No abstract

This article examines assessment approaches and specific measures used by job-stress researchers to characterize aspects of work and the working environment (potential job stressors) and workers' reactions to these working conditions (strains). Self-report instruments, observational approaches, and physiological indicators are described. Problematic areas (e.g., the use of overlapping stressor and strain measures) and contemporary issues affecting job stress assessment (e.g., negative affectivity) are discussed. Recommendations regarding instrument selection and measurement improvements are offered. It is concluded that closer attention to measurement-related issues is critical to the advancement of knowledge in the field. Important needs include the identification and more frequent use of objective measures, the increased use of triangulation strategies, and a careful examination of the adequacy of existing constructs and measures for capturing the demands of contemporary work.

Our estimate is in the range reported by previous investigators, although we have restricted ourselves more than others to only those diseases with well-established occupational etiology, biasing our estimates conservatively. The underlying assumptions and data used to generate the estimates are well documented, so our estimates may be updated as new data emerges on occupational risks and exposed populations, providing an advantage over previous studies. We estimate that occupational deaths are the 8th leading cause of death in the US, after diabetes (64,751) but ahead of suicide (30,575), and greater than the annual number of motor vehicle deaths per year (43,501).

With regard to the physical health and safety of workers, the work environment is generally viewed as a threat or risk factor. Similarly, work can have adverse consequences for mental health, but it can also have an important positive impact. In Western society at least, work experience plays a n integral role in psychological development and well-being.This perspective is aptly expressed for Albert Camus (1955): "Without risk, all life goes rotten, but when work is soulless, life stifles and dies." Smith and Smith (1973) claimed that occupations can provide a framework for the organization of behavior. Gardell (1971) suggested that "due to influences exerted by the Protestant ethic and other culturally conditioned factors . . . it is probable that most people perceive work to be one of the most important life areas for the individual's general satisfaction" (p. 149). Psychoanalytic theorists view work as a primary source of self-identity. Lazarus (1981) recounted Erikson's (1963) depiction of Biff, a character in Arthur Miller's Death ofa Salesman, as suffering "ego-diffusion" for lack of ability to develop a sense of usefulness or productivity (p. 57). Hertzberg (19661, McGregor (1960), andArgyris (1964) wrote of motivation, esteem, and self-actualization through work. Lazarus saw another psychologically healthful function of work: a form of coping and refuge and a haven against problems, loneliness, and depression. Several studies on termination from work tend to bear our such tenets. Linn, Sandifer, and Stein t 1985) found increased levels of somatization, depression, and anxiety in the unemployed, as well as increased visits to the doctor, medication use, and days in bed.These considerations add significance to the prevention of work-related psychological disorders and distinguish such efforts from efforts toward the prevention of other occupational injuries and diseases; that is, the promise is not only reduced Other members of the working group included

This study examined the effects of supplementary rest breaks on musculoskeletal discomfort, eyestrain, mood, and performance in data-entry workers. Two rest break schedules were compared in a within-subjects design. Workers alternated between a 'conventional' and a 'supplementary' schedule in 4-week intervals. The conventional schedule contained a 15-min break during the first half of the work shift and a 15-min break during the second half of the shift. The supplementary schedule contained the same two 15-min breaks, and a 5-min break during each hour which otherwise did not contain a break, for a total of 20 extra minutes of break time. Results are based on data from 42 workers. They indicated that discomfort in several areas of the body, and eyestrain, were significantly lower under the supplementary than under the conventional schedule. While symptoms increased from pre- to post-work periods under both schedules, the magnitude of the increases was significantly less under the supplementary schedule. In addition, increases in discomfort of the right forearm, wrist and hand over the course of the work week under the conventional schedule were eliminated under the supplementary schedule. These beneficial effects were obtained without reductions in data-entry performance.