Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory
01 Oct 1998-Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (Educational Publishing Foundation)-Vol. 3, Iss: 4, pp 356-367
TL;DR: 3 job stressor scales (Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, and Quantitative Workload Inventory) and 1 job strain scale (Physical Symptoms Inventory).
Abstract: Despite the widespread use of self-report measures of both job-related stressors and strains, relatively few carefully developed scales for which validity data exist are available. In this article, we discuss 3 job stressor scales (Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, and Quantitative Workload Inventory) and 1 job strain scale (Physical Symptoms Inventory). Using meta-analysis, we combined the results of 18 studies to provide estimates of relations between our scales and other variables. Data showed moderate convergent validity for the 3 job stressor scales, suggesting some objectively to these self-reports. Norms for each scale are provided.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the relationship among job stressors, perceived justice, negative emotional reactions to work, counterproductive work behavior (CWB), autonomy, and affective traits and found that only very weak support was found for the moderating role of affective disposition (trait anger and trait anxiety).
1,244 citations
Cites background or methods from "Development of four self-report mea..."
...Spector and Jex (1998) reported a mean Cronbach’sα of .85 across eight samples....
[...]
...For the conflict scale (ICAWS), Spector and Jex (1998) reported a mean Cronbach’sα of .74 across 13 samples....
[...]
...Work constraints were measured by the Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS; Spector & Jex, 1998), an 11-item scale based on constraint areas identified by Peters and O’Connor (1980)....
[...]
TL;DR: An attribution- and reciprocity-based model is introduced that explains the link between harassment and its potential causes and consequences and the authors conducted a meta-analysis to examine the potential antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment.
Abstract: Although workplace harassment affects the lives of many employees, until recently it has been relatively ignored in the organizational psychology literature. First, the authors introduced an attribution- and reciprocity-based model that explains the link between harassment and its potential causes and consequences. The authors then conducted a meta-analysis to examine the potential antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. As shown by the meta-analysis, both environmental and individual difference factors potentially contributed to harassment and harassment was negatively related to the well-being of both individual employees and their employing organizations. Furthermore, harassment contributed to the variance in many outcomes, even after controlling for 2 of the most commonly studied occupational stressors, role ambiguity and role conflict.
1,066 citations
TL;DR: A Wner-grained analysis of the relationship between counterproductive work behavior and antecedents was conducted with the Wve-subscales (abuse toward others, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal) taken from the 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist, a measure that has been used in a number of prior studies as discussed by the authors.
1,054 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a model that integrates findings from several areas to explain in parallel the voluntary acts of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
1,048 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the experience of work engagement and its antecedents among Finnish health care personnel (n ǫ=409) by utilizing a 2-year longitudinal design.
947 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Two 10-item mood scales that comprise the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) are developed and are shown to be highly internally consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period.
Abstract: In recent studies of the structure of affect, positive and negative affect have consistently emerged as two dominant and relatively independent dimensions. A number of mood scales have been created to measure these factors; however, many existing measures are inadequate, showing low reliability or poor convergent or discriminant validity. To fill the need for reliable and valid Positive Affect and Negative Affect scales that are also brief and easy to administer, we developed two 10-item mood scales that comprise the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The scales are shown to be highly internally consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period. Normative data and factorial and external evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scales are also presented.
34,482 citations
16,312 citations
"Development of four self-report mea..." refers methods in this paper
...Personality included self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) and both the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and trait anxiety from the STPI (Spielberger, 1979) as measures of negative affectivity....
[...]
TL;DR: An up-to-date handbook on conceptual and methodological issues relevant to the study of industrial and organizational behavior is presented in this paper, which covers substantive issues at both the individual and organizational level in both theoretical and practical terms.
Abstract: An up-to-date handbook on conceptual and methodological issues relevant to the study of industrial and organizational behavior. Chapters contributed by leading experts from the academic and business communities cover substantive issues at both the individual and organizational level, in both theoretical and practical terms.
7,809 citations
TL;DR: The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) as discussed by the authors was developed to diagnose existing jobs to determine if (and how) they might be redesigned to improve employee motivation and productivity, and to evaluate the effects of job changes on employees.
Abstract: The properties and uses of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) are described The JDS is intended (a) to diagnose existing jobs to determine if (and how) they might be redesigned to improve employee motivation and productivity, and (b) to evaluate the effects of job changes on employees The instrument is based on a specific theory of how job design affects work motivation, and provides measures of (a) objective job dimensions, (b) individual psychological states resulting from these dimensions, (c) affective reactions of employees to the job and work setting, and (d) individual growth need strength (interpreted as the readiness of individuals to respond to "enriched" jobs) Reliability and validity data are summarized for 6S& employees on 62 different jobs in 7 organizations who have responded to a revised version of the instrument
6,555 citations
"Development of four self-report mea..." refers methods in this paper
...We omitted, for example, the Hackman and Oldham (1975) core job characteristics, except for autonomy, because they were not relevant to job stress....
[...]
...Job stressors included autonomy, assessed with the Hackman and Oldham (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey with the Idaszak and Drasgow modification (1987), role ambiguity (Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), and role conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970)....
[...]