Development of a Generic Workshop Appraisal Scale (WASC) for Organizational Health Interventions and Evaluation

Abstract

This study presents the development of a generic workshop appraisal scale (WASC) for the evaluation of organizational health interventions. Based on the session evaluation questionnaire (SEQ) by Stiles (1980), we developed a short, generic 10-item scale with pairs of adjectives, covering five facets: comprehensibility, relevance, novelty, activation, and valence. Our study is based on N = 499 employees from four organizations who participated in 41 workshops and filled out an evaluation questionnaire onsite. The questionnaire contained the newly developed WASC, as well as items capturing satisfaction with the developed output and outcome expectancies. Results from confirmative factor analysis confirmed the hypothesized five-factor structure of the WASC. The factor structure was found to be nearly invariant across the four organizations, a result that needs to be replicated in larger samples. Analysis of intra-class correlations indicated that 25% of the variance in workshop appraisal can be explained at workshop level. Hereby, perceived relevance and novelty exhibited lower amounts of shared variance, indicating that corresponding workshop appraisals are influenced more by individual factors and less by group dynamics. Furthermore, results from mediation analysis revealed that participants' workshop appraisals were significantly related to their outcome expectancies, and that this relationship was mediated by output satisfaction. Again, the facets showed differential effects: Relevance and comprehensibility seem to contribute most to the total effect on outcome expectancy, followed by activation, whereas valence and especially novelty play a minor role. Taken together, participants' workshop appraisals-together with output satisfaction and outcome expectancy-may be helpful for monitoring the implementation process and allow for corrective action if necessary.

The organizational health components for small-sized health-care organizations: A systematic review

“…Then, according to the reviewed data, 23 dimensions were defined similarly for all groups of studies. For example, in the community engagement component, OH studies focused on multilevel participation,[ 8 ] membership,[ 22 ] involvement,[ 27 ] staff affiliation,[ 23 ] public perceptions,[ 28 ] and trust in clients,[ 29 ] while the same category for OHL explained community engagement and partnerships,[ 30 31 32 33 ] involving patients,[ 34 ] works in partnership with other organizations,[ 32 ] undertaking community consultation and enabling consumer participation,[ 35 ] and partnerships with other organizations,[ 33 ] at the same time that of OHI were on social support;[ 36 ] mental models of stakeholders;[ 9 ] participation in intervention decision, stakeholder appraisals of intervention plans and activities;[ 9 ] multilevel collaboration, social identity building, social comparison processes, interpersonal influences, and social learning;[ 9 ] appointment of facilitator;[ 9 ] and motivation of stakeholders. [ 37 ]…”

“…Organizational health (OH) is a more recent conceptualization that encompasses a multitude of parameters[ 8 ] that aim to produce concrete output interventions[ 9 ] to ensure that the employees have a favorable organizational commitment and resilience that is created through the employees’ genuine desires and adoption of the organization's targets. [ 10 11 ] As we spent a major part of our lives working in different organizations or interacting with them, the general opinion among the theorists is that there must be a balance between the negative and positive aspects of an organization and that we must endeavor to move toward positive organizational behavior.…”

Quick and dirty or rapid and informative? Exploring a participatory method to facilitate implementation research and organizational change

“…The workshop's relevance and usefulness were evaluated through a short questionnaire handed out at the end of the workshop. The workshop's overall appraisal was assessed using the Generic Workshop Appraisal Scale (WASC) (Fridrich et al, 2020). Participants were asked to rate how they perceived the workshop on a 10-item scale with pairs of adjectives covering five facets: comprehensibility, relevance, novelty, activation and valence (e.g.…”

A Digital Tool to Build the Capacity of Leaders to Improve Working Conditions Related to Psychological Health and Well-Being in Teams: Intervention Approach, Prototype, and Evaluation Design of the Web-Application “wecoach”

“…In regard to the context of phase 1, we asked the question if a leader's health awareness and her/his leadership style will positively influence the above outlined process factors; that is, a leader who is aware of the factors that stress and engage her/his team at work, and who has a routine of actively leading change as a committed role model, involving and appreciating the team, will also engage her-/himself more actively within the wecoach (29). The question regarding the process of phase 2 ("team development") was if higher participation rates of the team members as objective process factor will amplify positive changes in job demands and resources; this would also be expected from favorable appraisals of the team development as subjective process factor (30,31). Context factors of team development processes are often discussed in OHP research and mostly examined through qualitative data (27).…”