The Assessment of Psychosocial Work Conditions and Their Relationship to Well-Being: A Multi-Study Report
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection
2.2.1. Assessement of Psychosocial Work Conditions
2.2.2. Assessment of Well-Being
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3.1. Factor Extraction
3.3. Criterion-Relatec Validity
5. Materials and Methods
5.1. Data Collection
5.4. Statistical Analyses
8. Main Conclusions from Both Studies
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Description of the Items of the New Instrument
- Item (1) Task CompletenessCompleteness means that an activity includes both planning and organizing as well as executing and controlling tasks, so that overall work tasks can be carried out from start to finish.
- Item (2) Task varietyVariety means switching between tasks within the activity that require different demands on the body and mind.
- Item (3) Task significanceSignificance means that the work activity is significant in a superordinate context (for society, the organization and the employees).
- Item (4) Influence on task contentsInfluencing task content means that the content and scope of tasks can be influenced by the employees.
- Item (5) Influence on task executionIt means that the way in which a task is carried out (e.g., method, procedure, sequence) can be chosen by the employees themselves.
- Item (6) Influence on task paceInfluence on the working speed means that the employees themselves determine the speed with which they perform tasks within the activity.
- Item (7) Clear work ordersClear work orders mean that work orders have no room for interpretation and are understandable.
- Item (8) Assigned responsibilityAssignment of responsibility means that the responsibilities for the activity are clearly assigned and comprehensible.
- Item (9) Authority to issue directivesIt means that those responsible for the activity are assigned the necessary authority to issue directives.
- Item (10) Skill utilizationSkill utilization means that the activity requires the use of expertise and skills.
- Item (11) Qualification opportunitiesOpportunities for qualification mean the possibility that employees can continue their professional training if this is desired or necessary.
- Item (12) Advancement opportunitiesOpportunities for advancement mean career and work content development opportunities, if these are desired.
- Item (13) No emotion suppressionNo emotional suppression means that employees need not strongly suppress their own feelings during work. Strong emotional suppression is often the case, for example, in service occupations.
- Item (14) No critical life eventsNo encounter of critical life events means that during their work the employees do not encounter the difficult critical life of other people (e.g., illness, life crises, accident, death of clients, citizens or clients (not colleagues)).
- Item (15) No aggression/violenceNo aggression and violence refer to the exclusion of possible situation in which workers might be confronted with aggression and violence during their work. It refers to both no physical and verbal assaults, whether observed or directly victimized. It is explicitly excluded that the experiences of aggression result from the circle of co-workers.
- Item (16) Fixed locationNo fixed location means that the activity is carried out regularly at different locations (e.g., different sites of a company or field service).
- Item (17) Job securityJob security means that the employees can assume that their employment is secure (e.g., indefinite employment contract).
- Item (18) Work-life balanceWork-life balance refers to the compatibility of work and private life. This means that it is possible for employees to meet both work requirements and those arising from their private lives.
- Item (19) Compliance with working hoursThis means that the number of hours stipulated in the contract is adhered to.
- Item (20) Regular recovery breaksThis means that regular rest breaks are taken.
- Item (21) No changes in working hoursThis means that the working hours of employees do not change due to absenteeism of colleagues.
- Item (22) Timely changes to working hoursThe ability to plan working times means that working times are determined as far in advance as possible (this is particularly relevant for shift work) and that changes to working times are announced in a timely manner.
- Item (23) Suitable ratio amount vs. timeThis is about the fit between the actual amount of work and the time allocated to it.
- Item (24) Time for core tasksThis means that sufficient time is available for the completion of core tasks.
- Item (25) Uniform workloadThis aspect refers to the fact that the workload is distributed evenly over the course of the day (e.g., work peaks and peak times are avoided).
- Item (26) No multiple tasksThis means that only one task is performed at a time.
- Item (27) No interruptions (from people)Interruptions by persons describe unplanned interruptions in the workflow caused by other persons (colleagues, clients, etc.).
