Development and Psychometric Validation of a Workplace Social Capital Scale for Low and Middle Income Settings in Pakistan

Development and Psychometric Validation of a Workplace Social Capital Scale for Low and Middle Income Settings in Pakistan | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development and Psychometric Validation of a Workplace Social Capital Scale for Low and Middle Income Settings in Pakistan Rabia Khawar, Kinza Shahzadi, Rooha Butt, Samavia Hussain, Memoona Aslam, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Workplace social capital has been linked to organizational and social sustainability. The study aims to investigate workplace social capital as a measurable construct, maintaining theoretical depth while allowing for valid and reliable assessment across the low-to middle-income workplace context of Pakistan. In the first phase of the study, we followed a mixed methods approach (inductive & deductive) to formulate 30 items. A 22-item measure of workplace social capital scale was developed in the Urdu language. In the second phase, we established psychometric properties of the measure by determining and confirming its factor structure, as well as computing convergent and discriminant validity and reliability. An Exploration Factor Analysis (EFA) conducted on a sample of 150 participants revealed a three-factor solution with 18 items, followed by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on a separate sample ( N = 308). Acceptable fit indices were obtained for a final 12-item three-factor model, i.e., Vertical Trust and Organizational Value, Cohesive Work Climate, and Interpersonal Support, showing good reliability ( α = .85). A significant positive correlation between scores of the Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and Resilience at Work Scale and significant inverse correlation with psychological distress indicated convergent and discriminant validity respectively. Lastly, significant differences between comparable samples from vulnerable (62 caregivers of patients with mental illness) and the general population on WSCS scores reflected known-groups validity. Findings support using the WSCS as a brief, yet psychometrically sound and valuable tool for assessing social resources in workplace settings of the Pakistani general and vulnerable populations. Workplace Social Capital Resilience Psychometric Properties Exploration Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Social capital in organizations or at the workplace is not just a matter of human resources, but also a vital element of organizational sustainability. Organizational sustainability is regarded as a multidimensional concept encompassing the integration of economic, social, and environmental aspects for achieving short-term and long-term goals [ 1 ]. While other dimensions of organizational sustainability are well documented [ 2 ], social sustainability is still an emerging concept characterized by a variety of indicators [ 3 , 4 ], including social capital or its related components [ 5 , 6 ]. Social capital itself is a complex phenomenon [ 7 ]; therefore, an accurate operationalization is the key to meaningful empirical investigations across different cultures and contexts. Social capital is considered an essential social resource, which is gained within the context of social networks and benefits both individuals and groups of people as well as the overall culture of society [ 8 , 9 ]. After being initially coined by Hanifan [ 10 ], the term gained wide admiration among researchers, especially in the last two decades of the twentieth century. As Bourdieu [ 11 ] emphasized, social capital is something people can use to get opportunities and resources, whereas Coleman [ 12 ] stated that social relationships are what can help people develop human capital by performing the functions of reliance, obligations, and information sharing based on relationships through a network, shared values, and participation in society. Their work inspired researchers studying the phenomenon in organizational and workplace settings. Burt [ 13 ] explained the structural aspects of social networks in organizations and noted that those who identify structural gaps and work to bridge them can avail the competitive benefits. This organizational advantage was further elaborated by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [ 14 ], who synthesized various elements of social capital into three major dimensions: structural, relational, and cognitive, and explained how connections, engagement, and knowledge Integration could develop intellectual capital in an organizational setup. Kawachi and his team [ 15 ] studied the multilevel dimensions of social capital in relation to community health and well-being, with the focus being on collective resources, including shared values and norms. Their work motivated the researchers to examine how social capital contributes to the physical and mental health of employees in the workplace. In the meantime, Putnam’s framework became extremely popular because he explained how homogenous and diverse networks evolve through bonding and bridging, and he debated the importance of trust, mutuality, civic action, and shared norms in the shaping of governance or the decline of societies [ 16 , 17 ]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, social capital has been widely studied in various organizational setups. Grounded on the earlier work [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 18 ], Leena and van Buren [ 19 ] studied organizational social capital in employment practices, while Adler and Kowen [ 20 ] synthesized the extant theories for explaining goodwill in organizational social capital in terms of personal and shared advantages obtained through interpersonal relations at work. A study revealed that administrative acts, including knowledge seeking and sharing, quality, and efficacy in organizations, were influenced by the structural and interpersonal dimensions of social capital [ 21 ]. Over time, it was observed that relational and cognitive social capital were more effective in producing various organizational and employee-related desirable outcomes across a range of settings [ 22 , 23 ]. Later research favored the multidimensional aspects of organizational social capital in relation to administration and performance-oriented outcomes [ 24 , 25 ]. Moreover, studies have also demonstrated how social capital and organizational outcomes have been influenced by rapid advancements in the field of digital technologies and social media [ 26 , 27 ]. Trust, connections, and cooperation between people have now been regarded as a significant sustainability driver under the term social capital. The more social relations, the more the communities will be willing to take up environmentally friendly behaviors, including enhanced sharing of resources, which will lead to sustainable development [ 28 ]. Social capital is also used in building resilience in organizations, since with trust and collaboration among the employees, it becomes easier to adjust to challenges and sustain performance [ 29 ]. These results demonstrate that social capital not only reinstates relationships but is also central to the attainment of long-term social and environmental sustainability. So, workplace social capital, including trust, cohesion, and supportive networks, not only improves individuals’ well-being but also contributes to the sustainability of organizational practices [ 30 ]. Individuals who are coping with family illness often face challenges. According to Bourdieu [ 11 ], social capital is a resource resulting from different social networks with circumstances, Coleman [ 12 ] said that familial struggles can reduce an individual social resources as well as make it harder in develop relationships outside home with in other coworkers and these individuals may find it challenging contact opportunities as well as social support that make them difficult in their workplace. Application of social capital to work settings took parallel yet interrelated routes. While several studies mainly focused on ‘organizational social capital’, which targets management, systems, strategic, or performance-related aspects in work settings, the term ‘workplace social capital’ (WSC) primarily emphasizes human resources and occupational health. Following Kawachi’s public health notion of social capital, WSC gained momentum by the mid-2000s through studies conducted by Kouvonen et al. [ 31 ] in Finland. They initially investigated the role of WSC in decreasing risky health behaviors and workplace absenteeism, while later extending to its implications for physical health outcomes, well-being, job satisfaction, and mental health issues [ 32 ]. The majority of later studies are conducted in health settings, including doctors, nurses, and paramedic staff, and findings have indicated that social capital had a buffering effect in stressful situations as it facilitated health employees’ job satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and helped reduce psychological distress and job burnout [ 33 – 35 ]. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of studying social capital in the workplace has grown [ 36 , 37 ]. Along with this, reduced WSC correlated with poor mental health among Iranian industrial workers [ 38 ]. A systematic review of workplace social capital among teachers based on a synthesis of studies conducted during 2004–2019 demonstrated that WCS reliably contributed to constructive outcomes for teachers, students, and the school, particularly in terms of reduced stress, improved performance, increased commitment, and professional development [ 39 ]. Researchers [ 3 ] have provided psychological insight into the workplace social sustainability in terms of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Five of these goals i.e. health and wellbeing, decent work, gender equality, safety and peace have been conceptualized to contribute in social sustainability at workplace. When studying social capital in the workplace, it is essential to use reliable and valid measures. Social capital itself has been considered a challenging construct to operationalize and measure, and the same is true for workplace context [ 40 ]. Earlier studies used multiple indicators while assessing the social capital of employees across organizations, typically administering general scales of social capital [ 41 , 42 ]. However, it is considerable that the nature of social networks and resources may vary across settings [ 43 ]. In recent years, specific scales have been developed and used in different contexts to assess various aspects of organizational and workplace social capital. Table 1 summarizes these measurement tools. Table 1 Summary of Instruments Measuring Workplace and Organizational Social Capital Scale / Authors & Year Target Population / Country Items & Subscales Scale Development Approach Psychometric Evaluation Social Capital at Work [ 31 ] Finnish public-sector employees; Finland 8 items; Cognitive (items 3,5,8) & Structural (items 1,2,4,6,7) Theoretical (Organizational Social capital theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [ 14 ], and Social capital theory by Putnam [ 17 ]) Cronbach's alpha-value is greater than 0.70. Convergent validity was explored by analyzing the association of social capital at work with other work-related constructs Organizational Social Capital Scale [ 44 ] Skilled labor workers and professionals from different industrial sectors, Portugal The scale was initially based on the three dimensions: Structural, Relational, and Cognitive, and later finalized as a 16-item, unidimensional scale. Theoretical Organizational Social Capital Theory by Nahapiet & Ghoshal [ 14 ]) Reliability estimates above .60. Factorial structure was determined through a series of CFA models. Workplace Social Capita Questionnaire for Nurses (WSCQ-N; [ 45 ]) Nurses, Ontario, Canada 35 items, three categories (Structural, Relational, Cognitive), each divided into 3 subscales Theoretical (Organizational Social Capital Theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [ 14 ]) Reliability estimates above .70. Subscales were determined using CFA. Bonding Workplace Social Capital Scale [ 46 ] Japanese employees; Japan 6 items (Unidimensional) Theoretical (Organizational social capital theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [ 14 ]) Reliability coefficient above .90. Factor structure was determined through EFA, and convergent validity was examined by examining the association with several relevant workplace psychosocial factors. Workplace Social Capital based on COPSOQ versions I- III [ 47 – 49 ] Employees in multiple occupations (social workers, dentists, physicians, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, teachers), Swedish samples 6 items, 3 subscales (Bonding, Bridging, Linking WSC) Theoretical (Putnam [ 17 ]) Reliability estimates above 0.80, the Rasch measurement model was used for construct validation. Social Capital of Healthcare Organizations (SOCAPO-E; [ 50 ]) Healthcare employees, including hospitals, cancer centers, hospital boards, nurses, and private practices, in Germany 6 items measuring communal social capital (warmth, trust, shared values, etc.) Theoretical (Coleman [ 12 ] and Putman [ 17 ]) Reliability estimates above .93, Construct validity is determined through CFA, and convergent and criterion-related validity were also assessed. Relational Workplace Social Capital Scale for Japanese Nurses (RWSCS-JN; [ 51 ]) Nurses; Japan 16 items; Unidimensional relational workplace social capital Synthesize existing theoretical and empirical evidence to create a more robust conceptual model Reliability above .70, Structural validity is determined through EFA, and convergent validity estimates are provided. Personal Social Capital in Organization [ 52 ] Organizational employees, Israel 28 items, 6 subscales: ISE; Involvement in organizational social Events and volunteering, PWR; Power connections, SCW; Personal SC from Weak connections, ST; Personal SC from Strong connections, IOE; Involvement in activities and events outside of the organization and volunteering, OPW; Connections with people who themselves possess power. Theoretical (Putnam [ 17 ], Coleman [ 12 ], Bourdieu [ 11 ]), Empirical (Qualitative investigation using content analysis) Reliability was .80 above, construct validity determined through EFA and CFA. Convergent validity is demonstrated by demonstrating its relationship with the Engagement scale. Workplace Social Capital Inventory (WoSCi; [ 53 ]) Employees across sectors, Greece 37 items, multidimensional scale Theoretical grounds, existing measures Reliability estimates .94, Construct validity is determined through EFA and CFA, and convergent and criterion-related validity are also assessed. The health sector has been the primary focus of researchers with regard to developing workplace social capital scales, starting from Finnish studies. Following the Wilkinson’s inequality framework, a brief 8-item measure was developed and tested on a large sample of hospital staff from ten cities, resulting in robust psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency, interrater reliability, and validity estimates for its structural and cognitive domains. The scale has been adapted by Western and Asian cultures, i.e., Spanish [ 54 ], Japanese [ 46 ], and Iranian [ 55 ], to assess workplace social capital in health care personnel. Another measure of social capital developed mainly for nursing workplace settings in Canada [ 45 ] is a multifaceted instrument that was constructed on Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s [ 14 ] perspective of social capital within organizations, providing insights about structural, relational, and cognitive social capital. Some unidimensional measures were also developed, such as the 6-item scale of Bonding Social Capital [ 46 ], and the Relational Workplace Social Capital Scale [ 51 ], again both assessing social capital of healthcare workers. A 16-item single-factor tool named the Organizational Social Capital Scale was developed by Fandino et al [ 44 ] and was validated for a Portuguese sample drawn from various industrial and organizational setups. Reliability estimates were barely acceptable. The Social Capital of Healthcare Organizations (SOCAPO-E) [ 50 ] is yet another tool based on the perspectives of employees in a healthcare setup to measure relationships, trust, and collective values with an aim to nurture positive work environments. The Workplace Social Capital Questionnaire was only related to job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions [ 45 ]. The Workplace Social Capital Scale, based on different versions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) I-III [ 47 – 49 ], was originally developed for Nordic populations and later adapted and extensively validated across European and Asian countries [ 56 – 58 ]. It measures vertical and horizontal trust and organizational. There are some extensive scales as well, including the Personal Social Capital in organizations scales developed in Israel [ 52 ], and the Workplace Social Capital Inventory originally administered to white collar workers in Greece [ 53 ]. The former was an operationalization of existing bonding/bridging dimensions explained in terms of internal and external levels of personal social capital. While the latter has been recently developed after conceptualizing SC at bonding and bridging levels through an exhaustive literature search for the relevant construct. Each level was explained in terms of cognitive and structural context, dividing further into dimensions of trust, reciprocity, and networks, respectively. They also reviewed existing measures and identified limitations before generating items, and finally validated the measure on heterogeneous samples, including health care staff, academics, and employees from other organizational settings. Hence, most of the above-mentioned scale development studies (Table 1 ) have mainly focused on assessing social capital among health care professionals and staff, academics, skilled workers, and white-collar employees of professional organizations. The health sector has been more widely investigated with regard to the assessment of social capital as compared to other sectors. Studies were inspired by a deductive approach to conceptualize the construct before item generation. Most of the studies have extensively evaluated psychometric properties of the scales by measuring reliability estimates generally through Cronbach’s alpha or computed Composite reliability that ranged from .60 to .95. Since scales were built on prior theoretical grounds, confirmatory factor analysis was frequently used for the structural validation. Many studies reported the convergent validity of social capital scales through association with other positive psychosocial correlates at the workplace. A few have determined divergent or discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity for their scales. Pakistani Context and the Present Study While social capital research is being explored in a range of contexts in Pakistan [ 59 ], workplace social capital studies are still limited [ 60 , 61 ]. Ijaz in 2022 translated the Social Capital at Work Scale into Urdu and administered it to non-gazette employees of academic institutions as part of his MPhil dissertation (National University of Modern Languages, 2022). Siddiqui and Akhtar [ 62 ] explored the indicators for social capital and then focused on the internal social capital framework, also referring to the intra-organizational social capital [ 63 ] for measuring the construct in university faculty members. Items were derived from various existing scales. A similar attempt was made by Aslam et al. [ 64 ] while assessing the role of social capital in relation to organizational ambidexterity, who adapted Wu and Chiu’s [ 65 ] scale of social capital. A review of these studies indicates that Pakistani researchers have either used the general social capital scale in different occupational contexts or used original, translated, or adapted versions of workplace social capital scales developed. However, translated or adapted versions may not capture the culturally rooted levels and dimensions of workplace social capital. Moreover, while international studies of workplace social capital mainly focus on structural and organizational levels of skilled or qualified populations, the cultural context in Pakistan requires a focus on the relational and psychosocial dimensions of social capital in work settings. In collectivist cultures like Pakistan, familial dynamics and socioeconomic contexts could also be associated with the availability and utility of social resources at the workplace. It is essential to note that the majority of the Pakistani workplace is engaged in low to middle-income job settings [ 66 ]. Some professions, such as allied health including nursing and paramedics [ 67 ], school teaching [ 68 ], skilled labor in formal settings, even banking [ 69 ], and certain general administrative or supervisory positions in industries or organizations, are recognized not only as prestigious but are also well-paid internationally [ 70 ]. However, in Pakistan, these are often regarded as low to middle-income job positions. People often belong to joint families [ 71 ], where earning members are relatively fewer compared to the family size [ 72 ]. Such families also face challenging circumstances, adding to the financial burden and negative impact on earning members’ job-related outcomes, including social capital at the workplace [ 73 ]. Mental illness has been considered one of these challenges for low to middle-income families of Pakistan [ 74 ]. It is within this context that the authors of the current study, as the part of the Higher Education Commission’s project on patterns of risk and protective factors in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, funded by the World Bank’s grand challenge fund grant, recognized social capital as a potential protective factor in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, conceptualized it indigenously through qualitative inquiry [ 75 ] and in view of existing theories [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 17 ] aimed social capital assessment tools in general and the workplace settings (unpublished thesis) (Butt & Khawar, Government College University Faisalabad, 2023). The present paper synthesizes the findings of a series of studies conducted in this regard with a major aim to develop and validate the workplace social capital scale that targets the low-to-middle-income job context and familial aspects such as mental illness of a family member. Materials and Methods The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Government College University (under the IRB Approval No. 567). The current study involved two phases: Phase I was related to the development of the scale, and Phase II included the investigation of the psychometric properties of the newly developed measure. Phase I: Scale Development Step 1: Using empirical and theoretical grounds for item generation. The scale was developed using both deductive and inductive approaches as recommended in current best practices for constructing scales by following International Test Commission Guidelines [ 76 ]. In this regard, empirical ground using an inductive method was established by the author in an earlier qualitative study of social capital in the Pakistani context [ 77 ]. In contrast, a deductive method was involved in a master's level research (unpublished thesis) intended to develop a scale of social capital for the Pakistani adult population (Butt & Khawar, Government College University, Faisalabad, 2023). All these studies are part of the Higher Education Commission’s Grand Challenge Project on patterns of risk and protective factors in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, funded by the World Bank’s grant. Social capital has been conceptualized as a protective factor in the research project across various contexts. For this particular measure, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 (50% women, 20–45 years old) individuals, purposely drawn from hospitals, educational institutes, and industrial organizations (factories), who had been working there for at least one year. Content analysis resulted in collaborative networks at the workplace, workplace cohesion, trustworthiness, and organizational worth in society. Based on the findings of the above-mentioned content analysis, existing theories (Putnam [ 78 ], Lin’s [ 79 ], Kaufman [ 80 ], and Coleman [ 12 ]) and measures, the authors initially generated a pool of 30 items. Step 2: Expert evaluation. The 30-item pool was reviewed by a committee of specialists who had at least 5 years’ experience in the fields of psychological testing and assessment ( n = 3) and organizational/occupational psychology ( n = 2). Items were assessed based on clarity, relevance, cultural appropriateness, and duplication. Through consensus, vague or repetitive items were removed or revised, resulting in a 22-item scale in Urdu. Following the expert suggestions, we selected a 4-point Likert scale response format where 1 = Not at all true, 2 = Somewhat true, 3 = Mostly true, 4 = Completely true. According to Lozano et al. in 2008 [ 81 ], a scale with an odd number of points, such as a 5-point scale labeled as neither agree nor disagree, mainly undergoes the problem of the middle point because most people select this as they are uncertain to take a position. So, reducing one of these middle options, a 4-point scale (forced choice) would help the respondent to one side or another, making the measurement more straightforward. Step 3: Pilot testing. The 22-item refined version was then administered to a sample of 8 employees not involved in the main study to create the pilot group. They were asked to give feedback