence of a univocal conceptualisation. The accomplishment of this research, however, revealed the existence of a set of dimensions that allow one to characterise and provide concreteness to precarious work.
Briefly, it can be described as a complex, multidimensional phenomenon12, comprising objective and subjective elements. While those objective aspects make references to concrete attributes of labour or working conditions, the subjective aspects refer to the worker’s experiences.
Taking this understanding as a basis, one of the first contributions of this work is the identification of subjective dimensions related to Vulnerability, Remuneration and Exercise of rights, as the central, specific elements, around which precarious work is structured. The theoretical relevance of these dimensions is sustained in the propositions of authors such as Vives et al.15, Vives-Vergara et al.4, Creed et al.14 and Fernandes22, or even organisations such as the ILO13, the understanding being that precarious work exposes the worker to conditions under which he/she becomes unprotected and devoid of minimal control instruments in the work situation.
This set of dimensions encompasses the worker’s feeling of vulnerability, his/her assessment that the remuneration is insufficient, as well as the perception of not being able to exercise rights. Analysed in a grouped manner, they comprise the theoretical structure that guided the revision process of the EPRES, as the original measurement showed fragilities that triggered the adaptation process by complementing and making adjustments to the writing about the items.
The dimensions defined were addressed via an adjusted scale of a subjective assessment of precarious work, composed of 15 statements organised according to three factors, whose importance was evidenced by the results found in both EFA and CFA. The Vulnerability factor addressed aspects such as disrespectful, authoritarian treatment, feeling that the labour link could be lost at any moment, and that workers\' contributions are dispensable. It is important to highlight that these experiences are not derived only from working conditions, but result from the inadequate treatment given to workers. Thus, they explain the practical implication of this study by signalling the central role of an organisation\'s supervisors or middle managers as actors potentially capable of mitigating the harmful experiences of workers.
The second factor, Remuneration, condenses assessments related to the sufficiency of the monetary amount received to bear the basic, regular and eventual expenses of the worker and his/her family. Thus, it does not concern the value of the salary, but the subjective appreciation. The importance of this factor is postulated by theorists such as Creed et al.14, Campbell and Price8, and Kreshpaj et al.12, who highlight the need to encompass, in the economic dimension, appreciation of the worker. They warn that including only the salary amount disregards the existence of elements of the context that may intervene in the assessment.
Finally, the third factor addresses the Exercise of rights and explores the possibilities for workers to effectively enjoy legal rights that are not always accessible, such as visiting a doctor, taking days off to handle personal matters, or fully utilizing leave for health reasons.
The research carried out showed the importance of these factors as components of the precarious work assessment scale, as the analytical strategies adopted certified these findings. Additionally, the discoveries of this study revealed the centrality of the factors retained, which should be investigated as separate attributes, given that low correlation was found among them (r between 0.34 and 0.51). Thus, contrary to what is defended by authors of the area (Vives et al.,15; Vives-Vergara et al.,4), users of the scale are oriented to do so to individually assess each factor’s score, since empirical evidence shows that the fact a factor has high or low values does not imply that other factors will demonstrate similar patterns.
Regarding the application of the measurement instrument, its use is suggested as a diagnostic instrument of workers\' experiences in relation to their work. Since it is an instrument intended to gather data from sets of people, its use in isolated cases (i.e., one only person) is not recommended, as the purpose of studies and diagnoses of a quantitative nature is more extensive than intensive.
On the other hand, when applied to groups, scores should be constructed by factors and by calculating the arithmetic mean of the corresponding items (see Table 1). For the comparative analysis of specific workers\' cohorts, central trend and deviation measurements can be used that describe the collective patterns of perception and assessment of working conditions. The data obtained will show in which aspects (factors) interventions are more necessary, depending on the scores observed. Likewise, comparisons between groups (via analysis of variance, Anova or t test) may be performed to identify, for example, groups in a more vulnerable situation or with less opportunity to enjoy their rights. Considering the characteristics of the scale, it can be used to conduct research, as well as to diagnose the work situation of labour.
As for the importance of the typicality of the factors, it is derived from the fact that it allows planning of different and specific intervention actions, depending on the results of each factor. For example, high scores for the Vulnerability factor suggest a need for dialogue with or intervention by supervisors and other leaders, as workers under their command demonstrate the feeling that they can be dismissed at any time, a vulnerability they realise when being treated unfairly and having no room to claim improvements. On the other hand, low scores for the Remuneration factor (which show greater precariousness) signal the need for an analysis that goes beyond the scope of the control of supervisors, and requires that the organisational scenario (remuneration policy) and even the economic scenario of the market be taken into account.
Regarding the results related to the reliability of the factors, the findings indicate that the operationalisation of the measurement of precarious work was adequate, as well as revealing that the set of questions allows capture of the subjective aspects of precariousness, thereby evidencing that the research objective was fully achieved. Thus, those interested in the diagnosis of precarious work can use the instrument to obtain accurate indicators of the manifestation of these conditions.
Although several contributions are referenced by the report on this study, it is not exempt from limitations. The first concerns the specificity of the samples. As the snowball technique was used, with dissemination through the social networks and contact with the authors of this manuscript, the high level of education of the study participants is noteworthy. Another limitation refers to the fact that the data have been collected by self-report, which may have skewed the information provided. Thus, it is recommended to carry out new studies involving groups with different profiles, seeking to verify measure stability, as well as opting for the complementary use of other methods, for example, systematic observation.