- Item (28) No interruptions (due to information and communication technologies)Interruptions by means of communication describe unplanned interruptions in the workflow caused by means of information and communications technology (telephone, e-mail, etc.).
- Item (29) Understandable informationThe comprehensibility of information refers to the adequacy of the presentation of information needed to carry out the activity (visibility, clarity, access to information, comprehensible formulations, etc.).
- Item (30) Available work equipmentRequired work equipment is available and ready for use, i.e., available in sufficient quantity, intact and ready for operation.
- Item (31) Respect among colleaguesRespect is a form of appreciation. It means that employees perceive the work of their colleagues as important, recognize it and express this through their behavior.
- Item (32) Support among colleaguesThis refers to the need-oriented, mutual support of the colleagues in the field of activity.
- Item (33) Professional conflict solvingThis refers to the resolution of conflicts in the field of activity on a factual level.
- Item (34) Coordination of joint tasksCoordination of joint tasks means that the colleagues in the field of activity exchange and complement each other with regard to joint tasks.
- Item (35) Feedback from supervisorThis means that the direct managers provide professionally helpful feedback on the job tasks.
- Item (36) Acknowledgement from supervisorIn this context, recognition means that the direct managers perceive and acknowledge the activity-related performance of the employees.
- Item (37) Respect from supervisorRespect is a form of appreciation. It means that supervisors perceive the work of their employees as important, recognize it and express this through their behavior.
- Item (38) Support from supervisor as neededSupport from supervisor as needed means that the direct supervisor supports their employees in solving problem situations.
- Item (39) Sufficient spaceThis means that the workplace offers sufficient space for the exercise of the activity (for example, there is no spatial narrowness, but freedom of movement, enough space for storage and shelves).
- Item (40) Contact opportunitiesContact opportunities are given if the working environment allows verbal contact with other persons during the activity.
- Item (41) Retreat possibilitiesThe existence of retreat possibilities means that employees can temporarily withdraw from the job.
- Item (42) No unpleasant odorsThis means that the activity takes place in an environment in which there are no unpleasant odors.
- Item (43) Quiet working environmentThis means that the activity can be carried out without unpleasant noises (e.g., loud or disturbing background noise).
- Item (44) Pleasant climateThe climate includes both the temperature and the “fresh air supply”, as well as the absence of draught.
- Item (45) Appropriate lightingThe lighting should be as even as possible so as not to strain the eyes too much. Daylight is best for the body.
- Item (46) No hazardous/biological agentsThe activity does not involve contact with hazardous substances or biological agents.
- Item (47) No heavy physical loadNo physical heavy load refers to the absence of physical strain during the activity to be performed (e.g., lifting/carrying).
- Item (48) Varied postureVaried postures serve to keep employees healthy, whereas one-sided postures lead to health problems-especially of the musculoskeletal system.
