Content uploaded by Anita Bregenzer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita Bregenzer on Nov 16, 2017
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 specic 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 fulll the requirement to serve as a base for the development
of specic 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 specically
mental workload “has intuitive appeal, but remains surprisingly
dicult to dene” [12] it is important to use clear denitions. 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 eects on the
individual is in line with past research in the eld of ergonomics [12,13].
Mental stress is dened as follows [8]: Mental stress is “the total of
all assessable inuences impinging upon a human being from external
sources and aecting it mentally”. Mental strain is the outcome of mental
stress, more specically, mental strain is “the immediate eect of mental
stress within the individual (not the long-term eect) 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 coefcients 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 specic 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 eects of strain compass mental fatigue,
monotony, satiation and stress sensations [14]. Long-term eects (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 dierent risk sources and
then it is possible to develop the elds for improvement [16,17]. Hence
dierent facets of stress for risk assessment have been proposed [18-20].
ese authors highlight the importance of assessing dierent 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 oen 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 oen 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 dened, 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 dierent 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 fulll 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. Aer 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 identied 58.7% of the
total variance (KMO=0.91, χ2 (276)=5772.5, p<0.001). e categories
physical tasks, qualication 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
qualication 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
dierent aspects of strain and recovery/resources in the past seven days/
nights with 55 items. e items can be categorized in seven dierent
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,
qualication and competencies, internal interfaces, and breaks were
rearranged according to the results obtained in study I. e analysis
revealed four factors. e four factors identied 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
qualication 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 - - -
Qualication 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
Cronbach’s Alpha of the newly constructed dimensions are depicted in
Table 2. e four dimensions showed high Cronbach’s 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%). Aer 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 specically 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 denition 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 Qualication 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 specic 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, qualication 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
coecients. 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 qualication and competencies, cooperation
with leaders, visual conditions, internal interfaces, and objectives and
responsibilities. Especially subtests that included reverse-scored items
(e.g., qualication and competencies, cooperation with leaders) showed
low Cronbach’s 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 dicult 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 eects
[29]. Using these subtests for group and organizational assessment
and not for individual assessment, the reliability coecients 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 - - -
Qualication 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).
Cronbach’s 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 coecients 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 scientic 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 specic
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 dierent 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 Zsoa 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 denitions. 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 denitions. 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 scientic 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 Scientic 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
