No abstract

The aim of this multi-study report is to present a questionnaire that enables researchers and practitioners to assess and evaluate psychosocial risks related to well-being. In Study 1, we conducted a cross-sectional online-survey in 15 German companies from 2016 to 2017 to verify factor- and criterion-related validity. Data consisted of 1151 employee self-ratings. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in an eight-factor structure (CFI = 0.902, RMSEA = 0.058, and SRMR = 0.070). All scales held to excellent internal consistency values (α = 0.65–0.90) and were related significantly to well-being (r = 0.17–0.35, p < 0.001). A second, longitudinal study in 2018 showed satisfying convergent and discriminant validity (N = 293) to scales from KFZA and COPSOQ. Test-retest reliability (N = 73; α = 0.65–0.88, p < 0.05) was also good. The instrument provides incremental validity above existing instruments since it explains additional variance in well-being.

Although wide-ranging amendments in health and safety regulations at the European and national level oblige employers to conduct psychosocial risk assessment, it is still under debate how psychosocial hazards can be properly evaluated. For psychosocial hazards, an epidemiological, risk-oriented understanding similar to physical hazards is still missing, why most existing approaches for hazard evaluation insufficiently conceive psychosocial risk as a combination of the probability of a hazard and the severity of its consequences (harm), as found in traditional risk matrix approaches (RMA). We aim to contribute to a methodological advancement in psychosocial risk assessment by adapting the RMA from physical onto psychosocial hazards. First, we compare and rate already existing procedures of psychosocial risk evaluation regarding their ability to reliably assess and prioritize risk. Second, we construct a theoretical framework that allows the risk matrix for assessing psychosocial risk. This is done by developing different categories of harm based on psychological theories of healthy work design and classifying hazards through statistical procedures. Taking methodological and theoretical considerations into account, we propose a 3 × 3 risk matrix that scales probability and severity for psychosocial risk assessment. Odds ratios between hazards and harm can be used to statistically assess psychosocial risks. This allows for both risk evaluation and prioritizing to further conduct risk-mitigation. Our contribution advances the RMA as a framework that allows for assessing the relation between psychosocial hazards and harm disregarding which theory of work stress is applied or which tool is used for hazard identification. By this, we also contribute to further possible developments in empirical research regarding how to assess the risk of workplace stress. The risk matrix can help to understand how psychosocial hazards can be evaluated and organizations can use the approach as a guidance to establish a suitable method for psychosocial risk evaluation.

Abstract. The step from hazard analysis to developing risk-mitigating measures is crucial to improving working conditions but has been scarcely researched to date. We qualitatively investigated protocols of analytical workshops in 33 organizational units that followed a prior hazard analysis with the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ, N = 7,257 employees). There was a high degree of agreement between the COPSOQ results and those of the workshops. However, no measures were developed for approximately one-third of the identified work-design problems. A content analysis of the measures revealed the complex interrelationship between the work characteristics, as minimizing one risk factor seems to go hand in hand with the need to redesign others as well. The measures were often simple, indicating either that minimizing psychosocial risks is rather easy, or that the participants within the workshops did not have the authority to develop more complex measures. We discuss the implications to support future psychosocial risk management.

Psychische Belastung ist seit 2013 im Rahmen der Gefährdungsbeurteilung zu erfassen. Mehrheitlich werden dazu ressourcenintensiv ganze Berufsgruppen mittels schriftlicher Befragungen analysiert. Anhand von Daten aus der deutschen Stahlindustrie eruieren wir die Kosten eines solchen Vorgehens und zeigen in einer tiefergehenden Analyse dreier identischer Tätigkeitsbereiche (N = 1.719), dass unter bestimmten Bedingungen die Analyse eines repräsentativen Werksbereiches ausreichend sein kann. Auf dieser Grundlage diskutieren wir in diesem Beitrag die ganzheitliche Integration psychischer Belastung nach dem Vorbild sicherheitstechnischer Gefährdungsbeurteilungen.