ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

To reach the goal of healthy workplaces, psychosocial risks at the workplace (also called “mental stress”) must be assessed and managed for every workplace. Psychosocial risks have to be assessed as widely as possible to support deriving tailored interventions for organizations. The OrgFit was constructed to capture all relevant areas of stress according to international requirements (e.g., according to the ISO 10075-1 or the Framework Directive 89/391/ EEC). In this paper, the psychometric properties of the OrgFit were investigated in two studies. The first study aimed at testing the factorial structure of the OrgFit with an exploratory factor analysis. In the second study, an additional factor analysis was conducted and construct validity between the dimensions of the OrgFit and work-related strain (convergent validity) and recovery/resources (discriminant validity) was tested. In both studies, Austrian workers were invited to participate in an online study by sending out e-mails. With this procedure, representative samples of 514 workers (study I) and 1200 workers (study II) were obtained to conduct the analyses. Factor structure as well as reliability and validity coefficients show satisfactory results. The internal consistencies show values between 0.79 and 0.93, which meets the requirement for analyses on an organizational level. The validity analyses indicate that the dimensions in the OrgFit are capable of assessing stress that might lead to negative strain outcomes. The OrgFit can be used in the process of risk assessment for a comprehensive assessment of mental stress and can serve as a base for developing specific process-and structure-oriented interventions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
Research Article Open Access
Jimenez and Dunkl, J Ergonomics 2017, 7:1
DOI: 10.4172/2165-7556.1000188
Research Article OMICS International
Journal of Ergonomics
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
E
r
g
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
ISSN: 2165-7556
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556
Keywords: Organizational interventions; Risk assessment; Strain; Stress
Introduction
Creating a healthy workplace to prevent risks and support the
health of employees is a legal obligation in many European countries
(based on the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC [1]) and therefore one
of the major challenges in today’s organizational psychology. Next to
preventing “common” risks such as having physical demanding work
or working with harmful materials, other aspects of risks such as social,
mental or psychological factors are becoming increasingly important
for risk assessment at the workplace [2]. According to the “2014-
2015 Healthy Workplaces Campaign” (a campaign by the European
Agency for Safety and Health at Work; EU-OSHA) psychosocial risks
at the workplace (in the sense of critical working conditions or mental
workload) must be assessed and managed for every workplace. In the
European Framework for Psychosocial Risk Management (PRIMA-
EF), an approach to conduct psychosocial risk assessment is presented
that focuses on the processes to achieve the best possible outcome to
support healthy workplaces [3]. e process of PRIMA-EF is similar
to the requirements stated in the upcoming norm ISO 45001 [4],
where healthy workplaces should be approached within the concept of
the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) as a part of occupational health and
safety management system. In these frameworks, the assessment of
psychosocial risks as well as the development of specic interventions
to address these risks is equally important.
e primary goal of creating healthy workplaces is to organize and
change working conditions in such ways that health-supportive aspects
of the job are increased and harmful aspects are decreased [5]. Changing
working conditions (“organizational risk factors”) can achieve a much
broader impact on employee health than solely focusing on reducing
individual risk factors [6,7].
To reach the goal of healthy workplaces, high-quality instruments
to assess psychosocial risks at the workplace must be developed in line
with international standards (e.g., the ISO 10075-1 or the ISO 45001;
[4,8]). In addition, psychosocial risks should be assessed as widely as
possible to support deriving tailored interventions for organizations. In
this sense, instruments that assess psychosocial risks at the workplace
must fulll the requirement to serve as a base for the development
of specic interventions (in the line of the ISO 10075-2 [9]) but also
national legal obligations. e instrument OrgFit has been especially
developed to serve this purpose.
e Stress-Strain Concept
In a comprehensive risk assessment, all relevant risks at the
workplace-and especially risks that might be linked to negative health
outcomes-have to be assessed [10,11]. As workload, or specically
mental workload “has intuitive appeal, but remains surprisingly
dicult to dene” [12] it is important to use clear denitions. In the
norm ISO 10075-1 [8], mental workload is used as an umbrella term
that encompasses mental stress and mental strain. e view of mental
workload as both characteristics of the workplace and eects on the
individual is in line with past research in the eld of ergonomics [12,13].
Mental stress is dened as follows [8]: Mental stress is “the total of
all assessable inuences impinging upon a human being from external
sources and aecting it mentally”. Mental strain is the outcome of mental
stress, more specically, mental strain is “the immediate eect of mental
stress within the individual (not the long-term eect) depending on his/
her individual habitual and actual preconditions including individual
*Corresponding author: Paul Jimenez, Department of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-
Universitat Graz, Universitätspl, 8010 Graz, Austria, Tel: +43 316 3805128; E-mail:
paul.jimenez@uni-graz.at
Received February 03, 2017; Accepted February 12, 2017; Published February
20, 2017
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and
Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J Ergonomics
7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Copyright: © 2017 Jimenez P, et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Abstract
To reach the goal of healthy workplaces, psychosocial risks at the workplace (also called “mental stress”) must
be assessed and managed for every workplace. Psychosocial risks have to be assessed as widely as possible to
support deriving tailored interventions for organizations. The OrgFit was constructed to capture all relevant areas of
stress according to international requirements (e.g., according to the ISO 10075-1 or the Framework Directive 89/391/
EEC). In this paper, the psychometric properties of the OrgFit were investigated in two studies. The rst study aimed
at testing the factorial structure of the OrgFit with an exploratory factor analysis. In the second study, an additional
factor analysis was conducted and construct validity between the dimensions of the OrgFit and work-related strain
(convergent validity) and recovery/resources (discriminant validity) was tested. In both studies, Austrian workers
were invited to participate in an online study by sending out e-mails. With this procedure, representative samples of
514 workers (study I) and 1200 workers (study II) were obtained to conduct the analyses. Factor structure as well
as reliability and validity coefcients show satisfactory results. The internal consistencies show values between 0.79
and 0.93, which meets the requirement for analyses on an organizational level. The validity analyses indicate that
the dimensions in the OrgFit are capable of assessing stress that might lead to negative strain outcomes. The OrgFit
can be used in the process of risk assessment for a comprehensive assessment of mental stress and can serve as
a base for developing specic process-and structure-oriented interventions.
Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The
Development of the Instrument OrgFit
Paul Jimenez* and Anita Dunkl
Department of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-Universitat Graz, Universitätspl, 8010 Graz, Austria
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Page 2 of 6
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
coping styles” [8]. Short-term eects of strain compass mental fatigue,
monotony, satiation and stress sensations [14]. Long-term eects (e.g.,
burnout) result from repeated exposure to strain [15]. According to the
ISO 10075-1 [8], stress is a neutral term without a negative or positive
connotation.
Assessing stress as a total value is not the preferred goal in risk
assessment as it is important to detect the dierent risk sources and
then it is possible to develop the elds for improvement [16,17]. Hence
dierent facets of stress for risk assessment have been proposed [18-20].
ese authors highlight the importance of assessing dierent facets of
stress simultaneously for a better understanding of the workplace and
for a better development of interventions.
Facets which are used for the description of stress are oen based
on the ISO 10075-1 [8] and other concepts [10]. An instrument that is
suitable for the usage of assessing stress should include these dimensions
but should also comply to the requirements of the national laws for
health and safety (as stated in the implementations of the Framework
Directive 89/391/EEC [1]). ese legal requirements are oen stated in
the recommendations (e.g., in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland [21-23]).
Development of the instrument OrgFit
e OrgFit was constructed to capture all relevant areas of stress
according to the ISO 10075-1 [8] and the mentioned legal requirements.
As in one recommendation [24] a ner partitioning of the dimensions
was dened, these requirements were also included in the construction
of the instrument. e breakdown of the dimensions was done with
subtests.
A large pool of items was developed together with experts in the
eld of stress assessment (experts in the eld of safety and health)
to measure dierent areas of stress. In two unpublished studies, the
reliability and validity of the items were tested and then items were
removed or adapted if needed. In its current form, the OrgFit comprises
54 items, which can be categorized in 24 subtests and four higher-order
dimensions. Each of the four dimensions consists between six and 17
items, each subtest has two or three items. Following dimensions are
measured: a) Work activities and tasks, b) Organizational climate, c)
Work environment, and d) Work ow and work organization. e
subtests are presented in appendix A with examples of items. Based on
the concepts of the ISO 10075 [8] and the recommendations [24] the
subtests were assigned to the respective dimensions.
Work activities and tasks: e dimension work activities and tasks
includes task requirements such as the cognitive or emotional demands
of tasks (e.g., increased attention and concentration or working with
clients/customers).
Organizational climate: e dimension organizational climate
describes aspects of the organization or social contacts such as
information and communication structures, participation possibilities
or cooperation with leaders and co-workers.
Work environment: is dimension refers to all physical, biological
and chemical conditions at work. is includes visual, acoustic and
climate conditions as well as having enough work space and work
equipment.
Work ow and work organization: is dimension measures
aspects of the work ow and organizational processes such as the order
of the work steps, interferences and interruptions as well as quantitative
workload.
Research Objectives
is paper presents the analysis of the psychometric properties of
the OrgFit in two studies. e rst study aimed at testing the factorial
structure of the OrgFit with an exploratory factor analysis. e aim
of the second study was to support the results found in study I by
conducting a second factor analysis and to analyze the construct validity
of the OrgFit. Construct validity was tested with the Recovery-Stress-
Questionnaire for Work (RESTQ-Work), which measures work-related
strain (convergent validity) and resources (discriminant validity) that
have been restored in recovery processes [25,26].
Study I participants and procedure
Austrian workers were invited to participate in an online study in
cooperation with a well-known German market research company by
sending out e-mails. e participants had to fulll the requirement of
currently having a job; otherwise they were excluded at the beginning of
the survey. In order to receive a representative sample for the Austrian
labour market quotes were set for gender (female: 50%, male: 50%) and
age (≤40 years: 50%, >40 years: 50%). All-in-all, 540 persons took part
in the online study. Aer conducting a plausibility check, data sets with
implausible response patterns were removed and a total sample of 514
could be achieved.
e participants in the study consisted of 50% men and 50%
women. 18.5% were 30 years or younger, 31.3% were between 31 and
40 years, 31.7% were between 41 and 50 years and 18.5% were 51 years
or older. 2.5% completed compulsory school, 48.8% completed an
apprenticeship, 30.5% of the participants completed high school, and
18.1% had a university degree. 29.2% of the participants stated to be in
a leadership position, 9.6% had their own company and the rest of the
participants did not inherit a leadership position. e most frequently
mentioned industrial sectors were general services (15.8%), commerce
(15.5%), public administration (8.6%) and health care (8.4%).
