工作生活质量:两个公务员群体的比较分析

Carla Antloga, M. Sarmet, Marina Maia do Carmo, Veruska Albuquerque, Polyanna Andrade, P. Cottone
{"title":"工作生活质量:两个公务员群体的比较分析","authors":"Carla Antloga, M. Sarmet, Marina Maia do Carmo, Veruska Albuquerque, Polyanna Andrade, P. Cottone","doi":"10.1590/0102.3772e39502.en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The general objective of the study was to compare the analysis of the perception of Quality of Work Life of workers from two federal entities in the infrastructure area based on the Activity-centered Ergonomics Applied to QWL. A total of 3.136 workers participated in this research. As an instrument it was used an electronic version of the QWL Valuating Inventory. The result presents no significant differences in perception of the two groups of works in relation to the quality of life at work. The element work organization was the worst evaluated indicating alertness and risk of illness. The research indicates issues that deserve attention during the elaboration of QWL Policy and Program in the evaluated organizations.","PeriodicalId":35395,"journal":{"name":"Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of Work Life: Comparative Analysis Between two Public Workers Groups\",\"authors\":\"Carla Antloga, M. Sarmet, Marina Maia do Carmo, Veruska Albuquerque, Polyanna Andrade, P. Cottone\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0102.3772e39502.en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The general objective of the study was to compare the analysis of the perception of Quality of Work Life of workers from two federal entities in the infrastructure area based on the Activity-centered Ergonomics Applied to QWL. A total of 3.136 workers participated in this research. As an instrument it was used an electronic version of the QWL Valuating Inventory. The result presents no significant differences in perception of the two groups of works in relation to the quality of life at work. The element work organization was the worst evaluated indicating alertness and risk of illness. The research indicates issues that deserve attention during the elaboration of QWL Policy and Program in the evaluated organizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e39502.en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102.3772e39502.en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本研究的总体目的是比较两个联邦实体在基础设施领域的工人对工作生活质量的感知分析,该分析基于应用于QWL的以活动为中心的工效学。共有3.136名工人参与了这项研究。作为一种工具,它被用作QWL评估清单的电子版本。结果显示,两组工作对工作生活质量的感知没有显著差异。工作组织这一要素在警觉性和患病风险方面的评价最差。研究指出了被评估组织在制定QWL政策和程序时应注意的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quality of Work Life: Comparative Analysis Between two Public Workers Groups
ABSTRACT The general objective of the study was to compare the analysis of the perception of Quality of Work Life of workers from two federal entities in the infrastructure area based on the Activity-centered Ergonomics Applied to QWL. A total of 3.136 workers participated in this research. As an instrument it was used an electronic version of the QWL Valuating Inventory. The result presents no significant differences in perception of the two groups of works in relation to the quality of life at work. The element work organization was the worst evaluated indicating alertness and risk of illness. The research indicates issues that deserve attention during the elaboration of QWL Policy and Program in the evaluated organizations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
48 weeks
期刊介绍: Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa is a journal published every three months by Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de Brasília [Institute of Psychology - University of Brasília]. It aims at publishing original papers related to Psychology that fit into the following categories: research report, theoretical study, report of professional experience, critical literature review, short communication, letter to editor, technical note, review. News may also be published at the editor"s discretion. The authors assume responsibility for the articles signed; opinions and considerations included in the articles do not necessarily express the standing point of the Editorial Board.
期刊最新文献
O Impacto da Liderança nos Comportamentos de Aprendizagem das Equipes de Trabalho Conceptions of Hegemonic Masculinity as a Mediator of Sexism Directed at Women Care for the Self as Government Strategy in Ecovillages “They Can Fight Their Own Fights”: Prejudice, Permissiveness, and Discrimination against Minorities Pílula do Dia Seguinte: Elaboração e Evidências Psicométricas de uma Medida
×
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