4.4 Article

Developing a Basic Scale for Workers' Psychological Burden from the Perspective of Occupational Safety and Health

Journal

SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 224-231

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2018.02.004

Keywords

COPSOQ II; Job stress; Psychological burden; Workload

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Organizations are pursing complex and diverse aims to generate higher profits. Many workers experience high work intensity such as workload and work pressure in this organizational environment. Especially, psychological burden is a commonly used term in workplace of Republic of Korea. This study focused on defining the psychological burden from the perspective of occupational safety and health and tried to develop a scale for psychological burden. Methods: The 48 preliminary questionnaire items for psychological burden were prepared by a focus group interview with 16 workers through the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II and Mindful Awareness Attention Scale. The preliminary items were surveyed with 572 workers, and exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis were conducted for a new scale. Results: As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, five factors were extracted: organizational activity, human error, safety and health workload, work attitude, and negative self-management. These factors had significant correlations and reliability, and the stability of the model for validity was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis. Conclusion: The developed scale for psychological burden can measure workers' psychological burden in relation to safety and health. Despite some limitations, this study has applicability in the workplace, given the relatively small-sized questionnaire. (C) 2018 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available