Measures: e OrgFit has 54 items and every item can be assigned
to each of the four dimensions (work activities and tasks, organizational
climate, work environment, and work ow and organization) and the
24 underlying subtests. e 54 items are written as statements and refer
to the last four weeks (“How many times have you experienced the
following aspects in the last 4 weeks?”). e 6-point Likert scale ranges
from 0 (never) till 6 (always). Example items are shown in appendix A.
Results: To prove the factorial structure of the OrgFit, a factor
analysis using principal axis analysis with oblimin rotation was
performed on basis of the subtests. e analysis revealed four factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1. e four factors identied 58.7% of the
total variance (KMO=0.91, χ2 (276)=5772.5, p<0.001). e categories
physical tasks, qualication and competencies, internal interfaces,
and breaks where assigned to another dimension instead of their
recommended dimensions (Table 1).
e rst factor consisted of three subtests of the dimension work
activities and tasks. e second factor consisted of six of the seven
subtests of the dimension organizational climate and the subtest
qualication and competencies. e third factor consisted of all six
subtests of the dimension work environment, the subtest physical tasks
and the subtest breaks. e fourth factor consisted of ve subtests of the
dimension work ow and work organization as well as of the subtest
internal interfaces. e subtest objectives and responsibilities had its
highest factor loading on the second factor and the next factor loading
on the fourth factor.
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Page 3 of 6
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
10075. To avoid confusion, from now on the term “strain” is used when
referring to the RESTQ-Work. e RESTQ-Work-55 [27] addresses
dierent aspects of strain and recovery/resources in the past seven days/
nights with 55 items. e items can be categorized in seven dierent
dimensions: Social emotional stress, performance (-related) stress,
overall recovery, loss of meaning/burnout, leisure/breaks, psychosocial
recovery, and work-related recovery. One example item for the
dimension loss of meaning/burnout is “In the past 7 days/nights… I
felt frustrated through my work” and for the dimension leisure/breaks
“In the past 7 days/nights… I was able to relax during my breaks. e
items can be answered on a 7-point-Likert scale ranging from 0 (never)
till 6 (always).
Results
Similar to study I the factorial structure of the OrgFit was analyzed
by conducting a factor analysis using principal axis analysis with
oblimin rotation on basis of the subtests. e subtests physical tasks,
qualication and competencies, internal interfaces, and breaks were
rearranged according to the results obtained in study I. e analysis
revealed four factors. e four factors identied 59.4% of the total
variance (KMO=0.92, χ2 (276)=11739.23, p<0.001). e results showed
that the factorial structure of study I was supported. e subtests
physical tasks and breaks were assigned to the third factor, the subtest
qualication and competencies was assigned to the second factor, and
the subtest internal interfaces was assigned to the fourth factor (Table 3).
Reliabilities for the subtests and for the dimensions are based on
the internal consistency assessed by Cronbach’s Alpha (Table 2). e
Subtests Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Physical tasks - - 0.66 -
Mental tasks 0.34 - - 0.31
Emotional tasks-general 0.87 - - -
Emotional tasks–customer
oriented 0.74 - - -
Qualication and competencies - 0.70 - -
Internal interfaces - - 0.41
Cooperation with colleagues - 0.55 - -
Cooperation with leaders - 0.74 - -
Feedback and recognition - 0.85 - -
Information processes - 0.74 - -
Latitude and participation - 0.84 - -
Fairness - 0.81 - -
Climatic conditions - - 0.49 -
Acoustic conditions - - 0.59 -
Visual conditions - - 0.43 -
Work space - - 0.64 -
Work equipment - - 0.63 -
Workplace hazards - - 0.79 -
Working processes - - - 0.63
Objectives and responsibilities - 0.52 - 0.29
Disturbances and interruptions - - - 0.67
Breaks - - 0.32 -
Working hours - - - 0.35
Quantity of work - 0.38 - 0.46
Eigenvalue 1.75 8.03 2.86 1.45
Variance explained in % 7.30 33.45 11.93 6.02
Note: Principal axis analysis; factor loadings <0.29 are suppressed in this table.
Rotation method: Oblimin
Table 1: Factor loadings for the subtests of the OrgFit (study I).
According to the results of the factor analysis, the subtests physical
tasks, internal interfaces and breaks were assigned to their respective
factors instead of their theoretical assumed dimensions. ese new
dimensions were recalculated and internal consistencies assessed by
Cronbachs Alpha of the newly constructed dimensions are depicted in
Table 2. e four dimensions showed high Cronbachs Alpha ranging
from 0.79 to 0.93. e internal consistency of the whole questionnaire
was 94.
Study II participants and procedure
e procedure was the same as in study I. Quotes were set for
gender (female: 50%, male: 50%) and age (≤40 years: 50%, >40 years:
50%). Aer conducting a plausibility check, data sets with implausible
response patterns were removed and a total sample of 1200 could be
achieved.
e sample included 47.9% men and 52.1% women and the average
age was 41 years (SD=10.6). 3.7% completed compulsory schooling,
41.5% completed an apprenticeship, and 29.3% of the participants
completed high school and 25.5% had a university degree. 29.2% of the
participants had a leadership position, 9.6% had their own company
and the rest of the participants did not have a leadership position. e
most frequently mentioned industrial sectors were general services
(19.6%), commerce (12.2%), public administration (11.7%) and health
care (9.6%).