on the comprehension, clarity, and relevance of the items. Minor linguistic adjustments based on the participants' feedback were made to improve the face validity of the scale. Step 4: Pre-final version. The adjustments based on the pilot study were reviewed and finalized by the expert committee. All 22 items were retained, ready for empirical testing. Phase II: The Psychometric Evaluation This phase of the study is currently focused on establishing Psychometric Validation, which is broken down into two steps: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Participants In Phase II for EFA, 150 participants (40 men and 110 women) were selected through purposive sampling. They mainly consisted of paramedic and nursing staff, school teachers, bank staff, support staff of public/private offices, and factory workers residing in Faisalabad city of Punjab province, Pakistan. Participants aged 20 to 60 years ( M age = 31.07, SD = 6.65). For CFA, a final sample of 308 participants (110 men and 198 women) was recruited from the same occupational categories but different institutional settings. These participants were adults aged 20 to 60 years ( M age = 32.13, SD = 6.82). Those who had an experience of at least one year at the same setting were included. Individuals diagnosed with any physical or mental health issue were not included. These questions were asked in the demographic data sheet attached to the informed consent. As the current study targets low to middle-income employees, those who earn up to 100,000/ PKR were included. A subset of this sample ( N = 165) completed the Workplace Resilience Scale to provide convergent validity estimates. The third sample ( N = 62; 20% women; M age = 38.97, SD = 9.456) included caregivers of patients with mental illness, meeting the above-mentioned criteria of employment and health, and was drawn from an ongoing study on risk and protective factors of intergenerational mental illness (HEC-GCF-844). They had been considered vulnerable or at-risk groups as they scored above 16 on Kessler’s 10-item psychological distress scale [ 82 ]. They were also compared with a sample drawn from the general public serving as the comparison group of the ongoing HEC project. They completed WSCS, and the comparison of scores provided known-groups validity estimates for the current study. Instruments Demographic Sheet It consists of the following: name(optional), age, gender, marital status, residence, family system, family size, number of earning members, monthly income, organizational sector, profession, number of friends in general, and number of friends at the workplace. Workplace Social Capital Scale WSCS. The newly developed Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) was used to measure participants’ perceptions of social resources at work. The scale originally had 22 items, with responses recorded on a 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Completely true). A higher score indicates greater perceived social capital at the workplace. Resilience at Work Scale ReWoS-24 [ 83 ]. The scale includes 24 items and uses a Likert-type format ranging from 0 to 3. It has two versions: Form A, which measures individual resilience, and Form B, which measures team resilience. Furthermore, Form A is divided into three subscales: general well-being, well-being at work, and satisfaction with job performance. The scales showed high internal consistency with an alpha above .80. In the current study, we use the Urdu version of this measure, consisting of 21 items with an alpha of .91, which was translated as part of an unpublished master’s thesis (Shahzadi & Khawar, Government College University, Faisalabad, 2025). Kessler Psychological Distress Scale K10 [ 82 ]. The measure can be applied as a brief screen to determine distress levels. It includes 10 items regarding emotional states with a five-level response scale. Each of them is rated on a scale of one, none of the time, to five, all of the time. The sum of the 10 items then gives us the lowest and the highest scores. A low score indicates a low degree of psychological distress, while a high score means a high degree of psychological distress. Ethical Considerations Data were collected after institutional approval and written informed consent from participants. The study adhered to professional ethical standards, ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to refuse. Participants were thanked for their contribution. No tangible incentives were provided for this particular study. Procedure The study was conducted in successive phases of scale development and psychometric evaluation across various samples, not only recruited for this particular study, but also from relevant ongoing studies conducted by the authors for a large-scale research project. Therefore, initial qualitative findings are derived from a master’s thesis aimed at developing a social capital scale for adults. Workplace social capital was categorized as a distinct type of social capital and required further exploration. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts investigating social capital in organizational/workplace settings, and existing measures mainly used in Pakistan were extensively reviewed for identifying possible gaps. It provided the base for developing the WSCS. To evaluate psychometric properties, the lower-middle-income group of employees was targeted as they were overlooked in existing Pakistani studies. Thus, a sample of 175 individuals working as nurses, allied health technicians, school teachers, lab staff, clerical and other administrative and support staff from banks and factories with more than one year of job experience were approached at their respective places. They completed the demographic data sheet and the newly developed 22-item version of WSCS. Seven participants did not complete the measure, while 18 were excluded due to missing values or extreme scores, leaving a final sample of 150 participants, subjected to exploratory factor analysis. After obtaining an initial factor structure while retaining 18 items, another sample of 315 participants from a similar population was drawn for research for confirmatory factor analysis, who completed a demographic data sheet and the 18-item version of WSCS in the first session. After data cleaning, confirmatory factor analysis was computed for 308 participants. A sub-sample of 150 participants also filled out the Resilience at Work Scale in the second session, as we intended to compute convergent validity. Finally, the 12-item WSCS was administered to a sample of 62 caregivers who had a family member diagnosed with mental illness, as a part of the HEC-GCF-844 project. These participants met the job and income criteria and were considered as at-risk group based on existing scores on K-10 (16 or greater [ 82 ]). We finally recruited a comparison group matched for demographic characteristics from the general population, who reported no family member with mental illness. They completed the demographic information sheet and 12-item WSCS. The comparison of mean scores between the groups provided an estimate of validity using the known-group method [ 84 ]. Correlation between scores of K-10 and WSCS proved to be a source for divergent validity. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 23) and AMOS according to the broadly suggested guidelines for the development and validation of scales [ 85 , 86 ]. The data were analyzed in sequential steps to assess the factorial structure, reliability, and validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for the scales. And values of .70 and above were considered acceptable [ 87 ]. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out after taking estimates of the sampling adequacy through the sphericity using the Bartlett test [ 88 ], followed by Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation. Extraction was based on eigenvalues greater than one [ 89 ], the scree plot [ 90 ], and the theoretical relevance of the items. Strong loadings and problematic cross-loadings were eliminated, resulting in a stable factor solution. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on a different sample using AMOS. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including the Chi-square/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index, the Tucker-Lewis Index, the Incremental Fit Index, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. For good fit criteria, conventional cutoff values were used [ 91 ]. Further evidence of construct validity was sought by computing Pearson Product-Moment correlations between the Workplace Social Capital Scale and the Resilience at Work Scale and Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) for convergent and divergent validity, respectively. Another evidence of construct validity was provided by computing known-groups validity, comparing caregivers of patients with mental illness with a general public sample using a t-test for independent samples. Results Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the study samples, while Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of demographic variables for both study samples. Table 2 Demographics of both Study Samples Sample 1 (EFA) Sample 2 (CFA) Variable Groups f (%) f (%) Gender Men 40(26.7) 110(35.7) Women 110(73.3) 198(64.3) Total 150(100) 308(100) Marital Status Married 89(59.3) 178(57.8) Unmarried 58(38.7) 128(41.6) Divorced 2(1.3) 1(.3) Widow/Widower 1(.7) 1(.3) Total 150(100) 308(100) Residence Rural 16(10.7) 68(22.1) Urban 116(77.3) 153(49.7) Suburban/Town 18(12.0) 87(28.2) Total 150(100) 308(100) Family System Nuclear 102(68.0) 164(53.2) Joint 48(32.0) 144(46.8) Total 150(100) 308(100) Organizational Sector Public 108(72.0) 232(75.3) Private 42(28.0) 76(24.7) Total 150(100) 308(100) Profession Allied Health 31(20.7) 63(20.5) Teachers 31(20.7) 63(20.5) Bank Staff 19(12.7) 39(12.7) Support Staff 41(27.3) 84(27.3) Factory Worker 28(18.7) 59(19.2) Total 150(100) 308(100) Table 2 reveals that the respondents were selected in public and private institutions; however, they mainly included representatives of the low and middle-income occupational groups, rather than top-managerial posts. The incomes ranges further establishes that the participants primarily belonged to lower-middle-income families. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables for both Study Samples Sample 1 (EFA) (150) Sample 2 (CFA)(308) Variable Min-Max Mdn M(SD) Min-Max Mdn M(SD) Age 22–55 31.07(6.65) 20–56 32.13(6.82) Family Size 2–19 6 5.95(2.28) 2–17 6 5.92(2.22) Earning Members 1–6 2 2.29(.97) 1–7 2 2.22(1.15) Monthly Income 25000–85000 58646.67(14355.10) 25000–100000 60048.70(14332.52) Number of Friends in general 0–20 3 4.01(4.04) 0–30 3 3.94(4.18) Number of Friends at the Workplace 0–10 2 1.84(1.72) 0–60 2 2.66(4.45) Table 3 presents an overview of data in terms of the score range and the measures of central tendency and dispersion (median, mean, and standard deviation) according to each group. These signs provide insight into the demographic and socio-economic background of participants in terms of age, household composition, income level, and the level of social relationships in general, as well as in the workplace. Exploratory Factor Analysis for the WSCS Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation were used to analyze the initial factor structure of the workplace social capital scale, consisting of 22 items. For the EFA sample ( N = 150), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.873, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (1544.92, p < .001), which showed that the data were appropriate for exploratory factor analysis. Scree plot and eigenvalue criterion supported a three-factor solution as the best fit for the data (see Table 4 ; Fig. 1 ). Table 4 Factor Structure of the Scale of Workplace Social Capital according to Varimax rotation (N = 150) Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 WSC19 .862 WSC21 .726 WSC22 .716 WSC20 .715 WSC18 .675 WSC16 .593 WSC12 .524 WSC15 .500 WSC9 .752 WSC7 .711 WSC8 .697 WSC6 .663 WSC17 .485 .629 WSC10 .612 WSC11 .595 WSC4 .803 WSC5 .644 WSC3 .514 WSC2 .513 WSC14 WSC13 WSC1 Note : Sr. # = serial number. The three factors had eigenvalues of 7.89, 2.25, and 1.52, accounting for 35.88%, 10.22%, and 6.89% of the variance, respectively, totaling 52.99% explained variance. We considered the criterion of .50 for loading [ 92 ] on their primary factor for retaining the items, while those with lower loadings or significant cross-loadings were excluded. The rotated factor solution yielded three conceptually clear clusters, each representing distinct aspects of social capital in the workplace. The first factor includes eight items (12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) related to knowledge sharing/hiding, connecting with supervisors/leaders, trust in administration, and workplace importance. Six items (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) loading on the second factor describe shared norms in terms of work group affiliation, workplace safety, coworkers’ trust, organizational policy about social relationships, and patience during conflict. The third factor retained four items (2, 3, 4, 5) that describe enjoyment activities with co-workers, peer/lateral support, friendliness at the workplace, and mutual help. Figure 1 . Shows the Scree plot that illustrates the process of extracting factors from the Workplace Social Capital Scale. Reliability Analysis Overall reliability of the 18-item WSCS was good, as shown by Cronbach’s α value (.90) [ 93 ]. Table 5 shows the item-to-total correlation and alpha if items were deleted. Table 5 Item Total Statistics for Workplace Social Capital Scale (N = 150) Item No. Item-Total Correlation α if Item Deleted WSC2 .144 .910 WSC3 .569 .897 WSC4 .495 .899 WSC5 .683 .894 WSC6 .427 .902 WSC7 .648 .895 WSC8 .621 .896 WSC9 .459 .901 WSC10 .515 .899 WSC11 .621 .896 WSC12 .620 .896 WSC15 .574 .897 WSC16 .752 .892 WSC17 .684 .894 WSC18 .633 .895 WSC19 .556 .898 WSC21 .559 .898 WSC20 .491 .900 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Three factors obtained from EFA with 18 items were evaluated. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed using AMOS version 23 on the second sample ( N = 308). The maximum likelihood method was used, while factor loadings above .50 were retained. The first model was not a good fit; therefore, in view of modification indices, we reanalyzed the model after excluding certain items. The second model offered adequate fit indices (Table 6 ). Figures 2and 3 indicate the first and second models, respectively. Reliability estimates were obtained once again and were found to be good for the 12-item Workplace Social Capital Scale ( α = .85). Table 6 Fit Indices for Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS)(N = 308) Model Items CMIND/DF RMSEA CFI TLI NFI IFI 1 18 3.617 .092 .79 .76 .74 .79 2 12 2.411 .068 .94 .92 .90 .94 Table 6 shows fit indices for the CFA models, indicating that all fit indices are good [ 58 ] for the second model. The model showed improvement after removing items (2, 6, 7, 12, 15, and 17) with relatively lower loadings, and also in view of the suggestions by modification indices. For internal consistency, the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelation among study variables in phase 2 CFA (see Table 7 ) were examined. Table 7 Mean, Standard Deviation, Reliability values, and Intercorrelations among total and subscales of Workplace Social Capital Scale (N = 308) Scales K α 1 2 3 4 1. Interpersonal Support 3 .70 1 2. Cohesive Work Climate 4 .80 .50** 1 3. Vertical Trust and Organizational Value 5 .77 .41** .50** 1 4. Workplace Social Capital Scale 12 .85 .73** .83** .84** 1 M 8.40 10.62 14.44 33.45 SD 1.82 2.43 2.94 5.81 Note: K = Number of items, ** p < .01 Table 7 shows that the workplace social capital scale and cohesive work climate have excellent alpha levels. It also indicates that the interpersonal support, vertical trust, and organizational values have good alpha levels. The intercorrelation results reveal that interpersonal support has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational values, and the workplace social capital scale. Additionally, a cohesive work climate shows a significant positive relationship with vertical trust, organizational values, and the workplace social capital scale. Finally, vertical trust and organizational values also display significant positive relationships with the workplace social capital scale. Convergent Validity Convergent Validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale was determined in collaboration with the Resilience at Work Scale and its Subscales. (See Table 8 ) Table 8 Inter correlation among Resilience at Work Scale (ReWoS), its subscales in rows, and Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and its subscales in columns (N = 150) Scales Interpersonal Support Cohesive Work Climate Vertical Trust and Organizational Value Workplace Social Capital Scale 1. General Wellbeing .09 .26** .20* .24** 2. Wellbeing at Work .13 .33** .43** .40** 3. Satisfaction with Job Performance .14 .31** .31** .33** 4. Individual Resilience .14 .35** .40** .40** 5. Team Resilience .22** .27** .36** .37** 6. Work at Resilience Scale .65** .93** .85** .97** Note : *** p ˂ 0.001, ** p ˂ 0.01, * p ˂ 0.05. Table 8 shows the intercorrelation among the Resilience at Work Scale (ReWoS), its subscales, and the Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and its subscales. It indicates that general well-being has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the Workplace Social Capital scale. It also shows that well-being at work has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. Moreover, satisfaction with job performance has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. Similarly, individual resilience has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the Workplace Social Capital scale. Team resilience also has a significant positive relationship with interpersonal support, cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. It also indicated that overall work at the resilience scale had a significant positive relationship with the workplace social capital Scale and with all its subscales. Reliability Assessment and Discriminant Validity The 12-item WSCS was administered to a sample of 62 caregivers who had a family member diagnosed with mental illness, as a part of the HEC-GCF-844 project. These participants met the job and income criteria and were considered as at-risk group based on existing scores on K-10 (16 or greater [ 82 ]). We finally recruited a comparison group matched for demographic characteristics from the general population, who reported no family member with mental illness. According to an independent samples t-test, these caregivers scored lower on workplace social capital ( M = 30.79, SD = 7.44) than the general population ( M = 35.71, SD = 3.65), t (88.71) = -4.68, p < .001, 95% CI [ -7.01, -2.83] and the large effect size ( d = 0.84) indicates the known groups validity. The correlation coefficients between psychological distress and workplace social capital were found to be significantly negative ( r = − .36, p < .01), showing that the higher the psychological distress, the less the workplace social capital. The reliability analysis of WSCS showed that the total 12-item scale ( α = .88), cohesive work climate ( α = .83), vertical trust and organizational value ( α = .82), and interpersonal support ( α = .75) were good to excellent internal consistency, which validated that the scale is a reliable measure of this sample. Discussion The current study involved two phases and aimed to develop and evaluate the factorial structure, reliability, and construct validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale in the low to middle-income context in Pakistan. In Phase I, the content analysis revealed that there are four key dimensions of workplace social capital, including collaborative networks, workplace cohesion, trustworthiness, and organizational worth in society. These dimensions supported both theoretical and empirical understanding about the concept of social capital in organizational settings [ 12 , 97 ]. Literature supports the presence of collaborative networks, indicating the level at which the employees are involved in supportive and mutual relationships that enable the sharing of knowledge and collective problem-solving. Studies indicated that strong networks at the workplace enhance resources, mutual support, and institutional effectiveness [ 14 , 20 ]. The factor that collaborative networks are especially effective in low-to middle-income contexts in Pakistan was that reduced structural and material resources are balanced by the interpersonal relationships that help workers to use interconnectedness to attain work-based goals [ 17 ]. The factor of workplace cohesion is a sense of belonging, connectedness, and unity among employees. Cohesion is linked to lower turnover but also improves teamwork and commitment to the organization [ 98 , 99 ]. Literature supports that overall employee well-being and productivity in collectivistic societies are commonly determined by workplace coherence to a greater extent than in individualistic cultures. Studies support the cultural fitness of its development in the present context [ 100 ]. The factor of trustworthiness relates to employees’ confidence in the reliability and honesty of their coworkers and organizational leadership. This concept is well established as an essential factor of social capital in the workplace that can enhance cooperation and assure stability in times of managerial stress [ 101 , 102 ]. Research proved empirically that trust has a strong predictive power both at the individual level (in terms of job satisfaction) as well as at the collective level (in terms of organizational performance) [ 97 ]. The factor of organizational worth in society closely resembles external social capital, which emphasizes the justice and reputation of organizations in their social environment [ 10 , 19 ]. Research shows that when employees feel valued by their organization, it fosters a sense of pride, identity, and motivation, thereby improving both organizational performance and employees’ well-being [ 103 ]. All these factors combine to prove that the concept of workplace social capital is not restricted to interpersonal trust but also spreads over a wide area of organizational perceptions in society, which strengthens its use as a protective resource in professional situations, especially in low-to middle-income nations. In Phase II, findings of exploratory factor analysis support an 18-item and a three-factor structure. These three factors support classical social capital theories, which are essential mechanisms in social relationships, recommending trust, reciprocity, and shared values [ 12 , 17 , 11 ]. A further confirmation of the suitability of this three-factor model was obtained through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which was conducted after removing poorly performing items. The 12-item showed a satisfactory model fit and very good internal consistency, comparable to previous validation studies on workplace social capital [ 24 , 104 ]. The three-factor structure (vertical trust and organizational values, cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support) identified in this study is also supported by existing literature. Prior research on the validity of social capital at the workplace has consistently emphasized the critical role of trusting, reciprocating, and friendly relationships in shaping the primary factor of the construct [ 105 ]. The Interpersonal Support, the first factor, emphasizes the daily active supportive actions of coworkers giving and receiving help, encouragement, and reciprocity. Decades of research show that peer support provides a reliable relationship that improves attitudes and performance while decreasing stress. A meta-analysis of 168 independent samples confirmed these findings by demonstrating that coworker relationships explain unique variance in motivation, citizenship behaviors, and withdrawal, beyond job characteristics and leadership, indicating that workfellows are a distinct source of social support in the workplace [ 106 ]. Additionally, both recent and older studies support that social support moderates the influence of stressors on well-being [ 107 ]. Support from colleagues and supervisors also has stronger positive links to decreased burnout [ 108 ]. Research suggests that Interpersonal Support can be viewed as the social-capital component of bonding related to mutual aid and resilience within teams [ 53 ]. The second factor, Cohesive Work Climate, reflects a shared, supportive culture of norms of collaboration, inclusion, and a sense of collective effort. The two meta-analytic reviews published so far consistently show positive relationships between perceptions of a favorable climate and job satisfaction, commitment, and performance, as well as inverse relations between turnover intentions and optimistic climate perceptions [ 109 ]. A meta-analysis of studies across various tasks and contexts found a stable positive correlation between cohesion and performance [ 110 ]. Further research on psychologically safe climates explains one such process: shared beliefs that interpersonal risk-taking is safe can promote learning and performance [ 111 ], and a meta-analysis confirms that psychologically safe climates are positively related to engagement and performance [ 112 ]. Vertical Trust and Organizational Value represent the third factor. Extensive meta-analyses have shown that trust in leaders is significantly linked to key employee outcomes such as job fulfilment, administrative commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, while also reducing counterproductive behaviors [ 113 ]. According to foundational theory, such