Revisions and further developments of the Occupational...

Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology (2000), 73, 221-240© 2000 The British Psychological Society

Printed in Great Britain 2 2 1

Revisions and further developments of theOccupational Stress Indicator: LISREL

results from four Dutch studies

Ame Evers* and Michael FreseWork <& Organisational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Cary L. Cooper

University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK

The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) is a popular instrument for the diagnosisof stress and stress-related personality and outcome variables. However, oneweakness of the OSI was the low reliability of some of its scales. This paperdescribes in a series of four studies improvements of the reliabilities of most ofthe scales of the Dutch version of the OSI. All new scales were tested forunidimensionality. Compared to the original OSI, the personality scales (type A,locus of control, and coping styles) have been changed completely and nearly alloriginal items were replaced. The other scales are revisions of the original OSI,with some items being deleted, rewritten, or added. A new scale for satisfactionwith pay was included. All but two of the revised scales now show sufficientreliabilities and unidimensionality. This revision led us to suggest two versions ofthe OSI: an elaborate version with 28 scales and 188 items, and an abridgedversion with 15 scales and 94 items.

The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) by Cooper, Sloan, and Williams (1988) isa frequently used set of scales to understand stress at work. For example between1990 and 1997 at least 38 articles using the OSI have been published (PsycLITDatabase) and many translations of the indicator exist. It is used as a tool to informorganizadonal decisions regarding the management of stress or to suggest changesat work, and as an evaluation instrument for stress management programmes or inscientific research. Thus, it is an important inventory and therefore we need toknow its psychometric properties. The objective of this article is to describe fourstudies with the Dutch version of the indicator (Spanningsmeter) which attempt tooptimize the unidimensionality and reliability of the component scales. This led toa substantial revision of the scales. Given this work, it may pay off to start using therevised scales which are (back)transiated into English.

*Rcqucsts for reprints should be addressed lo Dr Arnc Evers, Work & Organizadonal Psychology, University ofAmstetdam, Roctcrsstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsteidam, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]).

222 A. Evers et al

The Occupational Stress Inventory

The OSI is founded on the notion that stressors do not influence everyone in thesame way. Stress is seen as the 'lack of fit' between the individual and his/herenvironment (BagUoni, Cooper, & Hingley, 1990). Therefore, the importance ofsubjective perceptions and interpretations of the environment, the process ofcognitive appraisal and the effect of personality characteristics and demographicfactors is emphasized. The model states that work pressures lead to negativeoutcomes (lowered job satisfaction and mental and physical health) and that thisrelationship may be moderated by individual difference variables. The individualdifference variables may be linked to occupational stress as direct predictors ofstress-related outcomes as well (Cooper & Baglioni, 1988).

The OSI consists of 25 subscales with a total of 167 items. The scales look atsources of pressure (61 items, six subscales: Intrinsic to the job. Organizationalrole. Relationships with others. Career and achievement. Organizational structureand climate. Home/work interface), type A behaviour (14 items, three subscales:Attitude to living, Style of behaviour. Ambition), locus of control (12 items, threesubscales: Organizational forces. Management process. Individual influence), cop-ing styles (28 items, six subscales: Social support. Task strategies. Logic, Home/work relations. Time management. Involvement), job satisfaction (22 items, fivesubscales: Achievement, value and growth. Job itself. Organizational design andstructure. Organizational processes. Personal relationships) and health (30 items,two subscales: Mental ill-health, Physical ill-health). The names of the subscalesgive an indication of the content of the scales. A more comprehensive descriptioncan be found in the OSI Management Guide (Cooper et a/., 1988). The originalDutch version (Broers, Evers, & Cooper, 1995) was a literal translation of the OSI.

One problem of the OSI was that the reliabilities of many scales have been onthe low side (in some cases as low as .10—.20) and some were clearly suboptimalfrom a psychometric point of view (Broers et al, 1995; Davis, 1996; Ingledew,Hardy, & Cooper, 1992; Robertson, Cooper, & Williams, 1990). Therefore moststudies only used composite scores (for instance the total score for coping styles orlocus of control) to circumvent the low reliabilities of the subscales. However, thisreduces the richness of knowledge potentially gained from the subscales. Thus arevision to improve the reliabilities of the subscales is called for. Additionally, wewanted to check the unidimensionality for all scales with a confirmatory factoranalysis which to our knowledge has not yet been done. Finally, we will examine theindependence of the new subscales.

I

Scale revisions

The reliability problem was particularly pronounced in the original type A, locus ofcontrol and coping styles scales which included many items with very low item-totalcorrelations. For this purpose we constructed new scales for these three sections ofthe inventory.

Theoretically, type A falls into three factors: impatience, achievement orientation,and hostility (Friedman & Powell, 1984). In contrast to Jenkins Activity Scale QAS;

Revisions and further developments of the OSI 223

Jenkins, Zyzanski, & Rosenman, 1979), the best-known questionnaire for measur-ing type A behaviour, we developed items for these three factors that were onlywork related. The three global theoretical factors were subdivided into componentsto get a good spread of the items and to investigate the possibility of developingsubscales. The components were: impatience, irritation and time pressure for theimpatience factor; work orientation, goal orientation and drive for the achievementorientation factor; anger, expressive hostility and competitiveness for the hostilityfactor. For each of the nine components six items were written, leading to a totalof 54 items. There was an overlap of two items with the original OSI scales, andnone with the JAS.

Locus of control implies three concepts which are customarily differentiated(Levenson, 1981): helplessness with regard to powerful others, luck and internality.For a clearer understanding of the locus of control construct and to get a better fitwith concepts within social-learning theory Palenzuela (1988) redefined theseconcepts as non-contingency, chance and contingency. According to Palenzuela'sconceptualization six items for each of the three scales were constructed. However,in contrast to the content of the items of the Palenzuela questionnaire (MASLOC),which was academic-life oriented, the new OSI items were work-life oriented.There was an overlap of two items with the original OSI scales, and none with theMASLOC questionnaire.