Measures: e RESTQ-Work was specically developed to assess
recovery/resources and strain in the sense of the ISO 10075-1 [8]. e
concept behind the RESTQ-Work uses the term “stress” to address
the state of the organism, which results due to threats. erefore,
the RESTQ-Work measures strain according to denition of the ISO
Dimension Study i
α
Study
ii α Subtests Study i
α
Study
ii α
Work activities
and tasks
0.79 0.80 Mental tasks 0.84 0.83
Emotional tasks-general 0.66 0.68
Emotional tasks-
customer oriented 0.66 0.70
Organizational
climate
0.93 0.93 Qualication and
competencies 0.61 0.55
Cooperation with
colleagues 0.84 0.87
Cooperation with leaders 0.61 0.43
Feedback and
recognition 0.88 0.83
Information processes 0.87 0.81
Latitude and participation 0.92 0.88
Fairness 0.68 0.76
Work
environment
0.88 0.89 Physical tasks 0.70 0.69
Climatic conditions 0.77 0.76
Acoustic conditions 0.72 0.76
Visual conditions 0.59 0.58
Work space 0.73 0.79
Work equipment 0.78 0.75
Workplace hazards 0.76 0.78
Breaks 0.67 0.61
Work ow
and work
organization
0.85 0.84 Internal interfaces 0.51 0.59
Working processes 0.69 0.66
Objectives and
responsibilities 0.63 0.56
Disturbances and
interruptions 0.81 0.79
Working hours 0.65 0.61
Quantity of work 0.90 0.85
Table 2: Cronbach Alpha (α) for the dimensions and subtests of the OrgFit for study
I and study II.
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Page 4 of 6
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
Discussion
e OrgFit was developed as an instrument to assess stress at
the workplace according to the requirements for risk assessment at
the workplace. e results of the assessment can serve as a base for
developing specic interventions on the organizational level [6,7,16].
e factorial structure, reliability and construct validity of the
OrgFit were tested in two studies. e studies revealed that the factorial
structure is similar to the assumed theoretical structure. e OrgFit
shows four separate factors and the underlying subtests can be clearly
located on these four factors. Twenty of the 24 subtests could be located
on their theoretical assigned factors. e other four subtests (physical
tasks, qualication and competencies, internal interfaces, and breaks)
show high factor loadings on other factors. erefore, these subtests
were assigned to the dimensions as proposed in the factorial solution.
e results of the reliability analysis for the dimensions show high
coecients. e requirement of having a minimum alpha of 0.70
(for details see ISO 10075-3 [28]) for organizational level analyses
was met. In study II, the internal consistencies of the dimension
were even greater than 0.80 indicating very good reliability. Most of
the underlying subtests achieved good internal consistencies greater
than 0.70, but several subtests showed low values in both studies-
especially the subtests qualication and competencies, cooperation
with leaders, visual conditions, internal interfaces, and objectives and
responsibilities. Especially subtests that included reverse-scored items
(e.g., qualication and competencies, cooperation with leaders) showed
low Cronbachs Alpha. Mixing positively and negatively phrased items
can be one explanation when nding a very low Alpha. Further, the
low internal consistencies of the subtests might be a result of the small
number of items, as each subtest consists of only two or three items.
With a low number of items, a high reliability is dicult to achieve.
e results of the reliability analysis also have to be interpreted
considering the background of the instrument conception. e
instrument was developed to assess mental stress on an organizational
level to consequently develop organizational interventions, and was not
developed for an individual diagnosis of single workers. erefore, we
emphasize the point that interpreting the subtests can only be done for
aggregated data on a group or organizational level where-on the other
hand-these aggregated data can help to reduce response bias eects
[29]. Using these subtests for group and organizational assessment
and not for individual assessment, the reliability coecients can be
regarded as satisfactory.
Testing the construct validity, correlations with the RESTQ-
Work-55 were conducted that assess work-related recovery/resources
Subtests Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Mental tasks 0.43 - - -
Emotional tasks-general 0.88 - - -
Emotional tasks-customer oriented 0.75 - - -
Qualication and competencies - 0.74 - -
Cooperation with colleagues - 0.60 - -
Cooperation with leaders - 0.74 - -
Feedback and recognition - 0.83 - -
Information processes - 0.75 - 0.32
Latitude and participation - 0.76 - -
Fairness - 0.84 - -
Physical tasks - - 0.62 -
Climatic conditions - - 0.54 -
Acoustic conditions - - 0.67 -
Visual conditions - - 0.49 -
Work space - - 0.72 -
Work equipment - - 0.62 -
Workplace hazards - - 0.80 -
Breaks - - 0.31 -
Internal interfaces - - - 0.34
Working processes - - - 0.54
Objectives and responsibilities - 0.58 - 0.30
Disturbances and interruptions - - - 0.58
Working hours - - - 0.32
Quantity of work - 0.48 - 0.32
Eigenvalues 10.64 80.31 10.31 30.00
Explained variance in % 60.84 340.63 50.45 120.52
Note: Principal axis analysis; factor loadings <0.30 are suppressed in this table.
Rotation method: Oblimin
Table 3: Factor loadings for the subtests of the OrgFit (study II).
