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. Th...
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.
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.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
” Because the aim of this study is to develop a scale for psychological burdens affecting occupational safety and health through work accidents and so on, psychological burdens here may be regarded as burdens pertaining to the work directly performed by workers or to other related work.
제안 방법
To develop the psychological burden scale, we conducted an FGI with workers (n = 16) involved in industrial accidents who were receiving medical care in hospitals during the months of June and July of 2016. Based on the result of an FGI, 48 preliminary questionnaire items were prepared for the psychological burden scale after a review by the research team comprising specialists in the fields of psychology, human engineering, business administration, and statistics. The present survey was conducted with 572 workers in August 2016.
First, we provided a conceptual definition of workers’ psychological burden that differentiated it from extant concepts of job stress and mental and physical workloads; prepared preliminary questionnaire items based on the COPSOQ Ⅱ, MAAS, and an FGI; and conducted the present survey using the final set of 48 preliminary items.
For the internal validation of the model, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the five factors obtained via the exploratory factor analysis and the questionnaire items related to these factors. We tested the stability of the model using various indices such as Ⅹ2/df, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the confirmatory factor analysis model, and results are shown in Fig.
However, the present study defines “psychological burden” using a more fine-grained concept than job stress and attempts to develop a scale that can measure it.
In view of these contrasting points, there is a need to conduct further study on the relationship between the scale developed here and extant job stress scales, as mentioned previously in our discussion of the first limitation. In addition, although the concept of psychological burden was defined in this study, it still has some controversy such as the difference between workload and psychological burden so that further study is needed to explain the definition of psychological burden based on evidence.
00 and above. Moreover, correlation coefficients among the items were used to improve internal reliability by eliminating highly correlated items and to yield the Cronbach a value indicating internal consistency among the items. As a result of the factor analysis, five factors with an eigenvalue of more than 1.
Second, based on previous research, mindfulness and attention were expected to be among the factors required for the prevention of work accidents, and items relevant to these factors were prepared. Most of these items, however, did not make it to the final set of factors in the scale.
To analyze the internal validity of the scale, the interitem reliability analysis of factors and the correlation analysis between factors were conducted. The mean value (standard deviation) and the Cronbach a value within each factor are shown in Table 4.
To develop our psychological burden scale, we reviewed the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) [21] - developed by the National Institute of Occupational Health in Denmark to assess the health effects of the psychosocial environment of workers in diverse occupationsdand the Korean version of the Mindful Awareness Attention Scale (K-MAAS) [22]. Using these scales as the basis, we revised the questionnaire items to suit our research aims through a focus group interview (FGI) and composed preliminary questionnaire items. The COPSOQ II can be used to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the psychosocial work environment.
For the internal validation of the model, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the five factors obtained via the exploratory factor analysis and the questionnaire items related to these factors. We tested the stability of the model using various indices such as Ⅹ2/df, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the confirmatory factor analysis model, and results are shown in Fig. 1. The various indices showing how well the model fits the data are provided in Table 6.
대상 데이터
Among the 572 workers who participated in the present survey, we excluded 16 who did not answer questions related to psychological burden among the preliminary questionnaire items and analyzed the data of the remaining 556 participants. We used SPSS 23.
The contents of the questionnaires were reviewed in advance with the supervisor working in the general enterprise to confirm whether the level of questionnaires is proper to the level of participants before the FGI. At the time of the industrial accident, the participants comprised three (18.75%) managers, 10 (62.5%) general workers, and three (18.75%) other workers. As a result of the FGI, participants responded to the uncomfortable feelings on the accident day, the state of mind or the work of that day, and the uncomfortable minds and hard things from the accident day to last week before the FGI.
Based on the result of an FGI, 48 preliminary questionnaire items were prepared for the psychological burden scale after a review by the research team comprising specialists in the fields of psychology, human engineering, business administration, and statistics. The present survey was conducted with 572 workers in August 2016. The 572 workers were mainly engaged in manufacturing, construction, and service industries, which are the representative industries of Republic of Korea.
An exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors, namely organizational activity, human error, safety and health workload, work attitude, and negative self-management. The resulting scale for psychological burdens comprised 26 items. Second, the reliability and correlation analysis of the five factors in the psychological burden scale showed statistically significant results, and a confirmatory factor analysis verified the stability of our model.
성능/효과
First, we provided a conceptual definition of workers’ psychological burden that differentiated it from extant concepts of job stress and mental and physical workloads; prepared preliminary questionnaire items based on the COPSOQ Ⅱ, MAAS, and an FGI; and conducted the present survey using the final set of 48 preliminary items. An exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors, namely organizational activity, human error, safety and health workload, work attitude, and negative self-management. The resulting scale for psychological burdens comprised 26 items.
The resulting scale for psychological burdens comprised 26 items. Second, the reliability and correlation analysis of the five factors in the psychological burden scale showed statistically significant results, and a confirmatory factor analysis verified the stability of our model.
후속연구
The lack of consideration of these factors is a limitation of clear research, but it is also a difficulty of field study. Further study is needed to test the effect of these factors on psychological burden.
