job stress tool

8/8/2019 Job Stress Tool

1/63


2/63

JOB STRESS What is the tool

to measure jobstress?

Why?How to interpretethe result?


3/63

F


4/63

F

F F F F

? !!!!!

F??????

F F F


5/63

Stress - definition

Stress : A ( perceived ) substantialimbalance between demand and response

capability under conditions , wherefailure to meet demand has important( perceived ) consequences

A persons level of stress depends ontheir self-perceived abilities andself-confidence.

A persons fear of failure


6/63

Stressor : Environment event or

condition that results in stress orjob demand

Strain : stress reaction or response

Stress - definition


7/63

Common workplace stressors

Organizational

changeinadequatecommunication

interpersonalconflict

conflict with

organization goals


8/63

Workplace organization

(company-level factors)Structure, climate

Culture/ practices of the organizationPhilosophy and state of labor

management relations

State of labor management well as Workplace health promotion (WHP)activities and management of OHS

committees, and how they function.


9/63

Career developmentlack of promotion

opportunitynew responsibilities

beyond level

unemployment

Role

role conflict

role ambiguity

inadequate resourcesto accomplish job

inadequate authorityto accomplish job

Common workplace stressors (cont .)


10/63


Task

quantitative and qualitativeoverload

quantitative and qualitativeunderload

responsibility for lives andwell being of others

low decision making

attitudes


11/63


Work environment poor working

atmosphere physical exposures

ergonomic problem

noiseodorssafety hazards

shiftwork


12/63

Individual difference

Age , social class , etc . personality

4aspects to

concern-Type A or B

-Internals or externals-Negative or positiveaffectivity-Coping style


13/63

Type A striving to achievewalking and talkingquicklyhostile to peopleinterfering with their

needs and getting thingsdoneexplosive speech

Type Bnot show those behaviors

Individual difference (cont .)

Type A personality is

4.3 times morelikely to have

coronary heartdisease


14/63


Those who behave

Internals : theyhave large controlof what happens tothem

Externals : theyhave littlecontrol of whathappens

Externals are muchsusceptible to

becoming depressed


15/63


Negative affectivity

world asthreatening place ,even when it is notso .

Negative people seeworking environ asfull of stressors

Coping style

problem -focusedemotional -focused(denial ,rationalization

)


16/63

The community

Work

The socialenvironment

ThefamilyTheperson

Factors Influencing Psychosocial Issues


17/63

Objectiveenvironment

Subjectiveenvironment

SubjectiveP-E fit

Subjective person

Objective person

ObjectiveP-E fit Coping Defense No stress

Occupational health-recognition and preventing work-related

disease, Toronto:Little Brown company, 1988

Personal-Environmental Fit model, 1970s

(40)

(40)

(45)

(35)

stress


18/63


19/63

Subjective environment

Perceived supplies for motives

Perceived job demands

Subjective personal-environmental fit

Motives for working VS Supplies for motives

Job demands VS abilities to meet demands

Subjective person

Perceived motivesPerceived abilities

Strains

PsychologicalPhysical

Behavioral

Occupational health-recognition and preventingwork-realted disease, Toronto: Little BrownPE-Fit model


20/63

Other model: Mental load

Too little Too much

Too difficult

Too easy

Highstrain

Lowstrain


21/63

1924-33


22/63

job satifaction questionnaireFocused on workersperception on social

aspect of job

the management style and culture F F

employee involvement, empowerment

autonomous work groups influences

Weakness?

This model focused on socialfactor in stressors management;

not considered on job demand


23/63


24/63

Job demand & Job control model

Decisioncontrol

Job demand

Passive Highstrain

Active

Low high

high

low

Strain level

Activity level

Low strain

Admin Sci Quart 1979:24:285-307.