No. Study variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 OrgFit: work activities and tasks - - - - - - - - - -
2 OrgFit: organizational climate 0.14** ---------
3 OrgFit: work environment 0.38** 0.47** --------
4OrgFit: work ow and work
organization 0.36** 0.52** 0.59** -------
5 RESTQ-W: social emotional stress 0.39** 0.51** 0.44** 0.47** ------
6RESTQ-W: performance(-related)
stress 0.42** 0.47** 0.49** 0.55** 0.80** -----
7 RESTQ-W: overall recovery -0.14** -0.56** -0.35** -0.34** -0.60** -0.60** ----
8 RESTQ-W: loss of meaning/burnout 0.43** 0.61** 0.55** 0.59** 0.77** 0.82** -0.59** ---
9 RESTQ-W: leisure/breaks -0.35** -0.51** -0.51** -0.57** -0.54** -0.64** 0.61** -0.62** - -
10 RESTQ-W: psychosocial recovery -0.04 -0.58** -0.25** -0.27** -0.33** -0.31** 0.59** -0.38** 0.45** -
11 RESTQ-W: work-related recovery -0.01 -0.72** -0.32** -0.28** -0.36** -0.32** 0.57** -0.42** 0.42** 0.53**
Table 4: Correlations between the dimensions of the OrgFit and the RESTQ-Work (study II).
Cronbachs Alpha of the four dimensions ranged from 0.80 to 0.93. e
internal consistency of the whole questionnaire was 0.94.
e construct validity was examined by analyzing the relationships
of the dimensions of the OrgFit with the dimensions of the RESTQ-
Work (Table 4). e correlations with the strain-related dimensions
(social-emotional stress, performance (-related) stress, loss of meaning/
burnout) were in a range between 0.39 and 0.61. e correlations
with the recovery/resources-related dimensions (overall recovery,
leisure/breaks, psychosocial recovery, work-related recovery) varied
between -0.25 and -0.72 for the dimensions organizational climate,
work environment and work ow and organization. In contrast, the
correlation coecients between the dimension work activities and
tasks (OrgFit) and the recovery-resources-related dimensions were
lower (between -0.01 and -0.35).
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Page 5 of 6
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
and strain. e results showed moderate to high correlations between
the dimensions in the OrgFit and the strain-related dimensions in the
RESTQ-Work-55. ese ndings indicate that the dimensions in the
OrgFit are capable of assessing stress that might lead to negative strain
and therefore are an indicator for convergent validity.
e dimension organizational climate (OrgFit) is strongly related
to the dimensions measuring recovery/resources (RESTQ-Work-55).
Especially organizational climate shows a strong negative correlation
with the dimension work-related recovery in the RESTQ-Work.
Both dimensions depict aspects of participation possibilities at the
workplace; therefore, this strong relationship was to be expected. Lower
correlations with the recovery/resources-related dimensions result for
the other three dimensions and especially for work activities and tasks.
us, the dimensions in the OrgFit are not necessarily related to the
resources at the workplace, indicating discriminant validity.
Practical Implications
e OrgFit is suited for both scientic purposes and in the
practical eld. e OrgFit can be used during risk assessment in
combination with the RESTQ-Work. erefore, existing stressors at the
workplace (OrgFit) can be measured together with possible negative
strain at the workplace (RESTQ-Work). Furthermore, based on the
ndings obtained from the OrgFit organizations can develop specic
interventions together witch health and safety specialists such as safety
experts, work physicians and work psychologists. e results from the
dimensions and subtests in the OrgFit can be primary used to develop
process- and structure-oriented interventions. erefore, the OrgFit
is used to assess stress on the group or the organizational level and is
never thought for individual diagnosis of the workers, which is also in
line with the requirements of risk assessment.
Additionally it is important to emphasize, that questionnaire results
should not be used alone. e typical models for assessing psychosocial
risks at the workplace [7,30,31] include several levels of assessment like
observation, interviews, questionnaires, document analysis etc. [32]
and several steps in the process. A successful risk assessment process
also needs the participation of all stakeholders. is can be done e.g., by
using the results of the survey for an interactive workshop together with
the employees of a special group to derive interventions. In addition,
the practical results show the relevance of the dierent subtests for an
in-depth implementation of interventions for a sustainable reduction of
risks for mental health.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Christina Bramberger for her support in
developing the rst version of the OrgFit and also Zsoa Berkes, Michaela Höfer,
Cornelia Schmon, Martin Wessel and other colleagues for the later versions of the
instrument. The results obtained in study II were part of the study ”Working world
in Austria” [33], conducted by the Department of Psychology from the University
of Graz in cooperation with the psychological consulting company research-team
GmbH. Study II was supported by the Styrian Medical Chamber, the Christian
Trades Unionists, and Schuhfried GmbH. This publication was printed with the
nancial support of the University of Graz.
References
1. EU Commission (2012) Directive 89/391/EEC-OSH “Framework Directive” of
12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in
the safety and health of workers at work-”Framework Directive”.
2. Pandve HT (2016) Ergonomics Principles: It Not Only about Physical Factors
but’s Other Factors. J Ergon 6: e152.
3. Leka S, Jain A, Cox T, Kortum E (2011) The Development of the European
Framework for Psychosocial Risk Management: PRIMA-EF. J Occup Health
53: 137-143.
4. ISO (2015) ISO/DIS 45001: Committee Draft. Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems-Requirements with Guidance for Use. Switzerland,
Geneva.
5. Aust B, Ducki A (2004) Comprehensive Health Promotion Interventions at
the Workplace: Experiences With Health Circles in Germany. J Occup Health
Psychol 9: 258-270.
6. Semmer N (2006) Job stress interventions and the organization of work. Scand
J Work Environ Health 32: 515-527.
7. World Health Organization (WHO) (2010) Healthy Workplaces: a model for
action: For employers, workers, policy-makers and practitioners. WHO Press,
Geneva.
8. ISO (2000) ISO 10075-1: Ergonomic principles related to mental workload-
General terms and denitions. Switzerland, Geneva.