Appendix B. Criterion-Related Validity for Single Items
|Task Completeness||0.118 **|
|Task Variety||0.180 ***|
|Task Significance||0.200 ***|
|Qualification opportunities||0.169 ***|
|Advancement opportunities||0.218 ***|
|Fixed location||−0.124 **|
|Job security||0.162 ***|
|Work-life balance||0.297 ***|
|Timely changes to working hours||0.217 ***|
|Uniform workload||0.269 ***|
|Understandable information||0.209 ***|
|Available work equipment||0.225 ***|
|Contact opportunities||0.213 ***|
|Retreat possibilities||0.229 ***|
Appendix C. Tables of Hierarchical Regression Analyses
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.059 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.017 *|
|adj. R2 = 0.055||adj. R2 = 0.068|
|F (1218) = 13.771||F (2217) = 3.916|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.121 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.015 †|
|adj. R2 = 0.117||adj. R2 = 0.128|
|F (1218) = 30.079||F (2217) = 3.731|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.121 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.028 **|
|adj. R2 = 0.117||adj. R2 = 0.141|
|F (1218) = 30.079||F (2217) = 7.013|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.194 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.049 ***|
|adj. R2 = 0.190||adj. R2 = 0.236|
|F (1218) = 52.347||F (2217) = 14.094|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.010|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.046 **|
|adj. R2 = 0.005||adj. R2 = 0.047|
|F (1218) = 2.130||F (2217) = 10.598|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.077 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.012 †|
|adj. R2 = 0.073||adj. R2 = 0.081|
|F (1218) = 18.249||F (2217) = 2.829|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.070 ***|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.013 †|
|adj. R2 = 0.066||adj. R2 = 0.075|
|F (1218) = 16.526||F (2217) = 2.990|
|Variables||Model 1||Model 2|
|Step 1: Scale EI||Delta R2 = 0.000|
|Step 2: Scale EI + NI||Delta R2 = 0.054 **|
|adj. R2 = (-)0.004||adj. R2 = 0.046|
|F (1218) = 0.744||F (2217) = 12.329|
- Rosário, S.; Fonseca, J.A.; Nienhaus, A.; da Costa, J.T. Standardized assessment of psychosocial factors and their influence on medically confirmed health outcomes in workers: A systematic review. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2016, 11, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van Stolk, C.; Staetsky, L.; Hassan, E.; Kim, C.W. Management of Psychosocial Risks at Work; An Analysis of the Findings of the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER), European Risk Observatory, Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivris, K.C.; Leka, S. Examples of Holistic Good Practices in Promoting and Protecting Mental Health in the Workplace: Current and Future Challenges. Saf. Health Work 2015, 6, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leka, S.; Cox, T.; Zwetsloot, G. The European Framework for Psychosocial Risk Management: PRIMA-EF; I-WHO Publications: Nottingham, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Beck, D.; Berger, S.; Breutmann, N.; Fergen, A.; Gregersen, S.; Morschhäuser, M.; Reddehase, B.; Ruck, Y.R.; Sandrock, S.; Splittgerber, B.; et al. Recommendations of The Intuitions of The Joint German Occupational Safety and Health Strategy (GDA) for Implementing Psychosocial Risk Assessment; Management of the GDA Mental Health Working Programme c/o Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs: Berlin, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Van Veldhoven, M.; de Jonge, J.; Broersen, S.; Kompier, M.; Meijman, T. Specific relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: A three-level analytic approach. Work Stress 2002, 16, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schütte, S.; Chastang, J.F.; Malard, L.; Parent-Thirion, A.; Vermeylen, G.; Niedhammer, I. Psychosocial working conditions and psychological well-being among employees in 34 European countries. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2014, 87, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raffaello, M.; Maass, A. Chronic Exposure to Noise in Industry. The Effects on Satisfaction, Stress Symptoms, and Company Attachment. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 651–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabanelli, M.C.; Depolo, M.; Cooke, R.M.T.; Sarchielli, G.; Bonfiglioli, R.; Mattioli, S.; Violante, F.S. Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2008, 82, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kompier, M. Assessing the psychosocial work environment—Subjective versus objective measurement. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2005, 31, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, J.; Pauli, R.; Lazic, A.; Schneider, I. Der Einfluss von Neurotizismus auf zwei Formulierungsvarianten einer psychischen Belastungsmessung: Ein randomisiertes Split-Ballot-Experiment Influence of neuroticism on two formulation variants of a psychosocial working condition measurement: A randomized split ballot experiment. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Conference of the German Society for Occupational and Environmental Medicine (DGAUM), Munich, Germany, 11–14 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, I.; Mädler, M.; Lang, J. Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessment: Is there Agreement? BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 8382160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Jonge, J.; Dormann, C.; Janssen, P.P.M.; Dollard, M.F.; Landeweerd, J.A.; Nijhuis, F.J.N. Testing reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and psychological well-being: A cross-lagged structural equation model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 74, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitt, M.; Ziegler, M.; Danner, D.; Blasius, J.; Breyer, B.; Eifler, S. Current challenges, new developments, and future directions in scale construction. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2016, 32, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Miller, G.A. The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychol. Rev. 1956, 63, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Weijters, B.; Cabooter, E.; Schillewaert, N. The Effect of Rating Scale Format on Response Style: The Number of Response Categories and Response Category Labels. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2010, 27, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyos, C.G.; Ruppert, F. Fragebogen zur Sicherheitsdiagnose (FSD). In Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren. In Manual of Psychological Work Analysis Procedures; Dunckel, H., Ed.; Vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH: Zürich, Switzerland, 1999; pp. 125–146. [Google Scholar]
- Topp, C.W.; Østergaard, S.D.; Søndergaard, S.; Bech, P. WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 2015, 84, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velicer, W.F.; Jackson, D.N. Component Analysis versus Common Factor Analysis: Some Further Observations. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1990, 25, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patil, V.H.; Singh, S.N.; Mishra, S.; Donavan, D.T. Efficient theory development and factor retention criteria: Abandon the eigenvalue greater than one criterion. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Worthington, R.L.; Whittaker, T.A. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 806–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.-T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evers, A. Revised Dutch Rating System for Test Quality. Int. J. Test. 2001, 1, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, K.F.; Kallen, M.A.; Amtmann, D. Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT’s unidimensionality assumption. Qual. Life Res. 2009, 18, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Morgeson, D.P.; Humphrey, S.E. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validating a Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design and the Nature of Work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1321–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Karasek, R.A. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, J.V.; Hall, E.M. Job Strain, Work Place Social Support, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Random Sample of the Swedish Working Population. Am. J. Public Health 1988, 78, 1336–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Johnson, J.V.; Hall, E.M. Combined Effects of Job Strain and Social Isolation on Cardiovascular Disease Morbidity and Mortality in a Random Sample of the Swedish Male Working Population. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1989, 15, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Campbell, T.D.; Fiske, W.D. Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix. Psychol. Bull. 1959, 56, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Leiner, D.J. SoSci Survey (Version 2.4.00-i) Computer Software. München, Deutschland: SoSci Survey GmbH. Available online: https://www.soscisurvey (accessed on 20 October 2019).
- Nübling, M.; Stößel, U.; Hasselhorn, H.-M.; Michaelis, M.; Hofmann, F. Methoden zur Erfassung Psychischer Belastungen. Erprobung eines Messinstrumentes [Methods for Recording Psychological Stress. Testing of a Measuring Instrument] (COPSOQ); Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin/Forschung [Publication Series of the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/Research]: Fb 1058; Bremerhaven Wirtschaftsverlag NW Verlag für Neue: Wissenschaft, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Prümper, J.; Hartmannsgruber, K.; Frese, M. KFZA. Kurzfragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse. Short questionnaire for work analysis. Z. Arb. Organ. 1995, 3, 125–132. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzetti, G.; Simbula, S.; Panari, C.; Guglielmi, D.; Paolucci, A. “Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda”. Workers’ Proactivity in the Association between Emotional Demands and Mental Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Daniels, K. Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Hum. Relat. 2006, 59, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinete, N.; Bertram, J.; Reska, M.; Lang, J.; Kraus, T. Highly selective and automated online SPE LC-MS3 method for determination of cortisol and cortisone in human hair as biomarker for stress related diseases. Talanta 2015, 134, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauli, R.; Kuczynski, I.; Lang, J. Indikatoren psychosozialer Fehlbelastung anhand des WHO-5 Well-Being Index Indicators of psychosocial working conditions in relation to the WHO-5 Well-Being Index. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Conference of the German Society for Occupational and Environmental Medicine (DGAUM), Munich, Germany, 11–14 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Preamble to the Constitution of WHO as Adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19 June–22 July 1946; Signed on 22 July 1946 by the Representatives of 61 States (Official Records of WHO, no. 2, p. 100) and Entered into Force on 7 April 1948. Basic Documents, Forty-Fifth Edition, Supplement, October 2006, CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION1. Available online: https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2020).
