Moderators of Workplace Aggression: The Influences of Social Support and Training

Brown, Valerie M.; Loh, Jennifer; Marsh, Nigel V.

doi:10.1017/orp.2012.4

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The questionnaire was a victimization survey developed by the VISAGE research team and derived from the Perceptions of Prevalence of Aggression scale (POPAS; Oud, 2001), which is a reliable instrument (Cronbach’s alpha ranging between 0.70 and 0.91) to measure aggressive patient behaviors experienced by workers in the healthcare sector in the last 12 months (Brown, Loh, & Marsh, 2012; Gale et al, 2009; Nijman, Bowers, Oud, & Jansen, 2005). What distinguishes this tool from other instruments is that it measures workplace violence in an exhaustive manner by assessing different types of workplace violence experiences, not only the sum of all kinds of incidents.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature on both healthcare and law enforcement sectors have also addressed the importance of support from colleagues and supervisors, which were found to buffer the effects of workplace violence (Brown et al, 2012;Littlechild, 2005). However, since habituation and acceptance of workplace violence are the results of professional socialization, support from colleagues and supervisors may positively relate to trivialization of violence (Brown et al, 1999;Dick, 2000).…”

Section: Organizational Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictors of trivialization of workplace violence among healthcare workers and law enforcers.

Geoffrion¹,

Lanctôt²,

Marchand³

et al. 2015

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to identify individual and organizational predictors of trivialization of violence in 2 work sectors: healthcare and law enforcement. On the basis of data from a survey conducted among 1,141 workers from healthcare (e.g., nurses, orderlies.) and law enforcement (e.g., police, security agents), individual (sex, age, exposure to violence), and organizational factors (violence prevention training, support from colleagues and supervisors, presence of a “zero tolerance” policy and safety of physical environment) were used to predict trivialization of violence. Analyses were also conducted separately for women and men, and post hoc comparisons of regression estimates were performed to assess sex differences. Men were more likely than women to think that violence is normal in their workplace. Law enforcers were more likely than healthcare workers to perceive a taboo associated with complaining about workplace violence. This last result was most salient in the model with women, where the odds of perceiving a taboo associated with complaining about workplace violence were 2 times higher among law enforcers. Organizational factors were all significant negative predictors of perceiving a taboo associated with complaining about workplace violence. Trivialization was also positively associated with witnessing violent acts, not with being direct victim of workplace violence. By identifying factors that hinder work-related threat assessment and management, this study showed that organizations can decrease or prevent trivialization of workplace violence. Organizations may counter underreporting of this threat, which will increase capacity to assess the real magnitude of this problem and to better manage it.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Organizational Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of trivialization of workplace violence among healthcare workers and law enforcers.

Geoffrion¹,

Lanctôt²,

Marchand³

et al. 2015

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, there is evidence of the protective effect of organisational support in situations of patient violence. Indeed, when employees find their work environment supportive, they are partially protected against the psychological consequences of patient violence (Brown, Loh, & Marsh, 2012; Magnavita, 2014; Zhao et al, 2015). For example, Mueller and Tschan (2011) found that social services employees who felt supported by their employer were more likely to cope well in the aftermath of a client assault.…”

Section: Identifying Job Resources For Coping With Patient Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress among healthcare workers following patient violence.

Lamothe

Boyer

Guay

2021

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace violence is a known risk factor for diminished mental health and turnover intentions. Yet, to this day, researchers still do not know how victimized workers cope over time or how organisations can best help them recover. This study sought to document the evolution of psychological distress in a sample of recently victimized professionals (N = 81) immediately after the event and over the course of the following year. Mixed modelling was used to assess distress scores at 4 different time points (3, 11, 27, and 52 weeks). Findings suggest that patient violence had a serious impact on staff mental health, with close to 35% of women and 11% of men suffering from severe distress after returning to work. In addition, 15% of participants exceeded the diagnostic threshold for Acute Stress Disorder (ASD). Rates of psychological distress decreased steadily over time but always remained above the national average. Although perceived organisational support proved to be a good protective factor against distress, its effect eroded with cumulative exposure to violence. Given the high risk of experiencing violence in certain work settings, this article concludes with a discussion of how organisations might be more considerate of the needs of traumatized workers. Employers should screen victimized workers to ensure they receive the help they need.

show abstract

“…Les études qui l'ont utilisé ont obtenu des alphas de Cronbach allant de 0,70 à 0,90 (Brown, Loh, et Marsh, 2012;Gale et al, 2009;James et al, 2011;Jonker et al, 2008;Nijman et al, 2005). Selon George et Mallery (2003), ces coefficients indiquent une cohérence interne allant d'acceptable (a = 0.70) à excellente (a = 0.90).…”

Section: Le Popasunclassified

Validation de la version française canadienne du Perception of Prevalence of Aggression Scale auprès d’un échantillon d’intervenants en protection de la jeunesse1

Geoffrion

Giguère

Fortin

et al. 2017

psyedu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectif. L’objectif de cette étude est d’évaluer la validité de construit de la version française de l’échelle Perception Of Prevalence of Aggression Scale (POPAS), un questionnaire auto-rapporté mesurant l’exposition à la violence au travail commise par la clientèle du milieu de la santé et des services sociaux. Méthode. Un échantillon de 310 intervenants en protection de la jeunesse est utilisé afin de confirmer la structure interne à quatre facteurs de l’instrument. À défaut de confirmer cette structure, un modèle d’équation structurelle exploratoire est utilisé. Les facteurs retenus sont soumis aux tests d’alpha de Cronbach qui permettent d’évaluer leur cohérence interne. Ils sont corrélés avec la version française du Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale (PCLS) et du nombre de jours d’absence du travail causé par la violence afin d’évaluer la validité convergente. Il sont également corrélées avec le Felt Accountability (FA) afin d’évaluer la validité divergente. Des analyses de comparaison en fonction du lieu de travail permettent d’explorer la validité de critère. Résultats. L’analyse factorielle confirmatoire ne confirme pas la structure à quatre facteurs du POPAS. L’équation structurelle exploratoire valide une structure à trois facteurs : « violence verbale », « violence physique » et « violence envers soi-même ». Les deux premiers possèdent une bonne cohérence interne. Les corrélations positives entre ces deux facteurs et le PCLS, ainsi qu’entre ces deux facteurs et le nombre de jours d’absence appuient la validité convergente du POPAS. Toutefois, l’absence de corrélation significative entre le dernier facteur et le PCLS, et entre ce facteur et le nombre de jour d’absence n’appuient pas cette convergence. L’absence de corrélation des facteurs avec le FA appuie la validité divergente du POPAS. Les différences observées selon les environnements de travail attestent aussi de la validité de critère. Discussion. La validité de construit de la version française canadienne du POPAS suggère que l’outil permet d’évaluer la fréquence subjective de différentes formes de violence au travail vécues par les intervenants en protection de la jeunesse. Il offre ainsi une alternative aux données officielles (c.-à-d. déclaration d’incidents à l’employeur) qui reflètent peu la réalité de ces travailleurs compte tenu de la sous-déclaration des incidents de violence dans ce milieu.

show abstract

Moderators of Workplace Aggression: The Influences of Social Support and Training

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Predictors of trivialization of workplace violence among healthcare workers and law enforcers.

Predictors of trivialization of workplace violence among healthcare workers and law enforcers.

A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress among healthcare workers following patient violence.

Validation de la version française canadienne du Perception of Prevalence of Aggression Scale auprès d’un échantillon d’intervenants en protection de la jeunesse1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About