9. ISO (2000) ISO 10075-2: Ergonomic principles related to mental workload-Part
2: Design principles. Switzerland, Geneva.
10. Morschhäuser M, Beck D, Lohmann-Haislah, A (2014) Mental stress within
risk assessment. In Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Risk assessment of mental stress. Experiences and Recommendations. Erich
Schmidt Verlag, Berlin pp: 19-44.
11. Zoni S, Lucchini R (2012) European approaches to work-related stress: a
critical review on risk evaluation. Saf Health Work 3: 43-49.
12. Young M, Brookhuis K, Wickens C, Hancock P (2015) State of science: mental
workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58: 1-17.
13. Wickens CD (2008) Multiple Resources and Mental Workload. Hum Fact 50:
449-455.
14. Demerouti E, Bakker A, Nachreiner F, Ebbinghaus M (2002) From mental strain
to burnout. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 11: 423-441.
15. ISO (2015) ISO 10075-1: Draft International Standard. Ergonomic principles
related to mental workload-General terms and denitions. Switzerland, Geneva.
16. Cooper C, Levi L (2006) Promotion of occupational and public health: the
European experience and challenge. Ergonomia IJE&HF 28: 283-293.
17. Portune R (2012) Psychosocial risks in the workplace: an increasing challenge for
german and international health protection. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 63: 123-131.
18. Cabeças J (2015) Taxonomy to characterize occupational hazards (risk factors)
at the workplace level. Work 51: 703-713.
19. Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey M, Bailey T (2007) National surveillance of
psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: An international overview. Work
Stress 21: 1-29.
20. Forteza F, Sesé A, Carretero-Gómez J (2016) CONSRAT. Construction sites
risk assessment tool. Saf Sci 89: 338-354.
21. Austrian Labour Protection Law (2013) BGBl. I Nr. 118/2012.
22. German Labour Protection Law (2015) BGBl. I S. 1474.
23. SECO Labour Directorate (2015) Protection from psychosocial risks. Seco, Bern.
24. Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (BMASK)
(2013) Evaluation of risk assessment for mental stress in the course of
monitoring and consulting activities. Vienna.
25. Jiménez P, Dunkl A, Kallus KW (2016) Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for
Work. In KW Kallus, M Kellmann, The Recovery-Stress Questionnaires: User
Manual, Pearson Assessment, Frankfurt pp: 158-187.
26. Jiménez P, Dunkl A (2017) The Buffering Effect of Workplace Resources on the
Relationship between the Areas of Worklife and Burnout. Front Psychol 8: 1-10.
27. Jiménez P, Kallus KW (2016) EBF-Work (55) [RESTQ-Work (55)]. Frankfurt,
Pearson Assessment.
28. ISO (2004) ISO 10075-3: Ergonomic principles related to mental workload
Part 3: Principles and requirements concerning methods for measuring and
assessing mental workload. Switzerland, Geneva.
29. Martin A, Karanika-Murray M, Biron C, Sanderson K (2016) The Psychosocial
Work Environment, Employee Mental Health and Organizational Interventions:
Improving Research and Practice by Taking a Multilevel Approach. Stress
Health 32: 201-215.
30. Beck D, Berger S, Breutmann N, Fergen A, Morschhauser M, et al. (2016)
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
Page 6 of 6
J Ergonomics, an open access journal
ISSN: 2165-7556 Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000188
Recommendations for the implementation of risk assessment for mental stress.
Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Berlin.
31. Pinto A, Ribeiro R, Nunes I (2013) Ensuring the quality of occupational safety
risk assessment. Risk Anal 33: 409-419.
32. Beck D, Morschhäuser M, Richter G (2014) Implementing risk assessment
of mental stress. In Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Risk
assessment of mental stress. Experiences and Recommendations. Erich
Schmidt Verlag, Berlin pp: 19-44.
33. Jiménez P, Schmon C, Höfer M, Lepold A, Diebschlag A, et al. (2016b) AWOe
2015-Working World in Austria. A Study for Assessing Mental Stress, Strain,
Recovery and Satisfaction at the Workplace. Graz, University of Graz.
OMICS International: Open Access Publication Benefits &
Features
Unique features:
Increased global visibility of articles through worldwide distribution and indexing
Showcasing recent research output in a timely and updated manner
Special issues on the current trends of scientic research
Special features:
700+ Open Access Journals
50,000+ editorial team
Rapid review process
Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing
Indexing at major indexing services
Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientic Credits
Better discount for your subsequent articles
Submit your manuscript at: http://www.omicsonline.org/submission
Citation: Jimenez P, Dunkl A (2017) Assessment of Psychosocial Risks
and Mental Stress at Work: The Development of the Instrument OrgFit. J
Ergonomics 7: 188. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188
... Healthy workplaces can be created by a detailed assessment of psychological risks at the workplace through psychosocial risk management (PRIMA, see prima-ef.org; Leka, Jain, Cox & Kortum, 2011) The Instrument OrgFit was developed to assess different dimensions of workload and to especially fullfil the legal requirements in Austria and Germany (assessing mental stress in the definition of ISO 10075-1) for a comprehenisve risk assessment (Jiménez & Dunkl, 2017) ...