trust is based on perceptions of a leader's ability, benevolence, and integrity [ 102 ]. Simultaneously, value congruence, the feeling that one’s personal values align with those of the organization, can predict levels of identification, dedication, and satisfaction [ 114 ], and it can enhance cooperation and retention in daily activities [ 115 ]. Overall, this creates social capital associated with linking: upward trust combined with shared values, through which authority is seen as legitimate, and collective action is aligned with organizational priorities. Homeland theaters provide convenience in their own unique way and have remained popular since the beginning of the 21st century [ 116 ]. On the whole, the three-factor solution is consistent with previous efforts on social capital at the workplace. Kouvonen et al. in 2006 [ 31 ] scale conceptualizes social capital in the workplace in terms of trust, reciprocity, and participation, and this measure has been tested across a variety of languages and settings. A major predictor of the income structure was the discovery rate, which is associated with a drastic drop in the income structure. In contrast, a Spanish translation administered to Mexican health professionals showed acceptability of the factor model using confirmatory factor analysis [ 117 ]. Recent substantive modifications also increasingly focus on both horizontal (coworker) and vertical (management & organization) elements [ 118 ], reinforcing the coherence of interpersonal support, cohesive work climate, and vertical trust & organizational value. In literature, Moore and colleagues in 2011 [ 119 ] distinguished between vertical trust and organizational value, but other studies emphasize the importance of supportive and cohesive work environments in fostering positive outcomes [ 120 ]. Similarly, research conducted in other Asian work-related areas shows that trust in management, a collaborative climate, and interpersonal support are the main factors of social capital in the workplace [ 121 ]. Overall, the results suggest that the three variables identified in the current study, vertical trust and organizational value, a cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support, are both theoretically expected and empirically supported to explain outcomes across different cultural and organizational contexts. Likewise, the construct validity of the scale shows that the workplace social capital scale and its subscales significantly positively correlated with the resilience at work scale and its subscales, as the team with individual resilience indicated positive relationships. Previous literature supports that good workplace relationships, trust, and shared values can improve resilience, as highlighted by the significance of social support and decreasing the adverse effects of workplace stress [ 122 , 123 ], especially in the context of Pakistan's cultural values. The internal consistency, which was further supported by an independent sample of caregivers of patients with mental illness, refining the scale demonstrated strong internal consistency across diverse groups [ 93 ]. These results indicate that the scale is both theoretically and statistically valid. The results of this study are consistent with research from other countries, which shows that social capital in the workplace improves job satisfaction, mental health, and reduces burnout [ 14 , 124 , 105 ]. Our independent sample t-test results after comparing caregivers of patients suffering mental illness and general population groups indicate that moderate and severe psychologically suffering caregivers obtained a significantly lower score on work social capital, and increased psychological distress was related to reduced social capital, which is consistent with the validity of known groups. Literature supports that low social capital in the workplace is strongly linked to high psychological distress and worse mental health outcomes. Arslan et al. found that Iranian employees who had low social capital at the workplace were more than twice as likely to report psychological distress in relation to their social capital than those who had higher social capital [ 125 ]. The same evidence can be found in Japan that indicates that the impact of unfavorable employment terms, including high work demands and low organizational justice, on psychological distress could be balanced by social capital at the workplace [ 126 , 127 ]. In an alternative study conducted in Brazilian female workers, greater social capital was associated with reduced common mental disorder and stress, hence its importance as a protective factor [ 128 ]. These results combined allow us to interpret that workplace social capital is an important psychosocial resource in the relief of psychological distress. It is important to highlight, however, that this study advances the existing research by offering a culturally validated instrument that considers the realities of workplace environments related to low-to-middle-income contexts in Pakistan, such as hierarchical structures and the importance of extended relational networks. Implications The newly developed scale of workplace social capital in the Urdu language provides a reliable and valid tool for measuring social resources in the workplace regarding low to middle-income contexts of Pakistan, assisting organizations to understand the need to trust, cohesion, and supportive systems. Moreover, accurate assessment of workplace social capital will help organizations to recognize their social benefits and drawbacks and develop specific approaches to increase the integrity of the relational networks among the workers that could foster social sustainability. Team-building activities, open communication, and practical leadership approaches are some of the ways that workplace social capital can improve resilience. The results of this study offer valuable real-world understandings for workplace social interaction realities and demands, and the potential of WSC as a protective factor in the challenging circumstances of life, such as familial mental illness. Limitations and Suggestions Despite the current study suggesting strong support for the reliability and validity of the newly developed Workplace Social Capital Scale, there are several considerations to make. Response bias is a possibility because the instrument is self-administered. Samples could not be considered representative unless larger samples are drawn systematically from specific workplace settings. Therefore, generalizability could be questionable; however, fit indices and reliability estimates for such small samples are still encouraging, offering insights to future evaluations. This measure not only supports understanding of social capital's role at work but also enhances its representativeness, contributing to workplace resilience in various professional environments. The measure is not limited to the mental illness context, and researchers could explore the predictive validity of WSCS across a variety of workplace contexts in Pakistan. Conclusions In general, the findings of the current study provide practical indications that the newly developed scale of Workplace Social Capital in Urdu is a reliable and useful instrument for measuring psychosocial aspects in workplaces among low to middle-income contexts in Pakistan. Vertical trust and organizational value, a cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support are the three main factors of this scale. The results further show that to enhance its effectiveness in the workplace, workplace social capital indicates significant associations with the resilience at work scale. The scale could be used by organizational psychologists, mental health professionals, and researchers in the field of economics and management sciences. Declarations Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding This study was supported by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan ( 10.13039/501100004681 ) (HEC-GCF-844). Author Contribution RK and RB conceptualise the study. RK and KS wrote the manuscript. SH and KS did the statistical analysis. MA and HA review the manuscript. IAD facilitated in data collection and review manuscript. KS and SH proofread the manuscript. Acknowledgement We acknowledge all the participants for their time who took part in the research. We are thankful to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for providing a research grant through the World Bank’s Grand Challenge Fund to the corresponding author as Principal Investigator. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Ethics Statement All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Government College University (under the IRB Approval No. 567). Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. References Lozano R. Envisioning Sustainability Three-Dimensionally. J Clean Prod. 2008;16(13):1838–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008 . Herghiligiu IV, Robu I-B, Vîlcu A, Pîslaru M. Organizational sustainability main components identification using PCA. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. Sciendo; 2021. pp. 256–266. https://doi.org/10.2478/9788366675735-041 Kobal Grum D, Babnik K. The psychological concept of social sustainability in the workplace from the perspective of sustainable goals: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2022;13:942204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942204 . Xu J-M, Cao M-G, Gao Q-C, Lu Y-X, Stark AT. Nurses’ workplace social capital and sustainable development: an integrative review of empirical studies. J Nurs Manag. 2024;2024:8362035. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8362035 . Ahn MY, Davis HH. Sense of belonging as an indicator of social capital. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2020;40(7–8):627–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-12-2019-0258 . Eriksson M, Santosa A, Zetterberg L, Kawachi I, Ng N. Social capital and sustainable social development—how are changes in neighbourhood social capital associated with neighbourhood sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics? Sustainability. 2021;13(23):13161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313161 . Bhandari H, Yasunobu K. What is social capital? A comprehensive review of the concept. Asian J Soc Sci. 2009;37(3):480–510. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853109x436847 . Ferlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115–28. https://doi:10.1177/0001699307077654 . Sánchez-Arrieta N, González RA, Cañabate A, Sabate F. Social capital on social networking sites: A social network perspective. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):5147. https://doi:10.3390/su13095147 . Hanifan LJ. The rural school community center. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 1916;67(1):130–8. https://doi:10.1177/000271621606700118 . Bourdieu P. Forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, editor. Handbook of theory for the sociology of education. Greenwood; 1986. pp. 241–58. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988;94:S95–120. https://doi:10.1086/228943 . Burt RS. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press; 1992. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev. 1998;23(2):242–66. https://doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225 . Kawachi I. Social capital and community effects on population and individual health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896(1):120–30. https://doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08110.x . Putnam RD. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press; 1993. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster; 2000. Tsai W, Ghoshal S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J. 1998;41(4):464–76. https://doi:10.5465/257085 . Leana CR, Van Buren HJ. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad Manage Rev. 1999;24(3):538–55. https://doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202136 . Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17–40. https://doi:10.5465/amr.2002.5922314 . Moran P. Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strateg Manag J. 2005;26(12):1129–51. https://doi:10.1002/smj.486 . Inkpeng AC, Tsang EWK. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30(1):146–65. https://doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281445 . Maurer I, Bartsch V, Ebers M. The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organ Stud. 2011;32(2):157–85. https://doi:10.1177/0170840610394301 . Akhavan P, Hosseini SM. Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of R&D teams in Iran. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2015;27(6):729–45. https://doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1026211 . García-Sánchez E, Díaz-Díaz NLY, De Saá-Pérez P. Social capital and knowledge sharing in academic research teams. Int Rev Admin Sci. 2019;85(1):191–207. https://doi:10.1177/0020852317700828 . Bharati P, Zhang W, Chaudhury A. Social media assimilation in firms: Investigating the roles of absorptive capacity and institutional pressures. Inform Syst Front. 2015;17(1):125–42. https://doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9523-3 . Choi SY. The role of social capital in the digital divide between rural and urban communities. Inform Technol Dev. 2016;22(1):1–22. https://doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1011593 . Mularczk M. Social capital and sustainable development: An empirical analysis in Poland. Sustainability. 2024;16(4):1459. https://doi:10.3390/su16041459 . Umer M, Zhang L, Raza MY, Tariq A. The mediating role of organizational resilience between social capital and sustainable performance: Evidence from emerging economies. Discover Sustain. 2025;6(1):18. https://doi:10.1007/s43621-025-01692-x . Kleine A, Hauff M. Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. J Bus Ethics. 2012;85(3):517–33. https://doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0212-z . Kouvonen A, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Oksanen T, Elovainio M, Cox T, Wilkinson RG. Psychometric evaluation of a short measure of social capital at work. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:251. https://doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-251 . Kouvonen A, Oksanen T, Vahtera J, Stafford M, Wilkinson R, Schneider J, Kivimäki M. [Multiple longitudinal studies on workplace social capital and health outcomes in the Finnish Public Sector Study]. 2008–12. Chen X, Zhang S, Zhou Y. Workplace social capital and mental health among healthcare workers: Evidence from China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1–11. https://doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07856-2 . Singh A, Dher A, Verma P. Workplace social capital as a buffer against stress and burnout among healthcare workers. J Health Manage. 2023;25(3):411–27. https://doi:10.1177/09720634231123456 . Yamashita T, Takahashi M, Fukuda Y, Kondo N. Workplace social capital and burnout among nurses: A longitudinal analysis in Japan. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;147:104635. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104635 . Sahin H, Kizilirmak P, Atan T. The role of workplace social capital in coping with COVID-19-related stress among healthcare professionals. Health Care Manage Rev. 2023;48(2):112–20. https://doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000356 . Sun J, Li Q, Wang Y, Chen X. Social capital and mental health during COVID-19: Evidence from workplace settings in China. Front Psychol. 2020;11:566852. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566852 . Rostamim R, Jalilian H, Mahboubi M. Association between workplace social capital and mental health among Iranian industrial workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;25(4):600–6. https://doi:10.1080/10803548.2018.1440899 . Demir EK. The Role of Social Capital for Teacher Professional Learning and Student Achievement: A Systematic Literature Review. SSRN J. 2021. Claridge T. Social Capital and the Problem of Measurement. Social Capital: An Introduction to a Challenging Concept. Cham: Springer; 2018. Sabatini F. Social capital as an indicator of human development: a new measurement approach. J Socio-Econ. 2009;38(5):783–802. Van der Gaag M, Snijders TA. B. The resource generator: social capital measurement through personal networks. Social Networks. 2005;27(1):1–29. Stone J, Hughes J. Assessing the range and evidence-based interventions in a cluster of schools. Br J Educational Stud. 2022;70(3):323–42. Fandiño E, Oliveira M, Pinho J, Correia J. Organizational Social Capital Scale: Based on Nahapiet and Ghosal Model: Development and Validation. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) . 2015. Read EA, Laschinger HKS, Fida R, Finegan J, Wong CA. Development and validation of a workplace social capital questionnaire for nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2016;24(5):634–46. https://doi:10.1111/jonm.12370 . Eguchi H, Tsutsumi A, Inoue A, Odagiri Y. Psychometric assessment of a scale to measure bonding workplace social capital. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6):e0179461. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179461 . Kristensen TS, Hannerup U, Borg V. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):303–12. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ): A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(3):234–40. Berthelsen H, Westerlund H, Pejtersen JH, Hadzibajramovic E. Construct validity of a global scale for Workplace Social Capital based on COPSOQ III. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221893. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221893 . Ansmann L, Hower KI, Wirtz MA, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N, McKee L, Pfaff H. Measuring social capital of healthcare organizations reported by employees for creating positive workplaces - validation of the SOCAPO-E instrument. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(272). https://doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05041-z . Norikoshi K, Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A. Development and validation of the Relational Workplace Social Capital Scale. Ind Health. 2020;58(6):516–29. https://doi:10.2486/indhealth.2019-0159 . Ben Hador B, Weisberg J, Rahimi H. Personal social capital in organizations: Development and validation of a new measure. J Managerial Psychol. 2021;36(2):117–29. https://doi:10.1108/JMP-02-2020-0071 . Tsounis A, Sarafis P, Rousaki E. Validation of the Workplace Social Capital Inventory in Greek employees. J Public Mental Health. 2023;22(1):45–57. https://doi:10.1108/JPMH-01-2022-0004 . García A, Palacios-Vivas A, Rueda S. Cultural differences in work attitudes: a cross-cultural study of Spain and China. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2012;43(5):789–804. Nedjat S, Forouzan AS, Gholipour A, Asghari A, Majdzadeh R, Rahimi N. Reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Payesh. 2018;17(2):175–84. Moncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galtés A, et al. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain—a tool for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(1):97–107. Zigkiri I, Vlachantoni K, Theodossopoulos L. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-Long Version II (COPSOQ II) in Greek employees. EMBnet J. 2021;26(1). Şahan C, Baydur H, Demiral Y. A novel version of Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-3: Turkish validation study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;74(6):297–309. Huang W, Chen G, Li W, Wang H. COPSOQ III in China: Preliminary Validation of an International Instrument to Measure Psychosocial Work Factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025;13(7):825. Abrar-ul-haq M, Ghafoor A. Role of Social Capital in Human Resource Management Practices: A Case Study of Pakistani Organizations. J Bus Econ Rev. 2015;2(1):1–15. Tariq ZA. Assessing social capital with respect to urban forms in Pakistan. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) . 2021;12(13):5075–5092. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378313899_Assessing_Social_Capital_With_Respect_To_Urban_Forms_in_Pakistan_Zulfiquar Volkova N, Kolobova V, Zaytseva E, Kurbanova V. Measuring workplace social capital among Russian medical students. Eur J Pers Psychol. 2022;11(1):52–65. Siddiqui SH, Akhtar N, Ahmad A. Organizational social capital: Indicators and measurement in higher education institutions of Pakistan. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2020;9(3):293–310. https://doi:10.1108/SAJBS-12-2018-0148 . Arregle JL, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG, Very P. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of a family firm. J Manage Stud. 2007;44(1):73–95. Aslam M, Rehman F, Jabeen S, Khan Z. The role of social capital in relation to organizational ambidexterity: A study of Pakistani firms. J Manag Res Dev. 2022;12(1):1–15. Wu WY, Chiu YC. The relationships among social capital, knowledge sharing, and organizational innovation. J Bus Ind Mark. 2018;33(7):1018–29. Islam TU, Abrar M, Arshad R, Akram N. Income inequality in Pakistan. Int J Soc Econ. 2022;49(11):1652–62. Abbas S, Zakar R, Fischer F. Qualitative study of socio-cultural challenges in the nursing profession in Pakistan. BMC Nurs. 2020;19(1):20. Nadeem M, Rana MS, Lone AH, Maqbool S, Naz K, Ali A. Teacher’s competencies and factors affecting the performance of female teachers in Bahawalpur (Southern Punjab) Pakistan. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 2011;2(19):217–22. Carruthers BG. What is sociological about banks and banking? The sociology of economic life. Routledge; 2018. pp. 242–63. Kim J. Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate students’ transnational occupational trajectories. Br J Sociol Educ. 2016;37(1):30–50. Maqsood A. Love as understanding: Marriage, aspiration, and the joint family in middle-class Pakistan. Am Ethnol. 2021;48(1):93–104. Haq SU, Boz I, Shahbaz P, Murtaza MR. Rural families food intake behaviour in relation to livelihood diversification, income differences and family size. Int J Consum Stud. 2020;44(5):481–98. Akram T, Qayyum A. An analysis of the relationship between social capital and occupational stress in banking industry of Pakistan. Pak J Commer Soc Sci. 2014;8(1):112–33. Javed A, Lee C, Zakaria H, Buenaventura RD, Cetkovich-Bakmas M, Duailibi K, et al. Reducing the stigma of mental health disorders with a focus on low-and middle-income countries. Asian J Psychiatry. 2021;58:102601. International Test Commission. The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). 2017. Available from: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf Khawar R, Shamsher S, Amin R. Conceptualization of social capital in the mental health context among adolescents and adults. Pakistan Social Sci Rev. 2024;8(II):428–42. https://doi:10.35484/pssr.2024(8-II)35 . Putnam RD. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. J Democracy. 1995;6(1):65–78. Lin N. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Kaufman BE. How capitalism endogenously creates rising income inequality and economic crisis: The macro political economy model of early industrial relations. Industrial Relations: J Econ Soc. 2018;57(1):131–73. Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Muñiz J. Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology. 2008;4(2):73–9. Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2003;60(2):184-9. Available from: https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/22240/kessler-psychological-distress-scale-k101.pdf Sweetman J, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Elfeddali I, de Beurs E. Validation of the work stress screener (WOSS-13) and resilience at work scale (ReWoS-24). J Psychosom Res. 2022;160. https://doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110989 . Davidson M. Known-Groups Validity. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 3764. Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806–38. https://doi:10.1177/0011000006288127 . Goretzko D, Siemund K, Sterner P. Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 2024;84(1):123–44. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 1994. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. Sage; 2018. Kaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31–6. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–76. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 . Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 . Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall; 2010. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn & Bacon; 2003. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2–24. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015. Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016. Colquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(4):909–27. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 . Carron AV, Brawley LR, Cohesion. Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Res. 2000;31(1):89–106. https://doi:10.1177/104649640003100105 . Chiocchio F, Essiembre H. Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Res. 2009;40(4):382–420. https://doi:10.1177/1046496409335103 . Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Sage; 2001. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):450–67. https://doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 . Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709–34. https://doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335 . Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(1):20–39. https://doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4278999 . Moore S, Daniel M, Gauvin L, Dubé L. Not all social capital is good capital: Examining health effects of different forms of workplace social capital. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(9):893–7. https://doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208327 . Suzuki E, Takao S, Subramanian SV, Komatsu H, Doi H, Kawachi I. Does low workplace social capital have a detrimental effect on workers’ health? Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1367–72. https://doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.014 . Chiaburu DS, Harrison DA. Do coworkers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral social influences in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(5):1082–103. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082 . Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310–57. https://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 . Halbesleben JRB. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(5):1134–45. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134 . Carr JZ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual-level work outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(4):605–19. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605 . Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(6):989–1004. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989 . Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83. https://doi:10.2307/2666999 . Frazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(7):1133–49. https://doi:10.1037/apl0000111 . Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):611–28. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611 . Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Pers Psychol. 2005;58(2):281–342. https://doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x . Edwards JR, Cable DM. The value of value congruence. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(3):654–77. https://doi:10.1037/a0014891 . Schoorman FD, Mayer RC, Davis JH. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):344–54. https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410 . Idrovo AJ, Camacho-Ávila A, Ruiz-Rudolph P, Vázquez-Martínez AL. Social capital at work: Psychometric analysis of a short scale in Spanish among Mexican health workers. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2012;15(3):536–47. https://doi:10.1590/S1415-790X2012000300010 . Rostila M, Saarela J, Kawachi I. Workplace social capital: Redefining and measuring the construct. Soc Indic Res. 2022;164(2):651–76. https://doi:10.1007/s11205-022-03028-y . Moore S, Böckenholt U, Daniel M, Frohlich K, Kestens Y, Richard L. Social capital and core network ties: A validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra- and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health. Health Place. 2011;17(2):536–44. https://doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.010 . Clausen T, Meng A, Borg V. Does social capital in the workplace predict job performance, work engagement, and psychological well-being? A prospective analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61(10):800–5. https://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001672 . Fujita S, Kawakami N, Ando E, Inoue A, Tsuno K, Kurioka S, Kawachi I. The association of workplace social capital with work engagement of employees in health care settings: A multilevel cross-sectional analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(3):265–71. https://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000605 . Sakuraya A, Imamura K, Watanabe K, Asai Y, Ando E, Eguchi H, Kawakami N. Workplace social capital and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(12):933–41. Wang J, Zhang W, Liu Y. Workplace social capital and employee well-being: Evidence from diverse organizational settings. J Organizational Behav. 2024;45(2):210–25. https://doi:10.1002/job.2678 . Firouzbakht M, Tirgar A, Oksanen T, Kawachi I, Rostami R. Workplace social capital and mental health: A cross-sectional study among Iranian workers. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):794. https://doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5659-3 . Arslan F, Koupilová I, Moradi T. Association between workplace social capital and psychological distress: results from a population-based study in Tehran. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:794. Kouvonen A, Suzuki E, Takao S, Väänänen A, Oksanen T, Kawachi I. Does workplace social capital buffer the effects of job stress? A cross-sectional study in a Japanese manufacturing company. J Occup Health. 2014;56(6):382–91. Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsuno K, Tomioka K, Nakanishi M. Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers. Ind Health. 2014;52(4):309–18. Borges TT, Fischer FM, Rotenberg L. Work-related psychosocial factors and common mental disorders among female nursing workers in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:21. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7599782","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":535663813,"identity":"291c138a-ab7d-4d27-b9be-52cdecd13bdc","order_by":0,"name":"Rabia Khawar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Government College University, Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rabia","middleName":"","lastName":"Khawar","suffix":""},{"id":535663814,"identity":"baaca8c6-8798-4fcc-b04e-42aea2451a57","order_by":1,"name":"Kinza Shahzadi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Government College University, Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kinza","middleName":"","lastName":"Shahzadi","suffix":""},{"id":535663815,"identity":"9d636217-f455-4856-80ca-c27ec753f2df","order_by":2,"name":"Rooha Butt","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Government College University, Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rooha","middleName":"","lastName":"Butt","suffix":""},{"id":535663822,"identity":"d275ba40-3d51-47af-9cdf-d5a049ccc121","order_by":3,"name":"Samavia Hussain","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Government College University, Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Samavia","middleName":"","lastName":"Hussain","suffix":""},{"id":535663825,"identity":"e5ba23e7-7512-4ce7-a37b-0a1ead43e41c","order_by":4,"name":"Memoona Aslam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Government College University, Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Memoona","middleName":"","lastName":"Aslam","suffix":""},{"id":535663826,"identity":"02cbe273-0ef4-4722-812e-af40f599c9ac","order_by":5,"name":"Imtiaz Ahmad Dogar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faisalabad Medical University \u0026 Allied Hospital –II","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Imtiaz","middleName":"Ahmad","lastName":"Dogar","suffix":""},{"id":535663827,"identity":"b3015820-cb18-4845-bb95-9552004fe318","order_by":6,"name":"Hira Ahmad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faisalabad Medical University \u0026 Allied Hospital –II","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hira","middleName":"","lastName":"Ahmad","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-12 11:53:37","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94772829,"identity":"6d1ff826-cbb8-4f49-98ed-0a92a042bccb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":517032,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscripitWSCRKFINAL.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/3be88865a188843d2af5b3ec.docx"},{"id":94772827,"identity":"f532b94f-ef19-4325-9a34-e81981e2717b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8610,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"17b890aa425b451ebc9c8d97d4296c6c.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/ff6b494fbc8d8b6944befb33.json"},{"id":94824249,"identity":"71141a9f-e23f-4c19-8ef0-b4b11e51699a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 06:48:41","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":284947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"17b890aa425b451ebc9c8d97d4296c6c1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/39b9b7f114d80a8770c63125.xml"},{"id":94772830,"identity":"5300b543-2254-49cf-bd2a-e78cdd458817","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8578,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/45dd20a8fad7c249ccf45aff.png"},{"id":94772832,"identity":"db4be436-84d0-4ea5-aef8-49eef7f880e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33855,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/211b66e99c48b526a0994df5.png"},{"id":94824692,"identity":"d351ad71-271c-4b3c-8323-1d32ddcbcb29","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 06:49:14","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":25671,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/5886b774a26f2af456130c8c.png"},{"id":94772835,"identity":"231bcbd8-16bb-4681-aff2-86479f51c6c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":281693,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"17b890aa425b451ebc9c8d97d4296c6c1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/57f853cbe33a76e8c6622299.xml"},{"id":94772836,"identity":"accb3593-4fc6-4002-9423-fc540215e940","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":302788,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/7614fe4fd6e0d556f17cbce4.html"},{"id":94772826,"identity":"3b69979c-7d19-4e09-9518-4da643c2ae22","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":13298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eShows the Scree plot that illustrates the process of extracting factors from the Workplace Social Capital Scale.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/2a7bba9e228acbb193c9e6aa.png"},{"id":94772828,"identity":"01ceae32-244a-4515-bff2-dd9b68c2fed5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-30 14:21:10","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":129852,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Model 1 of Workplace Social Capital Scale (N = 308)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemonstrates the initial model of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Workplace Social Capital Scale. The loading factor of WSCS was between .33 and .76, which does not indicate a good representation of the measures [94]. Item numbers 2, 6, 7, 12, 15, and 17 were removed in the second model due to poorer loadings.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/74a1cde3a53bf2d41c7f1290.png"},{"id":94825016,"identity":"ba964704-9ddf-4609-9722-e72de6fc11aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 06:49:42","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98174,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Model 2 of Workplace Social Capital Scale (N = 308)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemonstrates the second model of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Workplace Social Capital Scale. The factor loadings for WSCS ranged from .55 to .71, which indicates a good representation of the items measured [94]. A few modifications were made to better adjust the model, such as correlating errors 14 and 27, which are part of the same construct [95, 96].\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/e6834e071e9d2e9bdf33ee3e.png"},{"id":99792299,"identity":"80083bc6-d49f-4146-b0b9-37239fca2872","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:17:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1543619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7599782/v1/6e28659f-b060-4635-a7e7-de69b730a954.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and Psychometric Validation of a Workplace Social Capital Scale for Low and Middle Income Settings in Pakistan","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial capital in organizations or at the workplace is not just a matter of human resources, but also a vital element of organizational sustainability. Organizational sustainability is regarded as a multidimensional concept encompassing the integration of economic, social, and environmental aspects for achieving short-term and long-term goals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. While other dimensions of organizational sustainability are well documented [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], social sustainability is still an emerging concept characterized by a variety of indicators [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], including social capital or its related components [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Social capital itself is a complex phenomenon [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]; therefore, an accurate operationalization is the key to meaningful empirical investigations across different cultures and contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial capital is considered an essential social resource, which is gained within the context of social networks and benefits both individuals and groups of people as well as the overall culture of society [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. After being initially coined by Hanifan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e], the term gained wide admiration among researchers, especially in the last two decades of the twentieth century. As Bourdieu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] emphasized, social capital is something people can use to get opportunities and resources, whereas Coleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] stated that social relationships are what can help people develop human capital by performing the functions of reliance, obligations, and information sharing based on relationships through a network, shared values, and participation in society. Their work inspired researchers studying the phenomenon in organizational and workplace settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBurt [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] explained the structural aspects of social networks in organizations and noted that those who identify structural gaps and work to bridge them can avail the competitive benefits. This organizational advantage was further elaborated by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], who synthesized various elements of social capital into three major dimensions: structural, relational, and cognitive, and explained how connections, engagement, and knowledge Integration could develop intellectual capital in an organizational setup. Kawachi and his team [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] studied the multilevel dimensions of social capital in relation to community health and well-being, with the focus being on collective resources, including shared values and norms. Their work motivated the researchers to examine how social capital contributes to the physical and mental health of employees in the workplace. In the meantime, Putnam\u0026rsquo;s framework became extremely popular because he explained how homogenous and diverse networks evolve through bonding and bridging, and he debated the importance of trust, mutuality, civic action, and shared norms in the shaping of governance or the decline of societies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince the beginning of the 21st century, social capital has been widely studied in various organizational setups. Grounded on the earlier work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], Leena and van Buren [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] studied organizational social capital in employment practices, while Adler and Kowen [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] synthesized the extant theories for explaining goodwill in organizational social capital in terms of personal and shared advantages obtained through interpersonal relations at work. A study revealed that administrative acts, including knowledge seeking and sharing, quality, and efficacy in organizations, were influenced by the structural and interpersonal dimensions of social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Over time, it was observed that relational and cognitive social capital were more effective in producing various organizational and employee-related desirable outcomes across a range of settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Later research favored the multidimensional aspects of organizational social capital in relation to administration and performance-oriented outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, studies have also demonstrated how social capital and organizational outcomes have been influenced by rapid advancements in the field of digital technologies and social media [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrust, connections, and cooperation between people have now been regarded as a significant sustainability driver under the term social capital. The more social relations, the more the communities will be willing to take up environmentally friendly behaviors, including enhanced sharing of resources, which will lead to sustainable development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Social capital is also used in building resilience in organizations, since with trust and collaboration among the employees, it becomes easier to adjust to challenges and sustain performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. These results demonstrate that social capital not only reinstates relationships but is also central to the attainment of long-term social and environmental sustainability. So, workplace social capital, including trust, cohesion, and supportive networks, not only improves individuals\u0026rsquo; well-being but also contributes to the sustainability of organizational practices [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Individuals who are coping with family illness often face challenges. According to Bourdieu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e], social capital is a resource resulting from different social networks with circumstances, Coleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] said that familial struggles can reduce an individual social resources as well as make it harder in develop relationships outside home with in other coworkers and these individuals may find it challenging contact opportunities as well as social support that make them difficult in their workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eApplication of social capital to work settings took parallel yet interrelated routes. While several studies mainly focused on \u0026lsquo;organizational social capital\u0026rsquo;, which targets management, systems, strategic, or performance-related aspects in work settings, the term \u0026lsquo;workplace social capital\u0026rsquo; (WSC) primarily emphasizes human resources and occupational health. Following Kawachi\u0026rsquo;s public health notion of social capital, WSC gained momentum by the mid-2000s through studies conducted by Kouvonen et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] in Finland. They initially investigated the role of WSC in decreasing risky health behaviors and workplace absenteeism, while later extending to its implications for physical health outcomes, well-being, job satisfaction, and mental health issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. The majority of later studies are conducted in health settings, including doctors, nurses, and paramedic staff, and findings have indicated that social capital had a buffering effect in stressful situations as it facilitated health employees\u0026rsquo; job satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and helped reduce psychological distress and job burnout [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of studying social capital in the workplace has grown [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Along with this, reduced WSC correlated with poor mental health among Iranian industrial workers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. A systematic review of workplace social capital among teachers based on a synthesis of studies conducted during 2004\u0026ndash;2019 demonstrated that WCS reliably contributed to constructive outcomes for teachers, students, and the school, particularly in terms of reduced stress, improved performance, increased commitment, and professional development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Researchers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] have provided psychological insight into the workplace social sustainability in terms of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Five of these goals i.e. health and wellbeing, decent work, gender equality, safety and peace have been conceptualized to contribute in social sustainability at workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen studying social capital in the workplace, it is essential to use reliable and valid measures. Social capital itself has been considered a challenging construct to operationalize and measure, and the same is true for workplace context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Earlier studies used multiple indicators while assessing the social capital of employees across organizations, typically administering general scales of social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. However, it is considerable that the nature of social networks and resources may vary across settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. In recent years, specific scales have been developed and used in different contexts to assess various aspects of organizational and workplace social capital. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes these measurement tools.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of Instruments Measuring Workplace and Organizational Social Capital\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale / Authors \u0026amp; Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTarget Population / Country\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItems \u0026amp; Subscales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScale Development Approach\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychometric Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Capital at Work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinnish public-sector employees; Finland\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8 items; Cognitive (items 3,5,8) \u0026amp; Structural (items 1,2,4,6,7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Organizational Social capital theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], and Social capital theory by Putnam [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCronbach's alpha-value is greater than 0.70. Convergent validity was explored by analyzing the association of social capital at work with other work-related constructs\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational Social Capital Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkilled labor workers and professionals from different industrial sectors, Portugal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scale was initially based on the three dimensions: Structural, Relational, and Cognitive, and later finalized as a 16-item, unidimensional scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical Organizational Social Capital Theory by Nahapiet \u0026amp; Ghoshal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates above .60.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactorial structure was determined through a series of CFA models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Social Capita Questionnaire for Nurses (WSCQ-N; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNurses, Ontario, Canada\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35 items, three categories (Structural, Relational, Cognitive), each divided into 3 subscales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Organizational Social Capital Theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates above .70. Subscales were determined using CFA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBonding Workplace Social Capital Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJapanese employees; Japan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 items (Unidimensional)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Organizational social capital theory by Nahapiet and Ghoshal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability coefficient above .90.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor structure was determined through EFA, and convergent validity was examined by examining the association with several relevant workplace psychosocial factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Social Capital based on COPSOQ versions I- III [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR48\" citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployees in multiple occupations (social workers, dentists, physicians, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, teachers), Swedish samples\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 items, 3 subscales (Bonding, Bridging, Linking WSC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Putnam [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates above 0.80, the Rasch measurement model was used for construct validation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial Capital of Healthcare Organizations (SOCAPO-E; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHealthcare employees, including hospitals, cancer centers, hospital boards, nurses, and private practices, in Germany\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 items measuring communal social capital (warmth, trust, shared values, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Coleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] and Putman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates above .93,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct validity is determined through CFA, and convergent and criterion-related validity were also assessed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelational Workplace Social Capital Scale for Japanese Nurses (RWSCS-JN; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNurses; Japan\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 items; Unidimensional relational workplace social capital\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSynthesize existing theoretical and empirical evidence to create a more robust conceptual model\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability above .70,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStructural validity is determined through EFA, and convergent validity estimates are provided.