stract BACKGROUND: The Health & Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool (HSE-MS IT) is a questionnaire commonly used to assess work-related stress risks at an organizational level. A critical factor in determining whether this instrument is actually useful is that higher levels of stress risk in the work-design domains should predict higher levels of stress and stress-related outcomes in workers. Only a few studies, however, have addressed this issue. AIMS: To test both the concurrent and construct validity of the HSE-MS IT, by relating it with another widely used instrument, the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), and by examining its relationships with a set of work-related stress outcomes. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to a sample of employees in an Italian municipality. The questionnaire included the HSE-MS IT, self-reported measures of job satisfaction, job motivation and stress at work, the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the reduced form of the JCQ. RESULTS: A total of 760 out of 779 employees completed the questionnaire. Results showed moderate to strong correlation among the corresponding HSE-MS IT and JCQ scales. Hierarchical regression highlighted the specific contribution of each of the HSE-MS IT scales in predicting three relevant work-related stress outcomes (self-reported stress, job satisfaction and job motivation), after controlling for gender, age and life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings consolidated the HSE-MS IT validity and showed the specific sensitivity of its scales to assess different aspects of work-related distress, including self-perception of stress at work. These results can have practical implications for the occupational well-being of employees.

The HSE management standards indicator tool: Concurrent and construct validity

MARCATTO, FRANCESCO;LARESE FILON, FRANCESCA;FERRANTE, DONATELLA
2014-01-01

Abstract

stract BACKGROUND: The Health & Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool (HSE-MS IT) is a questionnaire commonly used to assess work-related stress risks at an organizational level. A critical factor in determining whether this instrument is actually useful is that higher levels of stress risk in the work-design domains should predict higher levels of stress and stress-related outcomes in workers. Only a few studies, however, have addressed this issue. AIMS: To test both the concurrent and construct validity of the HSE-MS IT, by relating it with another widely used instrument, the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ), and by examining its relationships with a set of work-related stress outcomes. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to a sample of employees in an Italian municipality. The questionnaire included the HSE-MS IT, self-reported measures of job satisfaction, job motivation and stress at work, the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the reduced form of the JCQ. RESULTS: A total of 760 out of 779 employees completed the questionnaire. Results showed moderate to strong correlation among the corresponding HSE-MS IT and JCQ scales. Hierarchical regression highlighted the specific contribution of each of the HSE-MS IT scales in predicting three relevant work-related stress outcomes (self-reported stress, job satisfaction and job motivation), after controlling for gender, age and life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings consolidated the HSE-MS IT validity and showed the specific sensitivity of its scales to assess different aspects of work-related distress, including self-perception of stress at work. These results can have practical implications for the occupational well-being of employees.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2763451
 Avviso

Registrazione in corso di verifica.
La registrazione di questo prodotto non è ancora stata validata in ArTS.

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 42
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 36
social impact