IWorkHealth: An instrument to identify workplace psychosocial risk factors for a multi-ethnic Asian working population.

Edimansyah Abdin,Angelina Chan,Cheryl Wang,Mythily Subramaniam,Jo-Ann Chen,Chee Leong Chong,Siok Lin Gan,Michelle Lee,Mohamad Alameddine

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220566

Abstract

ObjectiveThe current study aimed to develop iWorkHealth, a valid and reliable self-administered instrument which identifies workplace psychosocial risk factors in Singapore.MethodsThe survey was conducted among 2718 employees who were primarily salaried workers and working in five companies from the healthcare, banking and finance, and legal sectors in Singapore. Factor extraction and item reduction were conducted using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Mokken scale analysis (MSA). Construct validity, internal consistency and convergent validity of the final scale were confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach's alpha and Pearson correlation coefficients, respectively. Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes model was used to detect Differential Item Functioning (DIF).ResultsEFA and MSA identified a five-factor solution (job demand, job control, employee and management engagement, supervisor support and colleague support) for the 27 items iWorkHealth instrument. CFA demonstrated that the five-factor model fitted the data with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.92). The convergent validity was shown through significant association with existing scales—high job demand was significantly associated with high burnout and depression, while high job control, employee and management engagement, supervisor support and coworker support were significantly associated with low burnout and depression. Ten items were detected with significant DIF, but impact was minimal on the associations between socio-demographics factors and iWorkHealth subscales.ConclusionsThe findings provided evidence that the iWorkHealth instrument which comprises 27 items in five domains of psychosocial risk at the workplace is a reliable and valid instrument that could be used to measure and compare the level of psychosocial risk factors across companies and industries in Singapore.

Highlights

The increasing presence of workplace psychosocial risk factors such as poor organizational climate, introduction of new technologies, renewed business models, social relationship and leadership, work-family conflict, high work pressure, and job insecurity has resulted in significant negative impact on employees’ psychological wellbeing, physical health and safety, as well as organizational performance-related outcomes such as absenteeism, job dissatisfaction and loss of productivity [1, 2]
The findings provided evidence that the iWorkHealth instrument which comprises 27 items in five domains of psychosocial risk at the workplace is a reliable and valid instrument that
The draft instrument was field-tested in focus group discussions (FGDs) where a total of 29 employees belonging to different sectors and educational qualifications participated

Summary

Introduction

The increasing presence of workplace psychosocial risk factors such as poor organizational climate, introduction of new technologies, renewed business models, social relationship and leadership, work-family conflict, high work pressure, and job insecurity has resulted in significant negative impact on employees’ psychological wellbeing, physical health and safety, as well as organizational performance-related outcomes such as absenteeism, job dissatisfaction and loss of productivity [1, 2]. The International Labor Organization [3] defines psychosocial risk at work as interactions between the individual and a range of workplace factors including job design, management, and the organizational environment that have the potential to have a hazardous influence on employee’s health. Various instruments have been developed that measure psychosocial risk factors at the workplace including the Job Content Questionnaire [6], the Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire [7] and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire [8]. It is important to adopt some of these key instruments and use their items to develop an instrument that is relevant for use in a culturally diverse population that recognizes how within that population, the various cultural subgroups may think, feel and act differently on various issues at work [10]

Methods

Results

Conclusion