Developing a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards: the Healthy Work Survey (HWS).

IF 1.2 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e7
BongKyoo Choi, Youngju Seo
{"title":"Developing a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards: the Healthy Work Survey (HWS).","authors":"BongKyoo Choi,&nbsp;Youngju Seo","doi":"10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At present, no short standard questionnaire exists for assessing and comparing major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a series of psychometric tests (content validity, factor analysis, differential-item functioning analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) to validate and identify core items and scales for major work organization hazards using the data from the 2002-2014 General Social Surveys (GSSs), including the Quality of Worklife (QWL) questionnaire. In addition, an extensive literature review was undertaken to find other major work organization hazards which were not addressed in the GSS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although the overall validity of the GSS-QWL questionnaire was satisfactory in the psychometric tests, some GSS-QWL items of work-family conflict, psychological job demands, job insecurity, use of skills on the job, and safety climate scales appeared to be weak. In the end, 33 questions (31 GSS-QWL and 2 GSS) were chosen as the least, but best validated core questions and included in a new short standard questionnaire (called the Healthy Work Survey [HWS]). And their national norms were established for comparisons. Furthermore, based on the literature review, fifteen more questions for assessing other significant work organization hazards (e.g., lack of scheduling control, emotional demands, electronic surveillance, wage theft) were included in the new questionnaire. Thus, the HWS includes 48 questions in total for assessing traditional and emerging work organization hazards, which covers seven theoretical domains: work schedule/arrangement, control, support, reward, demands, safety, and justice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HWS is a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards which can be used as a first step toward the risk management of major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the US.</p>","PeriodicalId":46631,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c5/f7/aoem-35-e7.PMC10172462.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: At present, no short standard questionnaire exists for assessing and comparing major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the United States.

Methods: We conducted a series of psychometric tests (content validity, factor analysis, differential-item functioning analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) to validate and identify core items and scales for major work organization hazards using the data from the 2002-2014 General Social Surveys (GSSs), including the Quality of Worklife (QWL) questionnaire. In addition, an extensive literature review was undertaken to find other major work organization hazards which were not addressed in the GSS.

Results: Although the overall validity of the GSS-QWL questionnaire was satisfactory in the psychometric tests, some GSS-QWL items of work-family conflict, psychological job demands, job insecurity, use of skills on the job, and safety climate scales appeared to be weak. In the end, 33 questions (31 GSS-QWL and 2 GSS) were chosen as the least, but best validated core questions and included in a new short standard questionnaire (called the Healthy Work Survey [HWS]). And their national norms were established for comparisons. Furthermore, based on the literature review, fifteen more questions for assessing other significant work organization hazards (e.g., lack of scheduling control, emotional demands, electronic surveillance, wage theft) were included in the new questionnaire. Thus, the HWS includes 48 questions in total for assessing traditional and emerging work organization hazards, which covers seven theoretical domains: work schedule/arrangement, control, support, reward, demands, safety, and justice.

Conclusions: The HWS is a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards which can be used as a first step toward the risk management of major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the US.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制定用于评估工作组织危害的简短标准问卷:健康工作调查。
背景:目前,美国还没有一份简短的标准问卷来评估和比较美国工作场所的主要工作组织危害。方法:利用2002-2014年《综合社会调查》(gss)和《工作生活质量问卷》(QWL)的数据,进行了一系列心理测量测试(内容效度、因子分析、差异项目功能分析、信度和并发效度),验证和识别了主要工作组织危害的核心项目和量表。此外,还进行了广泛的文献综述,以发现GSS中未解决的其他主要工作组织危害。结果:虽然GSS-QWL问卷在心理测试中的总体效度是令人满意的,但GSS-QWL问卷中工作-家庭冲突、心理工作需求、工作不安全感、工作技能使用和安全气候量表的部分效度较弱。最后,33个问题(31个GSS- qwl和2个GSS)被选为最少但最有效的核心问题,并被纳入一个新的短标准问卷(称为健康工作调查[HWS])。他们的国家标准是为了比较而建立的。此外,在文献回顾的基础上,新问卷还增加了15个评估其他重大工作组织危害的问题(如缺乏调度控制、情感需求、电子监控、工资盗窃)。因此,HWS总共包括48个问题,用于评估传统的和新兴的工作组织危害,涵盖七个理论领域:工作时间表/安排、控制、支持、奖励、需求、安全和正义。结论:HWS是一份用于评估工作组织危害的简短标准问卷,可作为美国工作场所主要工作组织危害风险管理的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (AOEM) is an open access journal that considers original contributions relevant to occupational and environmental medicine and related fields, in the form of original articles, review articles, short letters and case reports. AOEM is aimed at clinicians and researchers working in the wide-ranging discipline of occupational and environmental medicine. Topic areas focus on, but are not limited to, interactions between work and health, covering occupational and environmental epidemiology, toxicology, hygiene, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, management, organization and policy. As the official journal of the Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (KSOEM), members and authors based in the Republic of Korea are entitled to a discounted article-processing charge when they publish in AOEM.
期刊最新文献
Association between multiple jobs and physical and psychological symptoms among the Korean working population. Occupation classification model based on DistilKoBERT: using the 5th and 6th Korean Working Condition Surveys. Relationship between the use of hair products and urine benzophenone-3: the Korean National Environmental Health Survey (KoNEHS) cycle 4. The association of shift work and TyG index among male workers in a chemical plant of Korea: a cross-sectional study. Glioblastoma in a paper industry worker exposed to high concentrations of formaldehyde: a case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1