25/63



26/63

Demand -control-supports modelJob demand

Job controlSocial support( manager ,

supervisor , co -worker , family andfriends )

Stress is best

predicted by thecombination of

high demands , low control and poor

supportor ISOSTRAIN


27/63



28/63

Job content questionnaire (JCQ)

49 items 7 scales

1. Psychological demand 9 items

2. Decision latitude/ job control 9 items3. Supervisor support 4

4. Coworker support 4

5. Physical exertion 56. Job security 6

7. Hazard at work 8

http://medinfo2.psu.ac.th/commed/occmed/ohpsu.html


29/63

Test reliability and validity

ValidityFace validityContent validityConstruct validity

Concurrent validityPredictive validity

Reliability

Test-retest


30/63


ValidityFace validity

Content validityConstruct validityConcurrent validityPredictive validity

ReliabilityTest-retestInternal consistency


31/63

J Occup Health Psychol 1998;3:322-55


32/63

K-JCQ Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2007;80497504


33/63

JCQ populalityTranslated into many languages of

>40+ and nationally standardized in

several country

Last two decades -EU, USA, Japan

Last decadesEastern Asia (China, Taiwan, Korea)

North Asia, SEA (Malaysia, Thai) Northern Asia and South America

J Occup Health Psychol 1998;3:322-55


34/63


ValidityFace validity

Content validityConstruct validityConcurrent validityPredictive validity

ReliabilityTest-retestInternal consistency


35/63

Predictive validity of JCQ

Cardiovascular disease

Musculoskeletal diseasePsychiatric disorderReproductiveImmune system

etc

1.4Low intellectual discretionCoronary9 yrKarasek


36/63

1.922.58

Isostrain-Total groupOnly blue collar

CVD mortality

(n = 193)

9 yearcohort,Sweden, 25-65 yrs,

population based; N=

Johnson1989

No associationCoronaryheartdisease

18-yearscohort, Menof Japaneseancestry inHawaii,

USA; N=8006

Reed1989

121113118125(SMR)

PunctualityFew chances to learn new thingsHectic and monotonousHectic+not learn new things

Hospitalized MI

1 yearcohortSwedish,20-64 yrs;

population based N=

958096

Alfredsson1985

6.6

1.83

2.62

low intellectual discretion andlow personal schedule freedom

low control

low control / low support

heartdiseasecardiovasc

ular death

matchednested casecontrol

Swedish males, 15-

75 yrs; N=1461

1981

JCQ vs CVD

JCQ vs CVD


37/63

1.832.62

Low controlLow control /lowsupport

CVD mortality(N = 521)

Nested casecontrol in 14year cohort of12517 Swedish,

25-74 yrs; N=2422 control

Johnson1996

- NA -3 groups = Normal/ >0 but

75%stenosis-MI (fatal,non-fatal in 5yr follow-up)

4 year Cohort,USA; 1489 (1132

men, 357 womenundergoingcoronaryangiography) ofage


38/63

1.38-1.571.43

High demand+low controlLow control

IncidentvalidatedCHD

Eleven year prospective

cohort, UK,

Whitehall IIstudy ofcivilservants,aged 35-55;6895 males3413 females

Kuper2003

0.71Job controlIncidentheartdisease(n = 519)

12-16 yearcohort ,USA,

population based; N=

3575

Steenland1997

1.541.61.551.45

Low control vs. anginaLow control vs. IHDLow control vs. CHD eventJob strain vs. CHD event

Self-reportangina, CHDevent, IHD

5 yearcohort, UK,35-55 yrs,civilservants;

N= 6896

Bosma1997

JCQ vs CVD


39/63

Validity, Reliability

Modification forcross-cultured


40/63

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OFTHE THAI VERSION OF THE

22-ITEM AND

45-ITEM KARASEKJOB CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE

PITCHAYA PHAKTHONGSUK, NUALTA APAKUPAKULinter j occup med environ health 2008;21:331-44 .


41/63

Objective

To measure

the internalconsistency andconstruct validity of

the Thai version of both 22-tem and 45-item

JCQ

Methodology


42/63

MethodologyDesign

Cross-sectional design in Songkhlawith approx. 1 million pop.