... Jiménez. P., & Dunkl. A. (2017). Assessment of psychosocial risks and mental stress at work. The development of the instrument OrgFit. Journal ofErgonomics, 7(1), 1-6. doi: 10.4182/2165-7556.1000188 ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Objectives The presentation introduces results of the development of the instrument OrgFit for psychosocial risk management and the implementation into the work of work and organizational psychologists. Risk assessment at the workplace is a legal obligation for organizations and nowadays the focus has strongly changed to the psychosocial risk management. The assessment of mental workload is therefore an important issue. The concept for mental workload at the workplace (s. ISO 10075-1) defines several areas which have to be assessed. It is also crucial that the results of these assessments can be used for practical interventions. Method The instrument OrgFit was developed especially according to the requirements of the ISO 10075 and work and organizational concepts (especially the action regulation theory). Two big studies 2013 (N=514) and 2015 (N=1200) in Austria and additional field studies (together N=7210, of a broad range of industrial sectors) have been carried out. The first two studies have been done with Austrian workers invited by an online panel organization. These samples were representative with respect to gender, age and regional distribution. Results The two big studies show good results of the psychometric properties (Cronbach Alpha for the dimension “Work Activities and Tasks” is .8, for “Organizational climate” .93, for “Work Environment” .89, for “Work Flow and Work Organization” .84). The validity results regarding effects on psychosocial outcomes are consistent and support the intended goals to assess psychosocial risks that can lead to impaired effects for psychological health. The structure and the main results of these two and the additional field studies are presented. Conclusion A very important step in the process of psychosocial risk management is the final evaluation or “weighing” of the quantitative results and the prioritization of the critical fields from the viewpoint of psychological models and concepts. An approach for this integration of the results should be done in a participative way but should also include a rationale for the derivation of interventions. A model for the application in practice which is based on different theoretical concepts will also be presented and discussed.
... Some other approaches are focused exclusively on the risk management methodology [6], such as the continual improvement circle [13], fault tree [52], and safety matrix [53]. Other important developments in health and safety research have been to better address the mental health component of work, e.g., psychosocial risk management [54,55] and mental health [56], and provide means for these factors to be included in the design of safe systems of work. Another area where psychology intersects with health and safety is in the perverse agency concept [57], which seeks to explain why workers take safety risks that may lead to adverse long-term health. ...
Article
Full-text available
Historically, the focus of industrial health and safety (H&S) has been on safety and accident avoidance with relatively less attention to long-term occupational health other than via health monitoring and surveillance. The difficulty is the multiple overlapping health consequences that are difficult to separate, measure, and attribute to a source. Furthermore, many health problems occur later, not immediately on exposure, and may be cumulative. Consequently, it is difficult to conclusively identify the cause. Workers may lack knowledge of long-term consequences, and thus not use protective systems effectively. Compounding this is the lack of instruments and methodologies to measure exposure to harm. Historically, the existing risk methodologies for calculating safety risk are based on the construct of consequence and likelihood. However, this may not be appropriate for health, especially for the long-term harm, as both the consequence and likelihood may be indeterminate. This paper develops an instrument to measure the health component of workplace H&S. This is achieved by adapting the established World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) quality of life score to workplace health. Specifically, the method is to identify the likelihood of an exposure incident arising (as estimated by engineering technologists and H&S officers), followed by evaluation of the biological harm consequences. Those consequences are then scored by using the WHODAS 12-item inventory. The result is an assessment of the Diminished Quality of Life (DQL) associated with a workplace hazard. This may then be used to manage the minimization of harm, exposure monitoring, and the design of safe systems of work.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Workplace resources are found to play a major role in the stress–strain relationship. However, usually different types of resources are investigated, whereas investigating different facets of stress (“stressors”) receive less attention in research about the relationship between stress, strain and resources. Based upon recent research, we expected that workplace resources moderate the relationship between stressors (operationalized with the areas of worklife) and long-term strain (operationalized with three dimensions of burnout) in the sense that workplace resources buffer the negative effects of stressors on strain. Method: Hypotheses were tested in a longitudinal sample of 141 Austrian workers, who participated two times in an online study over a period of 6 months. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test the proposed relationships. Results: The results imply that workload and reward seem to be the most important predictors for burnout. Workload is important for emotional exhaustion, whereas reward is important for cynicism. Value-fit at the workplace plays a significant role for cynicism, but only if resources at the workplace are high. Further moderating effects of resources were found for the outcome personal accomplishment. More specifically, results indicate that having high resources in a high workload environment increases personal accomplishment after a time interval of 6 months. In addition, employees experiencing high levels of control but low workplace resources show less personal accomplishment. Conclusion: Despite the limiting aspects of the relatively short period of time we can see that resources can buffer workload effects. This should be taken into consideration when doing risk assessments in practice as work design should focus on resources even more when high workload can be found.
Article
Full-text available
Mental workload (MWL) is one of the most widely used concepts in ergonomics and human factors and represents a topic of increasing importance. Since modern technology in many working environments imposes ever more cognitive demands upon operators while physical demands diminish, understanding how MWL impinges on performance is increasingly critical. Yet, MWL is also one of the most nebulous concepts, with numerous definitions and dimensions associated with it. Moreover, MWL research has had a tendency to focus on complex, often safety-critical systems (e.g. transport, process control). Here we provide a general overview of the current state of affairs regarding the understanding, measurement and application of MWL in the design of complex systems over the last three decades. We conclude by discussing contemporary challenges for applied research, such as the interaction between cognitive workload and physical workload, and the quantification of workload 'redlines' which specify when operators are approaching or exceeding their performance tolerances.