- Dollard, M.F.; Bakker, A.B. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Work environ-ment||No unpleasant odors||0.87||0.05||−0.07||−0.03||0.03||−0.01||−0.13||0.07||0.88|
|No heavy physical demands||0.80||−0.02||0.03||−0.01||0.02||−0.08||0.04||−0.03|
|No hazardous/biological agents||0.74||0.04||0.09||−0.01||−0.12||−0.01||−0.02||−0.08|
|Quiet working environment||0.67||−0.08||0.03||0.08||0.02||−0.01||0.07||−0.10|
|Social relations, colleagues||Coordination of joint tasks||0.03||0.83||0.00||−0.02||0.02||0.07||−0.04||−0.04||0.89|
|Support among colleagues||−0.04||0.83||0.02||0.04||−0.04||−0.03||0.04||0.05|
|Professional conflict solving||0.00||0.77||0.10||−0.04||−0.03||0.05||0.01||0.02|
|Respect among colleagues||0.06||0.74||0.02||0.00||0.01||−0.07||0.04||0.01|
|Social relations, supervisors||Acknowledgement from supervisor||−0.03||−0.05||0.84||0.02||0.01||−0.04||0.10||−0.01||0.90|
|Helpful feedback from supervisor||0.07||0.07||0.83||0.02||−0.06||−0.01||−0.05||−0.02|
|Respect from supervisor||−0.09||0.08||0.79||0.06||0.06||0.03||−0.02||−0.01|
|Support from supervisor as needed||−0.04||0.07||0.78||−0.03||0.12||0.03||−0.07||−0.02|
|Work intensity||Compliance with working hours||0.01||−0.01||−0.06||0.85||0.01||−0.02||0.05||−0.05||0.77|
|Suitable ratio amount vs. time||0.05||−0.02||0.04||0.71||0.07||0.06||0.04||−0.02|
|Regular recovery breaks||−0.06||0.01||−0.04||0.57||0.00||0.01||−0.04||0.06|
|Time for core tasks||0.05||−0.07||0.12||0.50||−0.12||0.00||0.03||0.09|
|No changes in working hours||0.06||0.07||0.10||0.47||−0.01||−0.09||−0.09||0.01|
|Task clarity||Clearly assigned responsibilities||0.07||−0.01||0.06||−0.05||0.89||0.03||0.02||−0.07||0.76|
|Unambiguous work orders||0.00||−0.09||0.05||0.00||0.78||−0.01||−0.04||0.07|
|Authority for those responsible||−0.03||0.09||0.01||0.05||0.51||−0.07||0.10||0.08|
|Work continuity||No interruptions (from people)||0.08||−0.07||0.00||−0.04||0.02||0.82||0.06||0.12||0.73|
|No interruptions (due to ICT)||−0.04||0.12||−0.03||−0.10||−0.02||0.72||0.00||−0.12|
|No multiple tasks||−0.01||−0.05||0.05||.24||−0.05||0.55||−0.12||−0.03|
|Decision latitude||Influence on task execution||0.08||−0.02||0.02||−0.02||−0.10||−0.06||0.80||0.02||0.66|
|Influence on task content||−0.03||−0.01||0.05||−0.07||0.06||0.02||0.71||−0.10|
|Influence on task pace||−0.08||0.12||−0.17||.21||0.13||0.05||0.47||−0.02|
|No Emotional challenges||No critical life events||0.01||−0.03||0.14||0.03||−0.06||0.01||−0.02||0.77||0.65|
|No emotion suppression||0.15||0.04||0.02||−0.05||0.03||0.07||0.18||0.48|
|Work Factor||Cronbach’s α||Well-Being|
|Work environment||0.88||0.21 ***|
|Social Relations with colleagues||0.90||0.35 ***|
|Social Relations with supervisors||0.91||0.30 ***|
|Work intensity||0.80||0.37 ***|
|Task clarity||0.79||0.28 ***|
|Decision latitude||0.69||0.17 ***|
|Work continuity||0.74||0.30 ***|