Despite these limitations, it is considered that this research is an important contribution to the field of knowledge relating to precarious work, a phenomenon that is spreading at a high pace in the most diverse areas and regions, causing major consequences for the health and well-being of the worker and his/her family. This reality requires that those interested in understanding its manifestation better invest in conducting more reliable studies showing the worker\'s experience. Thus, it will be possible to seek implementation of mechanisms that allow reduction of their occurrence and the harmful consequences entailed. In this sense, wielding a diagnostic tool is the first step on this journey.

Funding: CAPES [Co-ordination of Higher Education Staff Development]

References:
1. Oddo, V. M., Zhuang, C.C., Andrea, S. B., Eisenberg-Guyot, J., Peckham, T., Jacoby, D., & Hajat, A. Changes in precarious employment in the United States: A longitudinal analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2021; 47(3): 171-180. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3939
2. Rose, D. A snapshot of precarious academic work in Canada. Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry 2020; 11(1): 7-17.
3. Juià, M., Vanroelen, C., Bosmans, K., Van Aerden, K., & Benach, J. Precarious employment and quality of employment in relation to health and well-being in Europe. International Journal of Health Services 2017; 47(3): 389-409 doi:10.1177/0020731417707491
4. Vives-Vergara, A., González, F., Solar, O., Bernales, P., González, M., & Benach, J. Precarious employment in Chile: psychometric properties of the Chilean version of Employment Precariousness Scale in private sector workers. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 2017; 33(3): 2-13. doi:10.1590/0102-311X00156215
5. Chin, C. Precarious Work and its Complicit Network: Migrant Labour in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia 2019; 49(4): 528-551. doi:10.1080/00472336.2019.1572209
6. Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). A agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Traduzido pelo Centro de Informação das Nações Unidas para o Brasil (UNIC Rio). 2016. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.mds.gov.br/webarquivos/publicacao/Brasil_Amigo_Pesso_Idosa/Agenda2030.pdf
7. Santana, M., & Valle-Cabrera, R. New Directions in the Future of Work: An Introduction. In: Santana, M. & Valle-Cabrera R. (Ed.), New Directions in the Future of Work. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2021. p1-18 doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-298-020211003
8. Campbell, I., Price, R. Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualization. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 2016; 27(3): 314-332. doi.org/10.1177/1035304616652074.
9. Kalleberg, A., & Vallas, S. Probing Precarious Work: Theory, Research, and Politics. In: Kalleberg A. & Vallas S. Research in the Sociology of Work, (Vol. 31), Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017. p.1-30. doi.org/10.1108/S0277-283320170000031017
10. Rodgers, G., & Rodgers, J. Precarious work in Western Union: The state of the debate. In: Rodgers J. & Rodgers G. (Eds.). Precarious jobs in labour market regulation: The growth of atypical employment in Western Europe. ILO. 1989.
11. Allen, B., Autin, K., & Wilkins-Yel, K. Precarious work in the 21st century: A psychological perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior 2021; 126: 10349. doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103491.
12. Kreshpaj, B., Orellana, C., Burström, B., Davis, L., Hemmingsson, T., Johansson, G., Kjellberg, K., Jonsson, J., Wegman, D. H., & Bodin, T. What is precarious employment? A systematic review of definitions and operationalizations from quantitative and qualitative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2020; 46(3): 235-247. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3875
13. International Labour Organization (ILO). From precarious work to decent work: outcome document to the workers\' symposium on policies and regulations to combat precarious employment / International Labour Office, Bureau for Workers\' Activities. 2012.
14. Creed, P. A., Hood, M., Selenko, E., & Bagley, L. The development and initial validation of a self-report job precariousness scale suitable for use with young adults who study and work. Journal of Career Assessment 2020; 28(4): 636-654. doi:10.1177/1069072720920788
15. Vives, A., Amable, M., Ferrer, M., Moncada, S., Llorens, C., Muntaner, C., Benavides, F., & Benach, J. The Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES): psychometric properties of a new tool for epidemiological studies among waged and salaried workers. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2015; 67: 548-555. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.048967
16. Porto, J., & Queiroga, F. Trabalho decente: reflexões a partir da percepção de profissionais da psicologia. In: Bastos, A. V. (Org.). Quem faz a psicologia brasileira? Um olhar sobre o presente para construir o futuro: formação e inserção no mundo do trabalho. 1ed. Brasília: Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2022, (v 2): p. 36-148.
17. Damásio, B. (2023). Análise Fatorial Confirmatória. Disponível em: https://psicometriaonline.com.br/analise-fatorial-confirmatoria-2/
18. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. Applying Regression & Correlation. Sage Publications; 2001.
19. Bryant, F. & Yarnold, P. Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory analysis. In: L. Grimm & P. Yarnold. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. American Psychological Association. 1994. p. 99-136.
20. Ullman, J. Structural Equation Modelling. In: Tabachnick B. & Fidell L. Using multivariate Statistics (5Th. Edition). Pearson; 2007. p. 676-780.
21. Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M.W., Good, R., James, K., & James, T. Construct validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth UK Edition with a referred Irish sample: Wechsler and Cattell-Horn-Carroll model comparisons with 15 subtests. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2017; 87(3): 383-407. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12155
22. Fernandes, R. The multidimensional construct of precarious work, the future of work, and workers’ health. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 2023; 39(4): 1-14. doi:10.1590/0102-311XEN100522