Article
One peculiarity of the construction sector is that each construction site represents a unique workplace. The specific characteristics of the site affect risk generation and its evolution. However, available risk assessment tools do not capture the specificities of construction sites that may affect risk, because they only focus on assessing identified risks from a predefined hierarchy of events. This paper proposes a new ‘‘site risk” concept that is defined as the risk associated to the whole construction site that is generated by having together different elements which individually affect risk. Potential risk synergies may exist and they only can be captured adopting the construction site as unit of analysis. In doing so, a new CONstruction Site Risk Assessment Tool (CONSRAT) is presented. This is done considering also both organizational structure and resources jointly with material conditions. The tool was used to assess 150 construction sites in order to obtain convergent and internal validity evidences. Another validated tool was used as external criterion: the Qualitative Occupational Safety Risk Assessment Model (QRAM). Results provide adequate validity evidences for both the internal structure and the expected relationships with the external criterion. CONSRAT design and complete instructions for its use are described. As a unique contribution, CONSRAT adopts a new site risk approach to assess the main live conditions, complexity factors and organizational structure characteristics which are related to construction site risk.
Article
Background: The identification of hazards or risk factors at the workplace level is a crucial procedure to the risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. Objective: This article presents a hazard or risk factors taxonomy, to be applied at the workplace level, during the systematic hazards identification. Methods: The taxonomy was based on evidences literature, including technical documents, standards, regulations, good-practice documents and toxicology databases. Results: The taxonomy was organized as a matrix (Risk Factors-Disorders Matrix), an extensive list of occupational hazards. Hazards were organized in terms of the potential individual dominant consequences: in terms of accidents (injuries), occupational disease and negative social, mental or physical well-being (like dissatisfaction and discomfort complaints not resulting from injuries or diseases symptomatology). The specific hazards in each work context were characterized by three summary tables: (1) Accidents-Risk Factors Table, (2) Diseases-Risk Factors Table and (3) Negative Well-being-Risk Factors Table. Conclusions: Risk factors are coded according to the Risk Factors-Disorders Matrix and the dominant potential disorders are identified in the Risk Factors Tables. The inclusion of individual, psychosocial, emerging and combined hazards in the Matrix, contributes to focusing the risk identification in non-traditional sources of risk during risk assessment procedures.
Article
Although there have been several calls for incorporating multiple levels of analysis in employee health and well-being research, studies examining the interplay between individual, workgroup, organizational and broader societal factors in relation to employee mental health outcomes remain an exception rather than the norm. At the same time, organizational intervention research and practice also tends to be limited by a single-level focus, omitting potentially important influences at multiple levels of analysis. The aims of this conceptual paper are to help progress our understanding of work-related determinants of employee mental health by the following: (1) providing a rationale for routine multilevel assessment of the psychosocial work environment; (2) discussing how a multilevel perspective can improve related organizational interventions; and (3) highlighting key theoretical and methodological considerations relevant to these aims. We present five recommendations for future research, relating to using appropriate multilevel research designs, justifying group-level constructs, developing group-level measures, expanding investigations to the organizational level and developing multilevel approaches to intervention design, implementation and evaluation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
National surveillance of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace is important to record the changing work environment and for the development (and monitoring) of policies and programs to prevent stress and promote mental and physical health and well-being at work. This paper overviews national surveillance systems for psychosocial risks and outcomes (35 national systems across 20 different countries, and an additional four multi-country systems), and then looks for convergence between the system, and the current research literature. This paper is the first to provide a compendium of current national surveillance systems on psychosocial risk. It describes the content of each system and gives an overview of sampling methodology, providing an evaluation of comprehensiveness rather than of quality of tools and methods. Recommendations include: (1) surveillance should be the priority for any national research agenda for psychosocial risk management; (2) stakeholders should cooperate with international systems operators to work towards the development of “state of the art” systems; (3) issues for priority inclusion in surveillance systems are emotional demands/emotional labour, workplace bullying, harassment, and violence, exposure to acute stressors, organizational justice, the occurrence and impact of global organizational change, and positive psychological states; (4) systems should be flexible to identify and assess emerging risk factors/groups; and (5) an international surveillance system should be implemented.
Article
A wide variety of living and working conditions are powerful determinants of health. And health, in turn, affects the living and working conditions and productivity of all individuals and populations. The awareness of this crucially important interrelationship has been spelt out clearly by our two governments, as well as by the World Health Organization and the Commission of the European Communities. It is, however, not implemented in practical politics. Neither is it applied more than marginally in medical education and clinical practice. Based on surveillance at individual workplaces and monitoring at national and regional levels, occupational and public health should be promoted by job redesign (e.g., by empowering the employees, and avoiding both over-and underload), by improving social support and by providing reasonable reward for the effort invested by workers, as integral parts of the overall management system. And, of course, by adjusting occupational physical settings to the workersábilities, needs and reasonable expectations – all in line with the EU Framework Directive and the EU Framework Agreement on Work-Related Stress. Supporting actions should include not only intersectoral and interdisciplinary research but also adjustments of the curricula in business schools, in schools of technology, medicine and behavioural and social sciences, and in the training and retraining of labour inspectors, occupational health officers, managers and supervisors, in line with such goals. 284 Promotion of occupational and public health the European Union is estimated to be on average 3–4 per cent of GNP. If we approx-imate the percentage to, say, 3.5% and use the EU GNP (7,593 billion euro) as a basis for calculation, the cost would amount to 675 billion euro. In its recent Report on Swedish Pub-lic Health, the National Board of Health and Welfare (2005) points to some posi-tive trends (in terms of life expectancy and functional capacity), but also a number of clearly negative ones with regard to self-re-ported mental health, wellbeing, fatigue and sleeping problems, alcohol related problems and obesity.