Outcome expectancy as a process indicator in comprehensive worksite stress management interventions.

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between outcome expectancy for an individual stress management course and the total perceived impact of a comprehensive stress management intervention (SMI). It is based on data from three different measurement points from a longitudinal SMI in Switzerland. Individual and organizational outcome expectancies for stress management courses were captured with two newly developed items (SMI outcome expectancy) immediately after course completion. Perceived individual and organizational impacts of the overall intervention captured with two items of a retrospective impact assessment scale (perceived SMI impact) at the two-year follow-up survey were used as the outcome measurement. Baseline individual and organizational change commitments (as rated by participants) were included in the analyses as possible moderators. Regression analyses show that individual and organizational outcome expectancies in respect of stress management courses can to some extent predict the perceived impact of the intervention as a whole. At the individual level, an intervention will be perceived as most successful when participants already have a high individual change commitment and develop high outcome expectancies during stress management courses.Keywords: stress management intervention, process evaluation, change process, outcome expectancy, change commitment OUTCOME EXPECTANCY IN COMPREHENSIVE SMI 2 2 Outcome expectancy as a process indicator in comprehensive worksite stress management interventions In recent years, various studies have shown that work-related stress is associated with physical and social health problems for employees and with negative economic consequences for organizations (cf. Bond, Flaxman, & Loivette, 2006;van der Hek & Plomp, 1997). This insight has prompted an increase in worksite stress management interventions (SMIs) addressing psychosocial job-stress factors and coping strategies, and in studies assessing the impact of such interventions. Initially, most SMIs were conducted at the individual level (Giga, Noblet, Faragher, & Cooper, 2003)-that is, focusing on changing the individual's perception of stress and teaching participants how to cope with stress, which should ideally lead to experiencing reduced stress. At the organizational level, however, SMIs that aim at promoting organizational change processes-such as reducing organizational stressors or enhancing resources-and comprehensive SMIs involving a combined focus on both the individual and the organization are gaining increased attention (LaMontagne, Keegel, Louie, Ostry, & Landsbergis, 2007).Diverse meta-analyses (e.g., Richardson & Rothstein, 2008;van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, & van Dijk, 2001) and reviews (e.g., Bambra, Egan, Egan, 2013;Egan et al., 2007;Giga et al., 2003;LaMontagne et al., 2007;Murphy, 1996) have sought a) to investigate whether worksite SMIs are effective in general and b) to identify the most promising types of worksite SMIs. These reviews and metaanalyses report generally positive...

The Need for Dual Openness to Change: A Longitudinal Study Evaluating the Impact of Employees’ Openness to Organizational Change Content and Process on Intervention Outcomes

“…Another study showed that employees' baseline readiness for implementing a new information system was linked to their satisfaction with the new system after a month of using it (Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005). Furthermore, a recent study evaluating the influence of outcome expectancy on the outcomes of a stress management course found that both individual and organizational outcome expectancy predicted the perceived impact of the course (Fridrich, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016). However, existing studies have mainly focused on evaluating readiness on a general level, most often readiness for the overall content of the intervention.…”

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

“…"; "Do you think the workshop will have a positive impact on your team?") (Fridrich et al, 2016). The items were rated by the workshop participants on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = no, not at all to 7 = yes, very much.…”

“…Bunce (1997) argued that it is likely that such expectations moderate the effectiveness of an intervention. Fridrich et al (2016) found that the outcome expectancy of a stress-management workshop is able to partly predict the perceived individual and organizational impact of the entire stress-management intervention in a 2-year follow-up. Similarly, both Füllemann et al (2016) and Lehmann et al (2019) showed that outcome expectancy -measured during workshops of an organizational health intervention -was related to follow-up perceptions of impact.…”

The relevance of intervention participants’ process appraisal for change in well-being and lean work processes of entire teams

“…Jenny et al 2015;Fridrich et al 2016b). To introduce the scale, employees were shortly reminded of the activities of the intervention and then asked to rate the overall perceived impact of the entire intervention in their nursing ward.…”

“…Outcome expectancies were measured using three items that captured whether the workshop participants expected the workshops including developed action plans to trigger positive changes in their personal working conditions, their team and the work processes within the team (Fridrich et al 2016b). A sample item is, "Do you think the workshop will have a positive effect on your work?"…”