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal Social Capital in Organization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational employees, Israel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28 items, 6 subscales: ISE; Involvement in organizational social\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvents and volunteering, PWR; Power connections, SCW; Personal SC from Weak connections, ST; Personal SC from Strong connections, IOE; Involvement in activities and events outside of the organization and volunteering, OPW; Connections with people who themselves possess power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical (Putnam [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], Coleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], Bourdieu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]), Empirical (Qualitative investigation using content analysis)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability was .80 above, construct validity determined through EFA and CFA. Convergent validity is demonstrated by demonstrating its relationship with the Engagement scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Social Capital Inventory (WoSCi; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e])\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployees across sectors, Greece\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37 items, multidimensional scale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical grounds, existing measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates .94,\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct validity is determined through EFA and CFA, and convergent and criterion-related validity are also assessed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe health sector has been the primary focus of researchers with regard to developing workplace social capital scales, starting from Finnish studies. Following the Wilkinson\u0026rsquo;s inequality framework, a brief 8-item measure was developed and tested on a large sample of hospital staff from ten cities, resulting in robust psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency, interrater reliability, and validity estimates for its structural and cognitive domains. The scale has been adapted by Western and Asian cultures, i.e., Spanish [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e], Japanese [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], and Iranian [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e], to assess workplace social capital in health care personnel. Another measure of social capital developed mainly for nursing workplace settings in Canada [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] is a multifaceted instrument that was constructed on Nahapiet and Ghoshal\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] perspective of social capital within organizations, providing insights about structural, relational, and cognitive social capital. Some unidimensional measures were also developed, such as the 6-item scale of Bonding Social Capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e], and the Relational Workplace Social Capital Scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e], again both assessing social capital of healthcare workers. A 16-item single-factor tool named the Organizational Social Capital Scale was developed by Fandino et al [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e] and was validated for a Portuguese sample drawn from various industrial and organizational setups. Reliability estimates were barely acceptable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Social Capital of Healthcare Organizations (SOCAPO-E) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e] is yet another tool based on the perspectives of employees in a healthcare setup to measure relationships, trust, and collective values with an aim to nurture positive work environments. The Workplace Social Capital Questionnaire was only related to job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. The Workplace Social Capital Scale, based on different versions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) I-III [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR48\" citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e], was originally developed for Nordic populations and later adapted and extensively validated across European and Asian countries [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR57\" citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. It measures vertical and horizontal trust and organizational.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are some extensive scales as well, including the Personal Social Capital in organizations scales developed in Israel [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], and the Workplace Social Capital Inventory originally administered to white collar workers in Greece [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. The former was an operationalization of existing bonding/bridging dimensions explained in terms of internal and external levels of personal social capital. While the latter has been recently developed after conceptualizing SC at bonding and bridging levels through an exhaustive literature search for the relevant construct. Each level was explained in terms of cognitive and structural context, dividing further into dimensions of trust, reciprocity, and networks, respectively. They also reviewed existing measures and identified limitations before generating items, and finally validated the measure on heterogeneous samples, including health care staff, academics, and employees from other organizational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHence, most of the above-mentioned scale development studies (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) have mainly focused on assessing social capital among health care professionals and staff, academics, skilled workers, and white-collar employees of professional organizations. The health sector has been more widely investigated with regard to the assessment of social capital as compared to other sectors. Studies were inspired by a deductive approach to conceptualize the construct before item generation. Most of the studies have extensively evaluated psychometric properties of the scales by measuring reliability estimates generally through Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha or computed Composite reliability that ranged from .60 to .95. Since scales were built on prior theoretical grounds, confirmatory factor analysis was frequently used for the structural validation. Many studies reported the convergent validity of social capital scales through association with other positive psychosocial correlates at the workplace. A few have determined divergent or discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity for their scales.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePakistani Context and the Present Study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile social capital research is being explored in a range of contexts in Pakistan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e], workplace social capital studies are still limited [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e]. Ijaz in 2022 translated the Social Capital at Work Scale into Urdu and administered it to non-gazette employees of academic institutions as part of his MPhil dissertation (National University of Modern Languages, 2022). Siddiqui and Akhtar [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e] explored the indicators for social capital and then focused on the internal social capital framework, also referring to the intra-organizational social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e] for measuring the construct in university faculty members. Items were derived from various existing scales. A similar attempt was made by Aslam et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e] while assessing the role of social capital in relation to organizational ambidexterity, who adapted Wu and Chiu\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e] scale of social capital. A review of these studies indicates that Pakistani researchers have either used the general social capital scale in different occupational contexts or used original, translated, or adapted versions of workplace social capital scales developed. However, translated or adapted versions may not capture the culturally rooted levels and dimensions of workplace social capital. Moreover, while international studies of workplace social capital mainly focus on structural and organizational levels of skilled or qualified populations, the cultural context in Pakistan requires a focus on the relational and psychosocial dimensions of social capital in work settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn collectivist cultures like Pakistan, familial dynamics and socioeconomic contexts could also be associated with the availability and utility of social resources at the workplace. It is essential to note that the majority of the Pakistani workplace is engaged in low to middle-income job settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. Some professions, such as allied health including nursing and paramedics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e], school teaching [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e], skilled labor in formal settings, even banking [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e], and certain general administrative or supervisory positions in industries or organizations, are recognized not only as prestigious but are also well-paid internationally [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. However, in Pakistan, these are often regarded as low to middle-income job positions. People often belong to joint families [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e], where earning members are relatively fewer compared to the family size [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e]. Such families also face challenging circumstances, adding to the financial burden and negative impact on earning members\u0026rsquo; job-related outcomes, including social capital at the workplace [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e]. Mental illness has been considered one of these challenges for low to middle-income families of Pakistan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is within this context that the authors of the current study, as the part of the Higher Education Commission\u0026rsquo;s project on patterns of risk and protective factors in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, funded by the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s grand challenge fund grant, recognized social capital as a potential protective factor in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, conceptualized it indigenously through qualitative inquiry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e] and in view of existing theories [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] aimed social capital assessment tools in general and the workplace settings (unpublished thesis) (Butt \u0026amp; Khawar, Government College University Faisalabad, 2023). The present paper synthesizes the findings of a series of studies conducted in this regard with a major aim to develop and validate the workplace social capital scale that targets the low-to-middle-income job context and familial aspects such as mental illness of a family member.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Government College University (under the IRB Approval No. 567). The current study involved two phases: Phase I was related to the development of the scale, and Phase II included the investigation of the psychometric properties of the newly developed measure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase I: Scale Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 1: Using empirical and theoretical grounds for item generation.\u003c/em\u003e The scale was developed using both deductive and inductive approaches as recommended in current best practices for constructing scales by following International Test Commission Guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e]. In this regard, empirical ground using an inductive method was established by the author in an earlier qualitative study of social capital in the Pakistani context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, a deductive method was involved in a master's level research (unpublished thesis) intended to develop a scale of social capital for the Pakistani adult population (Butt \u0026amp; Khawar, Government College University, Faisalabad, 2023). All these studies are part of the Higher Education Commission\u0026rsquo;s Grand Challenge Project on patterns of risk and protective factors in intergenerational transfer of mental illness, funded by the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s grant. Social capital has been conceptualized as a protective factor in the research project across various contexts. For this particular measure, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 (50% women, 20\u0026ndash;45 years old) individuals, purposely drawn from hospitals, educational institutes, and industrial organizations (factories), who had been working there for at least one year. Content analysis resulted in collaborative networks at the workplace, workplace cohesion, trustworthiness, and organizational worth in society. Based on the findings of the above-mentioned content analysis, existing theories (Putnam [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e], Lin\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e], Kaufman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e], and Coleman [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]) and measures, the authors initially generated a pool of 30 items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 2: Expert evaluation.\u003c/em\u003e The 30-item pool was reviewed by a committee of specialists who had at least 5 years\u0026rsquo; experience in the fields of psychological testing and assessment (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3) and organizational/occupational psychology (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2). Items were assessed based on clarity, relevance, cultural appropriateness, and duplication. Through consensus, vague or repetitive items were removed or revised, resulting in a 22-item scale in Urdu. Following the expert suggestions, we selected a 4-point Likert scale response format where 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not at all true, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Somewhat true, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Mostly true, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Completely true. According to Lozano et al. in 2008 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e81\u003c/span\u003e], a scale with an odd number of points, such as a 5-point scale labeled as neither agree nor disagree, mainly undergoes the problem of the middle point because most people select this as they are uncertain to take a position. So, reducing one of these middle options, a 4-point scale (forced choice) would help the respondent to one side or another, making the measurement more straightforward.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 3: Pilot testing.\u003c/em\u003e The 22-item refined version was then administered to a sample of 8 employees not involved in the main study to create the pilot group. They were asked to give feedback on the comprehension, clarity, and relevance of the items. Minor linguistic adjustments based on the participants' feedback were made to improve the face validity of the scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 4: Pre-final version.\u003c/em\u003e The adjustments based on the pilot study were reviewed and finalized by the expert committee. All 22 items were retained, ready for empirical testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePhase II: The Psychometric Evaluation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis phase of the study is currently focused on establishing Psychometric Validation, which is broken down into two steps: Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e In Phase II for EFA, 150 participants (40 men and 110 women) were selected through purposive sampling. They mainly consisted of paramedic and nursing staff, school teachers, bank staff, support staff of public/private offices, and factory workers residing in Faisalabad city of Punjab province, Pakistan. Participants aged 20 to 60 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 31.07, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.65).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor CFA, a final sample of 308 participants (110 men and 198 women) was recruited from the same occupational categories but different institutional settings. These participants were adults aged 20 to 60 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 32.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.82). Those who had an experience of at least one year at the same setting were included. Individuals diagnosed with any physical or mental health issue were not included. These questions were asked in the demographic data sheet attached to the informed consent. As the current study targets low to middle-income employees, those who earn up to 100,000/ PKR were included. A subset of this sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;165) completed the Workplace Resilience Scale to provide convergent validity estimates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;62; 20% women; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 38.97, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.456) included caregivers of patients with mental illness, meeting the above-mentioned criteria of employment and health, and was drawn from an ongoing study on risk and protective factors of intergenerational mental illness (HEC-GCF-844). They had been considered vulnerable or at-risk groups as they scored above 16 on Kessler\u0026rsquo;s 10-item psychological distress scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]. They were also compared with a sample drawn from the general public serving as the comparison group of the ongoing HEC project. They completed WSCS, and the comparison of scores provided known-groups validity estimates for the current study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInstruments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDemographic Sheet\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt consists of the following: name(optional), age, gender, marital status, residence, family system, family size, number of earning members, monthly income, organizational sector, profession, number of friends in general, and number of friends at the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWorkplace Social Capital Scale WSCS.\u003c/b\u003e The newly developed Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) was used to measure participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of social resources at work. The scale originally had 22 items, with responses recorded on a 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Completely true). A higher score indicates greater perceived social capital at the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResilience at Work Scale ReWoS-24\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e83\u003c/span\u003e]. The scale includes 24 items and uses a Likert-type format ranging from 0 to 3. It has two versions: Form A, which measures individual resilience, and Form B, which measures team resilience. Furthermore, Form A is divided into three subscales: general well-being, well-being at work, and satisfaction with job performance. The scales showed high internal consistency with an alpha above .80. In the current study, we use the Urdu version of this measure, consisting of 21 items with an alpha of .91, which was translated as part of an unpublished master\u0026rsquo;s thesis (Shahzadi \u0026amp; Khawar, Government College University, Faisalabad, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKessler Psychological Distress Scale K10\u003c/b\u003e [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]. The measure can be applied as a brief screen to determine distress levels. It includes 10 items regarding emotional states with a five-level response scale. Each of them is rated on a scale of one, none of the time, to five, all of the time. The sum of the 10 items then gives us the lowest and the highest scores. A low score indicates a low degree of psychological distress, while a high score means a high degree of psychological distress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e Data were collected after institutional approval and written informed consent from participants. The study adhered to professional ethical standards, ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to refuse. Participants were thanked for their contribution. No tangible incentives were provided for this particular study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in successive phases of scale development and psychometric evaluation across various samples, not only recruited for this particular study, but also from relevant ongoing studies conducted by the authors for a large-scale research project. Therefore, initial qualitative findings are derived from a master\u0026rsquo;s thesis aimed at developing a social capital scale for adults. Workplace social capital was categorized as a distinct type of social capital and required further exploration. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts investigating social capital in organizational/workplace settings, and existing measures mainly used in Pakistan were extensively reviewed for identifying possible gaps. It provided the base for developing the WSCS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate psychometric properties, the lower-middle-income group of employees was targeted as they were overlooked in existing Pakistani studies. Thus, a sample of 175 individuals working as nurses, allied health technicians, school teachers, lab staff, clerical and other administrative and support staff from banks and factories with more than one year of job experience were approached at their respective places. They completed the demographic data sheet and the newly developed 22-item version of WSCS. Seven participants did not complete the measure, while 18 were excluded due to missing values or extreme scores, leaving a final sample of 150 participants, subjected to exploratory factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter obtaining an initial factor structure while retaining 18 items, another sample of 315 participants from a similar population was drawn for research for confirmatory factor analysis, who completed a demographic data sheet and the 18-item version of WSCS in the first session. After data cleaning, confirmatory factor analysis was computed for 308 participants. A sub-sample of 150 participants also filled out the Resilience at Work Scale in the second session, as we intended to compute convergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the 12-item WSCS was administered to a sample of 62 caregivers who had a family member diagnosed with mental illness, as a part of the HEC-GCF-844 project. These participants met the job and income criteria and were considered as at-risk group based on existing scores on K-10 (16 or greater [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]). We finally recruited a comparison group matched for demographic characteristics from the general population, who reported no family member with mental illness. They completed the demographic information sheet and 12-item WSCS. The comparison of mean scores between the groups provided an estimate of validity using the known-group method [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e84\u003c/span\u003e]. Correlation between scores of K-10 and WSCS proved to be a source for divergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 23) and AMOS according to the broadly suggested guidelines for the development and validation of scales [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e85\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e86\u003c/span\u003e]. The data were analyzed in sequential steps to assess the factorial structure, reliability, and validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha was computed for the scales. And values of .70 and above were considered acceptable [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e87\u003c/span\u003e]. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was carried out after taking estimates of the sampling adequacy through the sphericity using the Bartlett test [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e88\u003c/span\u003e], followed by Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation. Extraction was based on eigenvalues greater than one [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e89\u003c/span\u003e], the scree plot [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e90\u003c/span\u003e], and the theoretical relevance of the items. Strong loadings and problematic cross-loadings were eliminated, resulting in a stable factor solution. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on a different sample using AMOS. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including the Chi-square/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index, the Tucker-Lewis Index, the Incremental Fit Index, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. For good fit criteria, conventional cutoff values were used [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e91\u003c/span\u003e]. Further evidence of construct validity was sought by computing Pearson Product-Moment correlations between the Workplace Social Capital Scale and the Resilience at Work Scale and Kessler\u0026rsquo;s Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) for convergent and divergent validity, respectively. Another evidence of construct validity was provided by computing known-groups validity, comparing caregivers of patients with mental illness with a general public sample using a t-test for independent samples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the demographic characteristics of the study samples, while Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the descriptive statistics of demographic variables for both study samples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics of both Study Samples\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample 1 (EFA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample 2 (CFA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGroups\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ef (%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ef (%)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40(26.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e110(35.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e110(73.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e198(64.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarital Status\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarried\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e89(59.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e178(57.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnmarried\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58(38.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e128(41.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDivorced\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2(1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWidow/Widower\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1(.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResidence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRural\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16(10.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e68(22.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrban\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e116(77.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e153(49.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuburban/Town\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18(12.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e87(28.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily System\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNuclear\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e102(68.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e164(53.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJoint\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48(32.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e144(46.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational Sector\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108(72.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e232(75.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42(28.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e76(24.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfession\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAllied Health\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31(20.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63(20.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeachers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31(20.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63(20.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBank Staff\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19(12.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39(12.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupport Staff\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41(27.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(27.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactory Worker\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28(18.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59(19.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e150(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e308(100)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reveals that the respondents were selected in public and private institutions; however, they mainly included representatives of the low and middle-income occupational groups, rather than top-managerial posts. The incomes ranges further establishes that the participants primarily belonged to lower-middle-income families.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics of Demographic Variables for both Study Samples\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample 1 (EFA) (150)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample 2 (CFA)(308)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMin-Max\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMdn\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM(SD)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMin-Max\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMdn\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM(SD)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22\u0026ndash;55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.07(6.65)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32.13(6.82)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily Size\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.95(2.28)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u0026ndash;17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.92(2.22)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEarning Members\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.29(.97)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.22(1.15)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMonthly Income\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25000\u0026ndash;85000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58646.67(14355.10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25000\u0026ndash;100000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60048.70(14332.52)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of Friends in general\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.01(4.04)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.94(4.18)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of Friends at the Workplace\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.84(1.72)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.66(4.45)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents an overview of data in terms of the score range and the measures of central tendency and dispersion (median, mean, and standard deviation) according to each group. These signs provide insight into the demographic and socio-economic background of participants in terms of age, household composition, income level, and the level of social relationships in general, as well as in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis for the WSCS\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrincipal component analysis and Varimax rotation were used to analyze the initial factor structure of the workplace social capital scale, consisting of 22 items. For the EFA sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;150), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.873, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (1544.92, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), which showed that the data were appropriate for exploratory factor analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScree plot and eigenvalue criterion supported a three-factor solution as the best fit for the data (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFactor Structure of the Scale of Workplace Social Capital according to Varimax rotation (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;150)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor 1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.862\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.726\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC22\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.716\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.715\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.675\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.593\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.524\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.500\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.752\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.711\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.697\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.663\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.485\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.629\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.612\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.595\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.803\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.644\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.514\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.513\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: Sr. # = serial number.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe three factors had eigenvalues of 7.89, 2.25, and 1.52, accounting for 35.88%, 10.22%, and 6.89% of the variance, respectively, totaling 52.99% explained variance. We considered the criterion of .50 for loading [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e92\u003c/span\u003e] on their primary factor for retaining the items, while those with lower loadings or significant cross-loadings were excluded. The rotated factor solution yielded three conceptually clear clusters, each representing distinct aspects of social capital in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe first\u003c/em\u003e factor includes eight items (12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) related to knowledge sharing/hiding, connecting with supervisors/leaders, trust in administration, and workplace importance. Six items (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) loading on the \u003cem\u003esecond factor\u003c/em\u003e describe shared norms in terms of work group affiliation, workplace safety, coworkers\u0026rsquo; trust, organizational policy about social relationships, and patience during conflict. The \u003cem\u003ethird factor\u003c/em\u003e retained four items (2, 3, 4, 5) that describe enjoyment activities with co-workers, peer/lateral support, friendliness at the workplace, and mutual help.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Shows the Scree plot that illustrates the process of extracting factors from the Workplace Social Capital Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReliability Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall reliability of the 18-item WSCS was good, as shown by Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e value (.90) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e93\u003c/span\u003e]. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows the item-to-total correlation and alpha if items were deleted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eItem Total Statistics for Workplace Social Capital Scale (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;150)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem No.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-Total Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e if Item Deleted\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.144\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.910\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.569\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.897\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.495\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.899\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.683\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.894\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.427\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.902\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.648\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.895\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.621\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.896\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.459\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.901\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.515\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.899\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.621\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.896\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.620\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.896\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.574\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.897\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.752\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.892\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.684\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.894\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.633\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.895\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.556\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.898\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.559\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.898\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWSC20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.491\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.900\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree factors obtained from EFA with 18 items were evaluated. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed using AMOS version 23 on the second sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;308). The maximum likelihood method was used, while factor loadings above .50 were retained. The first model was not a good fit; therefore, in view of modification indices, we reanalyzed the model after excluding certain items. The second model offered adequate fit indices (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Figures\u0026nbsp;2and 3 indicate the first and second models, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability estimates were obtained once again and were found to be good for the 12-item Workplace Social Capital Scale (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFit Indices for Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS)(N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;308)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCMIND/DF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.617\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.092\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.411\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.068\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e shows fit indices for the CFA models, indicating that all fit indices are good [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e] for the second model. The model showed improvement after removing items (2, 6, 7, 12, 15, and 17) with relatively lower loadings, and also in view of the suggestions by modification indices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor internal consistency, the mean, standard deviation, and intercorrelation among study variables in phase 2 CFA (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) were examined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean, Standard Deviation, Reliability values, and Intercorrelations among total and subscales of Workplace Social Capital Scale (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;308)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eK\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Interpersonal Support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.70\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Cohesive Work Climate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.50**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Vertical Trust and Organizational Value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.41**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.50**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Workplace Social Capital Scale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.85\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.73**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.83**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.84**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.40\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.82\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.94\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.81\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: K\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Number of items, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e shows that the workplace social capital scale and cohesive work climate have excellent alpha levels. It also indicates that the interpersonal support, vertical trust, and organizational values have good alpha levels. The intercorrelation results reveal that interpersonal support has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational values, and the workplace social capital scale. Additionally, a cohesive work climate shows a significant positive relationship with vertical trust, organizational values, and the workplace social capital scale. Finally, vertical trust and organizational values also display significant positive relationships with the workplace social capital scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConvergent Validity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConvergent Validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale was determined in collaboration with the Resilience at Work Scale and its Subscales. (See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInter correlation among Resilience at Work Scale (ReWoS), its subscales in rows, and Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and its subscales in columns (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;150)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScales\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohesive Work Climate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVertical Trust and Organizational Value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace Social Capital Scale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. General Wellbeing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.26**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.20*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.24**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Wellbeing at Work\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.43**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Satisfaction with Job Performance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.33**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Individual Resilience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.35**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Team Resilience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.22**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.27**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.36**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.37**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Work at Resilience Scale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.65**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.93**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.85**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.97**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e ˂ 0.001, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e ˂ 0.01, *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e ˂ 0.05.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e shows the intercorrelation among the Resilience at Work Scale (ReWoS), its subscales, and the Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and its subscales. It indicates that general well-being has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the Workplace Social Capital scale. It also shows that well-being at work has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. Moreover, satisfaction with job performance has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. Similarly, individual resilience has a significant positive relationship with cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the Workplace Social Capital scale. Team resilience also has a significant positive relationship with interpersonal support, cohesive work climate, vertical trust, organizational value, and the workplace social capital scale. It also indicated that overall work at the resilience scale had a significant positive relationship with the workplace social capital Scale and with all its subscales.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReliability Assessment and Discriminant Validity\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 12-item WSCS was administered to a sample of 62 caregivers who had a family member diagnosed with mental illness, as a part of the HEC-GCF-844 project. These participants met the job and income criteria and were considered as at-risk group based on existing scores on K-10 (16 or greater [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e82\u003c/span\u003e]). We finally recruited a comparison group matched for demographic characteristics from the general population, who reported no family member with mental illness. According to an independent samples t-test, these caregivers scored lower on workplace social capital (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.79, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.44) than the general population (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.71, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.65), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (88.71) = -4.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [ -7.01, -2.83] and the large effect size (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.84) indicates the known groups validity. The correlation coefficients between psychological distress and workplace social capital were found to be significantly negative (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01), showing that the higher the psychological distress, the less the workplace social capital. The reliability analysis of WSCS showed that the total 12-item scale (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88), cohesive work climate (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.83), vertical trust and organizational value (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82), and interpersonal support (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75) were good to excellent internal consistency, which validated that the scale is a reliable measure of this sample.