Abstract
Single-item measures of global job stressfulness are increasingly used in occupational health research, yet their construct validity remains unexplored. This study used a qualitative approach to identify frames of reference that underlie self-ratings on such a measure. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 55 adults in full-time employment who completed a single-item measure inviting a rating of the extent to which their job is generally stressful. A cognitive interview schedule was used to explore the factors taken into account when providing a global rating, with thematic analysis applied to identify themes in the interview transcripts. The most common frames of reference were the presence of problematic psychosocial working conditions, particularly job demands. Health characteristics, predominantly poor psychological wellbeing, emerged as a further less dominant secondary theme. Almost half the sample cited four or more referents. In terms of the timeframe under consideration, most participants referred to a long timeframe such as their work in general, with some specifying their current job and, a few, recent weeks. These findings shed light on the frames of reference used to inform judgements on global job stressfulness elicited by a single-item measure and in doing so contribute to the evidence base to support the application of such measures in occupational health research and organisational psychosocial risk management activities.
Highlights
It has become commonplace in occupational health research and practice for workers to be asked to rate their global job stressfulness on a Likert-type scale that typically ranges from not at all stressful to extremely stressful
This study explores through interviews the frames of reference that underlie self-ratings of global job stressfulness elicited by a single-item measure
Global self-ratings have been found to mediate links between psychosocial working conditions and both mental health [19] and intention to leave the organization [11]. These findings suggest that evaluations made when responding to single-item measures of global job stressfulness are useful in capturing data on the stressors that impact on individual- and organizational-level wellbeing
Summary
It has become commonplace in occupational health research and practice for workers to be asked to rate their global job stressfulness on a Likert-type scale that typically ranges from not at all stressful to extremely stressful. Such measures draw on respondents’ personal understanding of the term ‘stress’. 14) are useful when the objective is to produce an overall indication of job stressfulness based on respondents’ perceptions of personally salient factors rather than a pre-determined set of characteristics They have become popular with researchers and practitioners keen to minimise assessment burden and maximise survey response rates. This study explores through interviews the frames of reference that underlie self-ratings of global job stressfulness elicited by a single-item measure
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have