Psychometric analysis of the UK Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards work-related stress Indicator Tool

By J. A. Edwards, S. Webster, Darren van Laar, S. Easton. 2008

244 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Numerous tools have been developed that attempt to measure work-related stress and working conditions, but few practical instruments in the literature have been found to have a reliable psychometric factor structure. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Management Standards (MS) Indicator Tool is increasingly used by organizations to monitor working conditions that can lead to stress. In Health and Safety Executive (2004), a factor analysis was conducted demonstrating the reliability of the scales. However, the authors acknowledged that direct reassessment of the same factor structure was impossible as the questionnaire was split into two separate modules for data collection. Furthermore, the tool is designed to enable comparisons between as well as within organizations to take place, yet reliability has only previously been tested at the individual level. The current study is the first to examine the factor structure of the HSE MS Indicator Tool using organizational-level data. Data collected from 39 UK organizations (N=26,382) was used to perform a first-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the original 35-item seven-factor measurement scale. The results showed an acceptable fit to the data for the instrument. A second-order CFA was also performed to test if the Indicator Tool contains a higher order uni-dimensional measure of work-related stress. These findings also revealed an acceptable fit to the data, suggesting that it may be possible to derive a single measure of work-related stress. Normative data comprising tables of percentiles from the organizational data are provided to enable employers to compare their organizational averages against national benchmarks.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Pharmacology, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/727c8ffe8080f4abf025c86e8a5ba0433f1316ab

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Pharmacology

In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Citations in the corpus

Testing a Model of Officer Intentions to Quit (2014, background): “…factor structure of the HSE Management Indicator Tool has been tested and replicated in a number of studies across multiple professional groups (J. A. Edwards, webster, Van Laar, & Easton, 2008; Toderi et al., 2013), including a large sample of over 25,000 employees (J. A. Edwards et al., 2008).”
Why does organizational identification relate to reduced employee burnout? The mediating influence of social support and collective efficacy (2015, methodology): “We base our analysis on recent theoretical work by Van Dick and Haslam (2012), who argued that two different albeit related variables should play central roles for the social identification– burnout link, namely social support and collective efficacy. Specifically, Van Dick and Haslam (2012) propose”
The Work‐related Quality of Life Scale for Higher Education Employees (2009, methodology): “Employers have a legal duty of care for the health and safety of their employees and a duty to assess levels of workplace psychosocial hazards such as work‐related stress and well‐being (Edwards et al , 2008 ).”
Review Article: How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions (2013, background): “Biron et al. (2010) found that although line managers participated in workshops on how to conduct an assessment of psychosocial risks using the Stress Indicator Tool (Edwards et al., 2008), they did not feel equipped to deal with sensitive stress issues, and they felt assessing psychosocial risks wa”