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study involved two phases and aimed to develop and evaluate the factorial structure, reliability, and construct validity of the Workplace Social Capital Scale in the low to middle-income context in Pakistan. In Phase I, the content analysis revealed that there are four key dimensions of workplace social capital, including collaborative networks, workplace cohesion, trustworthiness, and organizational worth in society. These dimensions supported both theoretical and empirical understanding about the concept of social capital in organizational settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e]. Literature supports the presence of collaborative networks, indicating the level at which the employees are involved in supportive and mutual relationships that enable the sharing of knowledge and collective problem-solving. Studies indicated that strong networks at the workplace enhance resources, mutual support, and institutional effectiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. The factor that collaborative networks are especially effective in low-to middle-income contexts in Pakistan was that reduced structural and material resources are balanced by the interpersonal relationships that help workers to use interconnectedness to attain work-based goals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor of workplace cohesion is a sense of belonging, connectedness, and unity among employees. Cohesion is linked to lower turnover but also improves teamwork and commitment to the organization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e98\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR99\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e99\u003c/span\u003e]. Literature supports that overall employee well-being and productivity in collectivistic societies are commonly determined by workplace coherence to a greater extent than in individualistic cultures. Studies support the cultural fitness of its development in the present context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e100\u003c/span\u003e]. The factor of trustworthiness relates to employees\u0026rsquo; confidence in the reliability and honesty of their coworkers and organizational leadership. This concept is well established as an essential factor of social capital in the workplace that can enhance cooperation and assure stability in times of managerial stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR101\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e101\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e102\u003c/span\u003e]. Research proved empirically that trust has a strong predictive power both at the individual level (in terms of job satisfaction) as well as at the collective level (in terms of organizational performance) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR97\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e97\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factor of organizational worth in society closely resembles external social capital, which emphasizes the justice and reputation of organizations in their social environment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Research shows that when employees feel valued by their organization, it fosters a sense of pride, identity, and motivation, thereby improving both organizational performance and employees\u0026rsquo; well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR103\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e103\u003c/span\u003e]. All these factors combine to prove that the concept of workplace social capital is not restricted to interpersonal trust but also spreads over a wide area of organizational perceptions in society, which strengthens its use as a protective resource in professional situations, especially in low-to middle-income nations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Phase II, findings of exploratory factor analysis support an 18-item and a three-factor structure. These three factors support classical social capital theories, which are essential mechanisms in social relationships, recommending trust, reciprocity, and shared values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. A further confirmation of the suitability of this three-factor model was obtained through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which was conducted after removing poorly performing items. The 12-item showed a satisfactory model fit and very good internal consistency, comparable to previous validation studies on workplace social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e104\u003c/span\u003e]. The three-factor structure (vertical trust and organizational values, cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support) identified in this study is also supported by existing literature. Prior research on the validity of social capital at the workplace has consistently emphasized the critical role of trusting, reciprocating, and friendly relationships in shaping the primary factor of the construct [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e105\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Interpersonal Support, the first factor, emphasizes the daily active supportive actions of coworkers giving and receiving help, encouragement, and reciprocity. Decades of research show that peer support provides a reliable relationship that improves attitudes and performance while decreasing stress. A meta-analysis of 168 independent samples confirmed these findings by demonstrating that coworker relationships explain unique variance in motivation, citizenship behaviors, and withdrawal, beyond job characteristics and leadership, indicating that workfellows are a distinct source of social support in the workplace [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e106\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, both recent and older studies support that social support moderates the influence of stressors on well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR107\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e107\u003c/span\u003e]. Support from colleagues and supervisors also has stronger positive links to decreased burnout [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e108\u003c/span\u003e]. Research suggests that Interpersonal Support can be viewed as the social-capital component of bonding related to mutual aid and resilience within teams [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second factor, Cohesive Work Climate, reflects a shared, supportive culture of norms of collaboration, inclusion, and a sense of collective effort. The two meta-analytic reviews published so far consistently show positive relationships between perceptions of a favorable climate and job satisfaction, commitment, and performance, as well as inverse relations between turnover intentions and optimistic climate perceptions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR109\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e109\u003c/span\u003e]. A meta-analysis of studies across various tasks and contexts found a stable positive correlation between cohesion and performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e110\u003c/span\u003e]. Further research on psychologically safe climates explains one such process: shared beliefs that interpersonal risk-taking is safe can promote learning and performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR111\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e111\u003c/span\u003e], and a meta-analysis confirms that psychologically safe climates are positively related to engagement and performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e112\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVertical Trust and Organizational Value represent the third factor. Extensive meta-analyses have shown that trust in leaders is significantly linked to key employee outcomes such as job fulfilment, administrative commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, while also reducing counterproductive behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e113\u003c/span\u003e]. According to foundational theory, such trust is based on perceptions of a leader's ability, benevolence, and integrity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e102\u003c/span\u003e]. Simultaneously, value congruence, the feeling that one\u0026rsquo;s personal values align with those of the organization, can predict levels of identification, dedication, and satisfaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e114\u003c/span\u003e], and it can enhance cooperation and retention in daily activities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e115\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, this creates social capital associated with linking: upward trust combined with shared values, through which authority is seen as legitimate, and collective action is aligned with organizational priorities. Homeland theaters provide convenience in their own unique way and have remained popular since the beginning of the 21st century [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e116\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the whole, the three-factor solution is consistent with previous efforts on social capital at the workplace. Kouvonen et al. in 2006 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] scale conceptualizes social capital in the workplace in terms of trust, reciprocity, and participation, and this measure has been tested across a variety of languages and settings. A major predictor of the income structure was the discovery rate, which is associated with a drastic drop in the income structure. In contrast, a Spanish translation administered to Mexican health professionals showed acceptability of the factor model using confirmatory factor analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR117\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e117\u003c/span\u003e]. Recent substantive modifications also increasingly focus on both horizontal (coworker) and vertical (management \u0026amp; organization) elements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e118\u003c/span\u003e], reinforcing the coherence of interpersonal support, cohesive work climate, and vertical trust \u0026amp; organizational value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn literature, Moore and colleagues in 2011 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR119\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e119\u003c/span\u003e] distinguished between vertical trust and organizational value, but other studies emphasize the importance of supportive and cohesive work environments in fostering positive outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR120\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e120\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, research conducted in other Asian work-related areas shows that trust in management, a collaborative climate, and interpersonal support are the main factors of social capital in the workplace [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR121\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e121\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, the results suggest that the three variables identified in the current study, vertical trust and organizational value, a cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support, are both theoretically expected and empirically supported to explain outcomes across different cultural and organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLikewise, the construct validity of the scale shows that the workplace social capital scale and its subscales significantly positively correlated with the resilience at work scale and its subscales, as the team with individual resilience indicated positive relationships. Previous literature supports that good workplace relationships, trust, and shared values can improve resilience, as highlighted by the significance of social support and decreasing the adverse effects of workplace stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR122\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e122\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR123\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e123\u003c/span\u003e], especially in the context of Pakistan's cultural values. The internal consistency, which was further supported by an independent sample of caregivers of patients with mental illness, refining the scale demonstrated strong internal consistency across diverse groups [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR93\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e93\u003c/span\u003e]. These results indicate that the scale is both theoretically and statistically valid.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study are consistent with research from other countries, which shows that social capital in the workplace improves job satisfaction, mental health, and reduces burnout [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR124\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e124\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR105\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e105\u003c/span\u003e]. Our independent sample t-test results after comparing caregivers of patients suffering mental illness and general population groups indicate that moderate and severe psychologically suffering caregivers obtained a significantly lower score on work social capital, and increased psychological distress was related to reduced social capital, which is consistent with the validity of known groups. Literature supports that low social capital in the workplace is strongly linked to high psychological distress and worse mental health outcomes. Arslan et al. found that Iranian employees who had low social capital at the workplace were more than twice as likely to report psychological distress in relation to their social capital than those who had higher social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR125\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e125\u003c/span\u003e]. The same evidence can be found in Japan that indicates that the impact of unfavorable employment terms, including high work demands and low organizational justice, on psychological distress could be balanced by social capital at the workplace [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR126\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e126\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR127\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e127\u003c/span\u003e]. In an alternative study conducted in Brazilian female workers, greater social capital was associated with reduced common mental disorder and stress, hence its importance as a protective factor [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR128\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e128\u003c/span\u003e]. These results combined allow us to interpret that workplace social capital is an important psychosocial resource in the relief of psychological distress. It is important to highlight, however, that this study advances the existing research by offering a culturally validated instrument that considers the realities of workplace environments related to low-to-middle-income contexts in Pakistan, such as hierarchical structures and the importance of extended relational networks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe newly developed scale of workplace social capital in the Urdu language provides a reliable and valid tool for measuring social resources in the workplace regarding low to middle-income contexts of Pakistan, assisting organizations to understand the need to trust, cohesion, and supportive systems. Moreover, accurate assessment of workplace social capital will help organizations to recognize their social benefits and drawbacks and develop specific approaches to increase the integrity of the relational networks among the workers that could foster social sustainability. Team-building activities, open communication, and practical leadership approaches are some of the ways that workplace social capital can improve resilience. The results of this study offer valuable real-world understandings for workplace social interaction realities and demands, and the potential of WSC as a protective factor in the challenging circumstances of life, such as familial mental illness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Suggestions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the current study suggesting strong support for the reliability and validity of the newly developed Workplace Social Capital Scale, there are several considerations to make. Response bias is a possibility because the instrument is self-administered. Samples could not be considered representative unless larger samples are drawn systematically from specific workplace settings. Therefore, generalizability could be questionable; however, fit indices and reliability estimates for such small samples are still encouraging, offering insights to future evaluations. This measure not only supports understanding of social capital's role at work but also enhances its representativeness, contributing to workplace resilience in various professional environments. The measure is not limited to the mental illness context, and researchers could explore the predictive validity of WSCS across a variety of workplace contexts in Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn general, the findings of the current study provide practical indications that the newly developed scale of Workplace Social Capital in Urdu is a reliable and useful instrument for measuring psychosocial aspects in workplaces among low to middle-income contexts in Pakistan. Vertical trust and organizational value, a cohesive work climate, and interpersonal support are the three main factors of this scale. The results further show that to enhance its effectiveness in the workplace, workplace social capital indicates significant associations with the resilience at work scale. The scale could be used by organizational psychologists, mental health professionals, and researchers in the field of economics and management sciences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConflicts of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.13039/501100004681\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13039/501100004681\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) (HEC-GCF-844).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRK and RB conceptualise the study. RK and KS wrote the manuscript. SH and KS did the statistical analysis. MA and HA review the manuscript. IAD facilitated in data collection and review manuscript. KS and SH proofread the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge all the participants for their time who took part in the research. We are thankful to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for providing a research grant through the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s Grand Challenge Fund to the corresponding author as Principal Investigator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthics Statement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Government College University (under the IRB Approval No. 567).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConsent \u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLozano R. Envisioning Sustainability Three-Dimensionally. J Clean Prod. 2008;16(13):1838\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerghiligiu IV, Robu I-B, V\u0026icirc;lcu A, P\u0026icirc;slaru M. Organizational sustainability main components identification using PCA. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence. Sciendo; 2021. pp. 256\u0026ndash;266. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2478/9788366675735-041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2478/9788366675735-041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKobal Grum D, Babnik K. The psychological concept of social sustainability in the workplace from the perspective of sustainable goals: a systematic review. Front Psychol. 2022;13:942204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942204\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.942204\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu J-M, Cao M-G, Gao Q-C, Lu Y-X, Stark AT. Nurses\u0026rsquo; workplace social capital and sustainable development: an integrative review of empirical studies. J Nurs Manag. 2024;2024:8362035. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8362035\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1155/2024/8362035\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhn MY, Davis HH. Sense of belonging as an indicator of social capital. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2020;40(7\u0026ndash;8):627\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-12-2019-0258\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJSSP-12-2019-0258\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEriksson M, Santosa A, Zetterberg L, Kawachi I, Ng N. Social capital and sustainable social development\u0026mdash;how are changes in neighbourhood social capital associated with neighbourhood sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics? Sustainability. 2021;13(23):13161. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su132313161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su132313161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhandari H, Yasunobu K. What is social capital? A comprehensive review of the concept. Asian J Soc Sci. 2009;37(3):480\u0026ndash;510. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1163/156853109x436847\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1163/156853109x436847\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/0001699307077654\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/0001699307077654\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Arrieta N, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez RA, Ca\u0026ntilde;abate A, Sabate F. Social capital on social networking sites: A social network perspective. Sustainability. 2021;13(9):5147. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.3390/su13095147\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.3390/su13095147\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanifan LJ. The rural school community center. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 1916;67(1):130\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/000271621606700118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/000271621606700118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBourdieu P. Forms of capital. In: Richardson JG, editor. Handbook of theory for the sociology of education. Greenwood; 1986. pp. 241\u0026ndash;58.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColeman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988;94:S95\u0026ndash;120. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1086/228943\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1086/228943\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurt RS. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press; 1992.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNahapiet J, Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manage Rev. 1998;23(2):242\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawachi I. Social capital and community effects on population and individual health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896(1):120\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08110.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08110.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam RD. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press; 1993.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon \u0026amp; Schuster; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsai W, Ghoshal S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J. 1998;41(4):464\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/257085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/257085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeana CR, Van Buren HJ. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Acad Manage Rev. 1999;24(3):538\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202136\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2202136\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.2002.5922314\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.2002.5922314\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoran P. Structural vs. relational embeddedness: Social capital and managerial performance. Strateg Manag J. 2005;26(12):1129\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1002/smj.486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1002/smj.486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInkpeng AC, Tsang EWK. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30(1):146\u0026ndash;65. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281445\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281445\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaurer I, Bartsch V, Ebers M. The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organ Stud. 2011;32(2):157\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/0170840610394301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/0170840610394301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkhavan P, Hosseini SM. Social capital, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of R\u0026amp;D teams in Iran. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2015;27(6):729\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1026211\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1026211\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-S\u0026aacute;nchez E, D\u0026iacute;az-D\u0026iacute;az NLY, De Sa\u0026aacute;-P\u0026eacute;rez P. Social capital and knowledge sharing in academic research teams. Int Rev Admin Sci. 2019;85(1):191\u0026ndash;207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/0020852317700828\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/0020852317700828\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBharati P, Zhang W, Chaudhury A. Social media assimilation in firms: Investigating the roles of absorptive capacity and institutional pressures. Inform Syst Front. 2015;17(1):125\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9523-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9523-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi SY. The role of social capital in the digital divide between rural and urban communities. Inform Technol Dev. 2016;22(1):1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1011593\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1011593\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMularczk M. Social capital and sustainable development: An empirical analysis in Poland. Sustainability. 2024;16(4):1459. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.3390/su16041459\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.3390/su16041459\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUmer M, Zhang L, Raza MY, Tariq A. The mediating role of organizational resilience between social capital and sustainable performance: Evidence from emerging economies. Discover Sustain. 2025;6(1):18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1007/s43621-025-01692-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1007/s43621-025-01692-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKleine A, Hauff M. Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. J Bus Ethics. 2012;85(3):517\u0026ndash;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0212-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0212-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKouvonen A, Kivim\u0026auml;ki M, Vahtera J, Oksanen T, Elovainio M, Cox T, Wilkinson RG. Psychometric evaluation of a short measure of social capital at work. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:251. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-251\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-251\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKouvonen A, Oksanen T, Vahtera J, Stafford M, Wilkinson R, Schneider J, Kivim\u0026auml;ki M. [Multiple longitudinal studies on workplace social capital and health outcomes in the Finnish Public Sector Study]. 2008\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen X, Zhang S, Zhou Y. Workplace social capital and mental health among healthcare workers: Evidence from China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1\u0026ndash;11. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07856-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07856-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh A, Dher A, Verma P. Workplace social capital as a buffer against stress and burnout among healthcare workers. J Health Manage. 2023;25(3):411\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/09720634231123456\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/09720634231123456\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamashita T, Takahashi M, Fukuda Y, Kondo N. Workplace social capital and burnout among nurses: A longitudinal analysis in Japan. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;147:104635. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104635\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104635\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSahin H, Kizilirmak P, Atan T. The role of workplace social capital in coping with COVID-19-related stress among healthcare professionals. Health Care Manage Rev. 2023;48(2):112\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun J, Li Q, Wang Y, Chen X. Social capital and mental health during COVID-19: Evidence from workplace settings in China. Front Psychol. 2020;11:566852. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566852\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566852\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRostamim R, Jalilian H, Mahboubi M. Association between workplace social capital and mental health among Iranian industrial workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;25(4):600\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1080/10803548.2018.1440899\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1080/10803548.2018.1440899\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemir EK. The Role of Social Capital for Teacher Professional Learning and Student Achievement: A Systematic Literature Review. SSRN J. 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClaridge T. Social Capital and the Problem of Measurement. Social Capital: An Introduction to a Challenging Concept. Cham: Springer; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSabatini F. Social capital as an indicator of human development: a new measurement approach. J Socio-Econ. 2009;38(5):783\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan der Gaag M, Snijders TA. B. The resource generator: social capital measurement through personal networks. Social Networks. 2005;27(1):1\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStone J, Hughes J. Assessing the range and evidence-based interventions in a cluster of schools. Br J Educational Stud. 2022;70(3):323\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFandi\u0026ntilde;o E, Oliveira M, Pinho J, Correia J. Organizational Social Capital Scale: Based on Nahapiet and Ghosal Model: Development and Validation. In: 2015 \u003cem\u003eIEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM)\u003c/em\u003e. 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRead EA, Laschinger HKS, Fida R, Finegan J, Wong CA. Development and validation of a workplace social capital questionnaire for nurses. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2016;24(5):634\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1111/jonm.12370\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1111/jonm.12370\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEguchi H, Tsutsumi A, Inoue A, Odagiri Y. Psychometric assessment of a scale to measure bonding workplace social capital. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6):e0179461. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179461\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179461\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristensen TS, Hannerup U, Borg V. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(4):303\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ): A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(3):234\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerthelsen H, Westerlund H, Pejtersen JH, Hadzibajramovic E. Construct validity of a global scale for Workplace Social Capital based on COPSOQ III. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221893. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221893\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221893\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnsmann L, Hower KI, Wirtz MA, Kowalski C, Ernstmann N, McKee L, Pfaff H. Measuring social capital of healthcare organizations reported by employees for creating positive workplaces - validation of the SOCAPO-E instrument. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(272). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05041-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05041-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorikoshi K, Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A. Development and validation of the Relational Workplace Social Capital Scale. Ind Health. 2020;58(6):516\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.2486/indhealth.2019-0159\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.2486/indhealth.2019-0159\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBen Hador B, Weisberg J, Rahimi H. Personal social capital in organizations: Development and validation of a new measure. J Managerial Psychol. 2021;36(2):117\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1108/JMP-02-2020-0071\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1108/JMP-02-2020-0071\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsounis A, Sarafis P, Rousaki E. Validation of the Workplace Social Capital Inventory in Greek employees. J Public Mental Health. 2023;22(1):45\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1108/JPMH-01-2022-0004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1108/JPMH-01-2022-0004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a A, Palacios-Vivas A, Rueda S. Cultural differences in work attitudes: a cross-cultural study of Spain and China. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2012;43(5):789\u0026ndash;804.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNedjat S, Forouzan AS, Gholipour A, Asghari A, Majdzadeh R, Rahimi N. Reliability and validity of the Iranian version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). Payesh. 2018;17(2):175\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galt\u0026eacute;s A, et al. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain\u0026mdash;a tool for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(1):97\u0026ndash;107.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZigkiri I, Vlachantoni K, Theodossopoulos L. Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-Long Version II (COPSOQ II) in Greek employees. EMBnet J. 2021;26(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞahan C, Baydur H, Demiral Y. A novel version of Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire-3: Turkish validation study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;74(6):297\u0026ndash;309.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang W, Chen G, Li W, Wang H. COPSOQ III in China: Preliminary Validation of an International Instrument to Measure Psychosocial Work Factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025;13(7):825.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbrar-ul-haq M, Ghafoor A. Role of Social Capital in Human Resource Management Practices: A Case Study of Pakistani Organizations. J Bus Econ Rev. 2015;2(1):1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTariq ZA. Assessing social capital with respect to urban forms in Pakistan. \u003cem\u003eTurkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT)\u003c/em\u003e. 2021;12(13):5075\u0026ndash;5092. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/378313899_Assessing_Social_Capital_With_Respect_To_Urban_Forms_in_Pakistan_Zulfiquar\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378313899_Assessing_Social_Capital_With_Respect_To_Urban_Forms_in_Pakistan_Zulfiquar\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVolkova N, Kolobova V, Zaytseva E, Kurbanova V. Measuring workplace social capital among Russian medical students. Eur J Pers Psychol. 2022;11(1):52\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiddiqui SH, Akhtar N, Ahmad A. Organizational social capital: Indicators and measurement in higher education institutions of Pakistan. South Asian J Bus Stud. 2020;9(3):293\u0026ndash;310. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1108/SAJBS-12-2018-0148\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1108/SAJBS-12-2018-0148\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArregle JL, Hitt MA, Sirmon DG, Very P. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of a family firm. J Manage Stud. 2007;44(1):73\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAslam M, Rehman F, Jabeen S, Khan Z. The role of social capital in relation to organizational ambidexterity: A study of Pakistani firms. J Manag Res Dev. 2022;12(1):1\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu WY, Chiu YC. The relationships among social capital, knowledge sharing, and organizational innovation. J Bus Ind Mark. 2018;33(7):1018\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIslam TU, Abrar M, Arshad R, Akram N. Income inequality in Pakistan. Int J Soc Econ. 2022;49(11):1652\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbas S, Zakar R, Fischer F. Qualitative study of socio-cultural challenges in the nursing profession in Pakistan. BMC Nurs. 2020;19(1):20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNadeem M, Rana MS, Lone AH, Maqbool S, Naz K, Ali A. Teacher\u0026rsquo;s competencies and factors affecting the performance of female teachers in Bahawalpur (Southern Punjab) Pakistan. Int J Bus Soc Sci. 2011;2(19):217\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarruthers BG. What is sociological about banks and banking? The sociology of economic life. Routledge; 2018. pp. 242\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim J. Global cultural capital and global positional competition: International graduate students\u0026rsquo; transnational occupational trajectories. Br J Sociol Educ. 2016;37(1):30\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaqsood A. Love as understanding: Marriage, aspiration, and the joint family in middle-class Pakistan. Am Ethnol. 2021;48(1):93\u0026ndash;104.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaq SU, Boz I, Shahbaz P, Murtaza MR. Rural families food intake behaviour in relation to livelihood diversification, income differences and family size. Int J Consum Stud. 2020;44(5):481\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkram T, Qayyum A. An analysis of the relationship between social capital and occupational stress in banking industry of Pakistan. Pak J Commer Soc Sci. 2014;8(1):112\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaved A, Lee C, Zakaria H, Buenaventura RD, Cetkovich-Bakmas M, Duailibi K, et al. Reducing the stigma of mental health disorders with a focus on low-and middle-income countries. Asian J Psychiatry. 2021;58:102601.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Test Commission. The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). 2017. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhawar R, Shamsher S, Amin R. Conceptualization of social capital in the mental health context among adolescents and adults. Pakistan Social Sci Rev. 2024;8(II):428\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.35484/pssr.2024(8-II)35\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.35484/pssr.2024(8-II)35\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam RD. Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. J Democracy. 1995;6(1):65\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin N. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaufman BE. How capitalism endogenously creates rising income inequality and economic crisis: The macro political economy model of early industrial relations. Industrial Relations: J Econ Soc. 2018;57(1):131\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLozano LM, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Cueto E, Mu\u0026ntilde;iz J. Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology. 2008;4(2):73\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. \u003cem\u003eArch Gen Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e. 2003;60(2):184-9. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/22240/kessler-psychological-distress-scale-k101.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/22240/kessler-psychological-distress-scale-k101.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweetman J, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Elfeddali I, de Beurs E. Validation of the work stress screener (WOSS-13) and resilience at work scale (ReWoS-24). J Psychosom Res. 2022;160. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110989\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.110989\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavidson M. Known-Groups Validity. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 3764.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806\u0026ndash;38. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/0011000006288127\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/0011000006288127\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoretzko D, Siemund K, Sterner P. Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 2024;84(1):123\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 1994.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eField A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th ed. Sage; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaiser HF. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39(1):31\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1080/10705519909540118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1080/10705519909540118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall; 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeorge D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColquitt JA, Scott BA, LePine JA. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(4):909\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarron AV, Brawley LR, Cohesion. Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Res. 2000;31(1):89\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/104649640003100105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/104649640003100105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiocchio F, Essiembre H. Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Res. 2009;40(4):382\u0026ndash;420. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1177/1046496409335103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1177/1046496409335103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHofstede G. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Sage; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirks KT, Ferrin DL. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):450\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(1):20\u0026ndash;39. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4278999\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4278999\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoore S, Daniel M, Gauvin L, Dub\u0026eacute; L. Not all social capital is good capital: Examining health effects of different forms of workplace social capital. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(9):893\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208327\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208327\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSuzuki E, Takao S, Subramanian SV, Komatsu H, Doi H, Kawachi I. Does low workplace social capital have a detrimental effect on workers\u0026rsquo; health? Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(9):1367\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.014\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.014\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiaburu DS, Harrison DA. Do coworkers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral social influences in organizations. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(5):1082\u0026ndash;103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310\u0026ndash;57. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalbesleben JRB. Sources of social support and burnout: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources model. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(5):1134\u0026ndash;45. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1134\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarr JZ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual-level work outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(4):605\u0026ndash;19. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(6):989\u0026ndash;1004. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.2307/2666999\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.2307/2666999\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(7):1133\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/apl0000111\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/apl0000111\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDirks KT, Ferrin DL. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):611\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC. Consequences of individuals\u0026rsquo; fit at work: A meta-analysis of person\u0026ndash;job, person\u0026ndash;organization, person\u0026ndash;group, and person\u0026ndash;supervisor fit. Pers Psychol. 2005;58(2):281\u0026ndash;342. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdwards JR, Cable DM. The value of value congruence. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(3):654\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1037/a0014891\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1037/a0014891\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchoorman FD, Mayer RC, Davis JH. An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):344\u0026ndash;54. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIdrovo AJ, Camacho-\u0026Aacute;vila A, Ruiz-Rudolph P, V\u0026aacute;zquez-Mart\u0026iacute;nez AL. Social capital at work: Psychometric analysis of a short scale in Spanish among Mexican health workers. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2012;15(3):536\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1590/S1415-790X2012000300010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1590/S1415-790X2012000300010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRostila M, Saarela J, Kawachi I. Workplace social capital: Redefining and measuring the construct. Soc Indic Res. 2022;164(2):651\u0026ndash;76. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1007/s11205-022-03028-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1007/s11205-022-03028-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoore S, B\u0026ouml;ckenholt U, Daniel M, Frohlich K, Kestens Y, Richard L. Social capital and core network ties: A validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra- and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health. Health Place. 2011;17(2):536\u0026ndash;44. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClausen T, Meng A, Borg V. Does social capital in the workplace predict job performance, work engagement, and psychological well-being? A prospective analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61(10):800\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001672\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001672\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujita S, Kawakami N, Ando E, Inoue A, Tsuno K, Kurioka S, Kawachi I. The association of workplace social capital with work engagement of employees in health care settings: A multilevel cross-sectional analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(3):265\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000605\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000605\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSakuraya A, Imamura K, Watanabe K, Asai Y, Ando E, Eguchi H, Kawakami N. Workplace social capital and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(12):933\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang J, Zhang W, Liu Y. Workplace social capital and employee well-being: Evidence from diverse organizational settings. J Organizational Behav. 2024;45(2):210\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1002/job.2678\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1002/job.2678\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFirouzbakht M, Tirgar A, Oksanen T, Kawachi I, Rostami R. Workplace social capital and mental health: A cross-sectional study among Iranian workers. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):794. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5659-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5659-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArslan F, Koupilov\u0026aacute; I, Moradi T. Association between workplace social capital and psychological distress: results from a population-based study in Tehran. BMC Public Health. 2018;18:794.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKouvonen A, Suzuki E, Takao S, V\u0026auml;\u0026auml;n\u0026auml;nen A, Oksanen T, Kawachi I. Does workplace social capital buffer the effects of job stress? A cross-sectional study in a Japanese manufacturing company. J Occup Health. 2014;56(6):382\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInoue A, Kawakami N, Tsuno K, Tomioka K, Nakanishi M. Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers. Ind Health. 2014;52(4):309\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorges TT, Fischer FM, Rotenberg L. Work-related psychosocial factors and common mental disorders among female nursing workers in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Workplace Social Capital, Resilience, Psychometric Properties, Exploration Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace social capital has been linked to organizational and social sustainability. The study aims to investigate workplace social capital as a measurable construct, maintaining theoretical depth while allowing for valid and reliable assessment across the low-to middle-income workplace context of Pakistan. In the first phase of the study, we followed a mixed methods approach (inductive \u0026amp; deductive) to formulate 30 items. A 22-item measure of workplace social capital scale was developed in the Urdu language. In the second phase, we established psychometric properties of the measure by determining and confirming its factor structure, as well as computing convergent and discriminant validity and reliability. An Exploration Factor Analysis (EFA) conducted on a sample of 150 participants revealed a three-factor solution with 18 items, followed by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on a separate sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;308). Acceptable fit indices were obtained for a final 12-item three-factor model, i.e., Vertical Trust and Organizational Value, Cohesive Work Climate, and Interpersonal Support, showing good reliability (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85). A significant positive correlation between scores of the Workplace Social Capital Scale (WSCS) and Resilience at Work Scale and significant inverse correlation with psychological distress indicated convergent and discriminant validity respectively. Lastly, significant differences between comparable samples from vulnerable (62 caregivers of patients with mental illness) and the general population on WSCS scores reflected known-groups validity. Findings support using the WSCS as a brief, yet psychometrically sound and valuable tool for assessing social resources in workplace settings of the Pakistani general and vulnerable populations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Psychometric Validation of a Workplace Social Capital Scale for Low and Middle Income Settings in Pakistan","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-30 14:21:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7599782/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d39c9f59-fbb6-4db1-9203-5f499e174b7e","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-06T08:40:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-30 14:21:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7599782","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7599782","identity":"rs-7599782","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}