Study population:Sampling calculation product moment

correlation with correlation 0.3, error5%, power 90% = 10200 (cohen, 1977)

Sampling selection:100 subjects from each 102 three-

digit occupational code according tointernational standard classification ofoccupational (ISCO-88)


43/63

ISCO-88001 -Legistrators, senior officials and managers002 -Professionals003 -Technicians and associated professionals004 -Clerks005 -Service workers, shop, market sales worker006 -Skilled agricultural and fishery

007 -Craft and related trade workers008 -Plant and machine operators and assemblers009 -Elementary occupations010 -Armed force

Methodology


44/63

Sampling frame F . 001legislators, senior officials managers,002Professionals,003 technical professional,004

clerk, 010 -Armed force

Stratified random sampling from subdistrictfor informal labor, e.g., 005 service

workers; 006 skilled agriculturers andfisherman, 007 craft and trades, 009elementary

008 -Plant and machineoperators and assemblers

Methodology


45/63

JCQ 22 F 4

( decision lattitude)( psychological demand)

F ( Coworker support)( Supervisor support)


46/63


47/63

Step for developing TJCQ for validity

1 st Translation and back-translation by 2 bilingual speakers

Content validity using open-endedquestion with 1 person according to 2-digit code of ISCO-88

Develop 12 new items

1 st pilot for time, comprehension andface validity .


48/63

Step for developing TJCQ for validity

1 st pilot for time, comprehension andface validity .

2 nd Translation and back-translation by2 bilingual speakers

2 nd pilot study

Submitted to JCQ center, U of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA


49/63

St ti ti l i


50/63

Statistic analysisCronbachs alpha coefficients andexploratory factor analysis with

Varimax rotation by SPSS ver. 10Confirmatory factor analysisusing Structural Equation

Modeling using LISREL ver. 8Ethical considerations -> PSU Medfaculty committee


51/63


52/63

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OFTHE THAI VERSION OF THE

22-ITEM AND45-ITEM KARASEKJOB CONTENTQUESTIONNAIRE

PITCHAYA PHAKTHONGSUK, NUALTA APAKUPAKULTJCQ


53/63

How to interpret and used it?

Whats the cutpoint?

How to cut each scale into low, moderate, high?

Brazil -> median (Epub ahead of print 2009)

Findland -> median (Occup Environ Med 2009;66;32-37)

Belgium -> median (Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:434)Japan -> quantile (Occup Environ Med 2000;57:805-9)

W k bilit (WAI)


54/63

Work ability(WAI)The multidisciplinary study group(occupational physiology,

psychology, medicine, epidemiologyand biostatistics)cross-sectional studies among

municipal employees in 1981 and 16yrs follow-up

Ability Index (WAI) has beentranslated into 24 languages.

(Occup Med 2007;57:160)

(work ability)


55/63

(work ability)

VS

F

(international congress series 1280, 2005)

( )


56/63

( 2551 . )

3 F

( work demand) ( health)( mental resource)

http://www.workability2009.com/th/registration.php

Work Ability Index 7 Items


57/63

Work Ability Index 7 ItemsCurrent work ability compared with thelifetime best

Work ability in relation to the demands of

the job Number of current diseases diagnosed by physician

Estimated work impairment due to diseases

Sick leave during the past year (12 months)

Own prognosis of work ability two years from now

Mental resourses


58/63

The 1st

ground floorcan bear workdemands only whenenough professionalcompetence

2nd

floor isincreasing whencont. change is amain characteristicsof working life

3 rd floor: social and

moral values, respect,esteem, justice =>commitment,

motivation,engagement

4 th floor: aspectsof work content asphysical, psycho,

emotional, social

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2004; ISBN 951-802-581-9


59/63

How to interprete?


60/63

How to interprete?Scoring of the Questionnaire (range 7- 49

points)

Points Work ability Objective of measures

7 - 27 POOR RESTORE WORK ABILITY

28 - 36 MODERATE IMPROVE WORK ABILITY

37 - 43 GOOD SUPPORT WORK ABILITY

44 - 49 EXCELLENT MAINTAIN WORK ABILITY


61/63

How valid WAI is?Why popular?


62/63

FF


63/63

F

job stress tool

Documents