|No emotional challenges||0.66||0.20 ***|
|Work Factor||t1 (N = 220)||t2 (N = 73)|
|Work environment||2.13||0.61||0.79||2.14||0.65||0.83||0.79 ***|
|Social relations with colleagues||2.29||0.67||0.89||2.34||0.59||0.89||0.75 ***|
|Social relations with supervisors||1.85||0.79||0.86||1.83||0.75||0.88||0.84 ***|
|Work intensity||1.77||0.75||0.80||1.79||0.73||0.85||0.87 ***|
|Task clarity||1.98||0.66||0.78||2.08||0.64||0.76||0.68 ***|
|Decision latitude||1.11||0.65||0.68||1.19||0.69||0.72||0.72 ***|
|Work continuity||1.70||0.69||0.59||1.63||0.70||0.70||0.65 ***|
|No emotional challenges||1.71||1.01||0.82||1.71||1.04||0.84||0.88 ***|
|Factor||NI1||NI2||NI 3||NI 4||NI 5||NI 6||NI 7||NI 8||EI1||EI 2-3||EI 4||EI 5||EI 6||EI 7||EI 8|
|3||0.34 ***||0.51 ***||1|
|4||0.26 ***||0.35 ***||0.38 ***||1|
|5||0.19 **||0.42 ***||0.39 ***||0.35 ***||1|
|6||0.28 ***||0.27 ***||0.30 ***||0.23 ***||0.16 *||1|
|7||0.003||0.13||0.19 **||0.37 ***||0.20 **||0.05||1|
|8||0.17 *||0.12||0.22 ***||0.24 ***||0.051||0.01||0.18 **||1|
|EI||1||0.62 ***||0.30 ***||0.33 ***||0.26 ***||0.20 **||0.18 **||0.13 **||0.18 **||1|
|2–3||0.30 ***||0.63 ***||0.66 ***||0.35 ***||0.44 ***||0.29 ***||0.054||−0.01||0.26 ***||1|
|4||0.23 ***||0.26 ***||0.29 ***||0.64 ***||0.25 ***||0.28 ***||0.42 ***||0.29 ***||0.32 ***||0.22 ***||1|
|5||0.16 *||0.35 ***||0.31 ***||0.14 **||0.44 ***||0.12||0.03||0.07||0.21 ***||0.29 ***||0.13 *||1|
|6||0.33 ***||0.27 ***||0.45 ***||0.19 **||0.16 *||0.70 ***||−0.02||0.07||0.20 ***||0.39 ***||0.16 *||0.24 ***||1|
|7||0.27 ***||0.32 ***||0.34 ***||0.45 ***||0.35 ***||0.19 **||0.50 ***||0.30 ***||0.37 ***||0.27 ***||0.60 ***||0.17 *||0.15 *||1|
|8||0.03||−0.02||0.07||0.19 **||−0.04||−0.07||0.11||0.78 ***||0.07||−0.11||0.22 ***||−0.004||−0.43||0.01||1|
|Well-being||0.28 ***||0.30 ***||0.36 ***||0.46 ***||0.24 ***||0.25 ***||0.23 ***||0.14 *||0.24 ***||0.33 ***||0.45 ***||0.16 *||0.26 ***||0.29 ***||0.12 †|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Kuczynski, I.; Mädler, M.; Taibi, Y.; Lang, J. The Assessment of Psychosocial Work Conditions and Their Relationship to Well-Being: A Multi-Study Report. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1654. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051654
Kuczynski I, Mädler M, Taibi Y, Lang J. The Assessment of Psychosocial Work Conditions and Their Relationship to Well-Being: A Multi-Study Report. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(5):1654. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051654Chicago/Turabian Style
Kuczynski, Isabell, Martin Mädler, Yacine Taibi, and Jessica Lang. 2020. "The Assessment of Psychosocial Work Conditions and Their Relationship to Well-Being: A Multi-Study Report" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 5: 1654. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051654