It is also necessary to examine how the psychological burden scale is related to other subscales of job stress, to the stress responsiveness scale, and so on to determine the effects of these factors on the psychological health of workers. In this respect, this study can be regarded as an initial step to develop the psychological burden scale, and although internal validation of the model was verified through the confirmatory factor analysis, further studies are needed to examine the more detailed relation of the developed scale with other scales using the confirmatory factor analysis in the perspective of occupational safety and health.
Nonetheless, there is much empirical evidence to indicate that workload and other such factors do not completely overlap with job stress factors [31]. In view of these contrasting points, there is a need to conduct further study on the relationship between the scale developed here and extant job stress scales, as mentioned previously in our discussion of the first limitation. In addition, although the concept of psychological burden was defined in this study, it still has some controversy such as the difference between workload and psychological burden so that further study is needed to explain the definition of psychological burden based on evidence.
참고문헌 (31)
1 Fournier P.S. Montreuil S. Brun J.P. Bilodeau C. Villa J. Exploratory study to identify workload factors that have an impact on health and safety: a case study in the service sector IRSST 2011 Report R-701
2 Lee W.Y. The interacting effects of cognitive failure, consciousness and job stress on safety behavior and accidents Korean J Indus Org Psychol 19 3 2006 475 497 [in Korean]
3 Jung S.Y. Go D.W. Kim B.J. The mediation effect of job stress between workload and safety behavior, and moderation effect of transformational leadership and safety climate Korean J Psychol Gen 35 1 2016 13 42 [in Korean]
4 Volkoff S. Buisset C. Mardon C. Does intense time pressure at work make older employees more vulnerable? A statistical analysis based on a French survey Appl Ergon 41 6 2010 754 762 20227061
5 Cantin V. Lavalliere M. Simoneau M. Teasdale N. Mental workload when driving in a simulator: effects of age and driving complexity Accid Anal Prev 41 4 2009 763 771 19540965
6 Zhang Y. Luximon A. Subjective mental workload measure Ergonomia 3 27 2005 199 206
7 Sharples S. Megaw T. Evaluation of human work 4th ed. 2015 CRC Press 516 544
8 Blaug R. Kenyon A. Lekhi R. Stress at work 2007 The Work Foundation
9 Jang S.J. Developing an occupational stress scale for Korean employees Korean J Occup Environ Med 17 4 2005 297 317 [in Korean]
10 Hancock P.A. Meshkati N. Human mental workload 1988 Oxford Los Angeles, CA England: North-Holland
11 Carswell C.M. Clarke D. Seales W.B. Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery Surg Innov 12 1 2005 80 90 15846451
12 Krause N. Scherzer T. Rugulies R. Physical workload, work intensification, and prevalence of pain in low wage workers: results from a participatory research project with hotel room cleaners in Las Vegas Am J Indus Med 48 5 2005 326 337
13 Morris C.H. Leung Y.K. Pilot mental workload: how well do pilots really perform? Ergonomics 49 15 2006 1581 1596 17090505
14 Young G. Zavelina L. Hooper V. Assessment of workload using NASA task load index in perianesthesia nursing J PeriAnesth Nurs 23 2 2008 102 110 18362006
15 Hart S.G. Staveland L.E. Development of the NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of the empirical and theoretical research Adv Psychol 52 1988 139 183
16 Rubio S. Diaz E. Martin J. Puente J.M. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods Appl Psychol 53 1 2004 61 86
19 Houdmont J. Leka S. Contemporary occupational health psychology vol. 2 2012 Wiley-Blackwell
20 Burden Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary 4th ed. 2013 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK
21 Bjorner J.B. Pejtersen J.H. Evaluating construct validity of the second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through analysis of differential item functioning and differential item effect Scand J Public Health 38 3 Suppl. 2010 90 105 21172775
22 Jeon J.H. Lee W.K. Lee S.J. Lee W.H. A pilot study of reliability and validity of the Korean version of mindful attention awareness scale Korean J Clin Psychol 26 1 2007 201 212 [in Korean]
23 June K.J. Choi E.S. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire scale Korean Acad Soc Occup Health Nurs 22 1 2013 1 12 [in Korean]
24 Kim W.I. Ahn K.Y. The effects of job characteristics and psychological stress response on accidents, and the mediating effect of psychological stress response J Korea Saf Manag Sci 15 1 2013 41 49 [in Korean]
25 Ludwig D.S. Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness in medicine JAMA 300 2008 1350 1352 18799450
26 Park S.G. The Korean self-discipline approach for the recovery process of addiction Korean J Psychol Addict 1 1 2016 85 104
27 Brown K.W. Ryan R.M. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being J Pers Soc Psychol 84 4 2003 822 848 12703651
28 Rutherford S. “Are you going home already”: the long hours culture, women, managers and patriarchal closure Time Soc 10 2001 259 276
29 Pickup L. Wilson J.R. Norris B.J. Mitchell L. Morrisroe G. The integrated workload scale (IWS): a new self-report tool to assess railway signaler workload Appl Ergon 36 6 2005 681 693 16140253
30 Burgess L. Irvine F. Wallymahmed A. Personality, stress and coping in intensive care nurses: a descriptive exploratory study Nurs Crit Care 15 3 2010 129 140 20500651
31 Bacharach S.B. Bamberger P.A. Conley S. Work processes, role conflict, and role overload: the case of nurses and engineers in the public sector Work Occup 17 2 1990 199 228
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.