Consultation of the literature on coping and coping questionnaires such as Lazarusand Folkman's (1984) Ways of Coping, Billings and Moos (1984), Cohen, Reese,Kaplan, and Riggio (1986) and a Dutch coping list (Schreurs, van de Willige,Brosschot, Tellegen, & Graus, 1993), led to the definition of eight aspects of copingthat were considered to be most relevant in the field of work: direct action, seekingsocial support (emotional as well as instrumental support), acceptance, denial,planning, positive reinterpretation, and compensatory behaviour. In all, 80 itemswere constructed (10 for each scale). None of the original OSI items were retained,mainly because they did not match with the eight constructs. There was no overlapin items with any of the other questionnaires. Again, tbe items are work-lifeoriented whereas the other questionnaires are more general-life oriented.

For the sources of pressure scales item analysis on the original OSI items in theirDutch translation had revealed some weaknesses. Some items were too abstract,others were placed in the wrong scale, some were not appropriate for most jobs andstill others had too low item-total correlations. Some new items were constructed,however the structure of the original OSI with six scales was maintained.

The original OSI items for job satisfaction and health were used and complementedwith a few new items. One new scale on satisfaction with pay was developed,because this aspect was thought to be an important issue of job satisfaction(Thierry, 1997). These items were based on the five subdimensions of satisfactionwith pay by Heneman and Schwab (1985). Some of the items in the health scaleswere rephrased. No new items were constructed.

The objective was to construct scales that each consisted of four to eight items.Scales of that length are generally considered to be a good compromise between thepractical demands for short scales and the theoretical demands for adequatereHability and content validity. An exception with respect to scale length was made

224 A. Evers et al.

for the two health scales, because they contain more items in the original OSI (18and 12 respectively), as well.

Method

Overview

Four studies were done that build upon each other to improve the scales of the OSI. Study 1 dealtwith type A behaviour and locus of control scales. Study 2 with coping styles, Study 3 with sourcesof pressure and Study 4 with satisfaction and health scales. Because in some of these studies the newscales were constructed, they are referred to as calibration studies. In addition. Study 4 was used as areplication study of the scales constructed in Studies 1 to 3. However, because Studies 3 and 4 weredone concurrendy, the scales on job satisfaction and health developed in Study 4 were replicated inStudy 3. I 1 '

Participants

Participants in Study 1 were professional soldiers from the Dutch army. The questionnaire was sentto 20 randomly selected soldiers from each of 40 barracks spread over Holland. A return envelope wasenclosed. In all, 310 usable questionnaires were received, which means a response rate of 39%. Themean age of the group was 39 years, the group consisted of two women and 308 men and the ranksranged from corporal to major. Soldiers with a relatively low rank made up the majority of the group.

Pardcipants in Study 2 were Dutch street car drivers. The questionnaires were distributed by themanagers. To secure anonymity the questionnaires had to be sent back in a return envelope addressedto the researchers. From the 765 distributed questionnaires 184 were returned, which translates intoa response rate of 24%. The mean age of the respondents was 40 years and 87% of them were males.These figures closely resemble those of tbe population of street car drivers (mean age 39 years, 83V(imales).

Participants in Study 3 were police officers in two districts in a big Dutch city. The method ofadministration was the same as in Study 2: distribution by managers, returning the questionnaires bymail to the researchers. Out of 509 questionnaires 126 were returned (25%). Tbe mean age of therespondents was 35 years and 83% were males. No differences were found in age and gender betweenrespondents and non-respondents.

Participants in Study 4 were nurses from a hospital in the south of The Netherlands. The methodof administration was the same as in Study 1. Out of 553 questionnaires 400 were returned (72%). Themean age of the respondents was 34 years, 80% of them were females. Tbese figures corresponded tothose from tbe entire population of 553 nurses in this hospital.

Analyses •

Especially for the new scales of type A, locus of control and coping, more items were included thanused in the final scales, because we expected that not all new items would fit well. In each calibrationstudy the item selection started with computing the corrected item-total correlations and deleting theitems with the lowest values. The minimal acceptable level of alpha was set to be .60.

Since a high alpha is no guarantee for unidimensionality (Drenth 5c Sijtsma, 1990), LISREL analyseswere used to check for unidimensionality. When the fit indices were too low, those items that wereresponsible for the mulddimensionality were removed from the scale—using the modification indicesfor this optimization. MacCallum, Roznowski, and Necowitz (1992) argue against the use ofmodification indices to improve model fit because of capitalization on chance effects (in particular

'For tests that are primarily meant to study groups, the Dutch Comniittee on testing qualifies a reliabilitycoefficient between .60 and ,70 is 'sufficient' and a coefficient of .70 or higher as 'good' (Evers, Van Vllet-MuJder,& Groot, 2000).


with relatively small sample sizes of 100 to 400 participants). Our study was arranged in such a waythat the susceptibility for this effect was minimized following the su^estions by MacCallum et al.(1992). The first precaution has to do with the number of modifications. Only few modifications weredone as a consequence of the LISREL analyses, whereby we carefully checked the interpretability ofthe modification indexes. As we were looking for unwanted high correlations between pairs of itemsthat were too similar in content or formulation, that is items that cause an 'unfair' increase in alpha,we checked the content of the items before deleting them. The second precaution was to replicate theLISREL analyses in the replication samples. In each case, the scales were optimized in one study andthen the optimized version was cross-checked in another study. Of course, there was no more attemptto optimize fit parameters in the second study. In each case we used the fit indices of y^ (divided bydegrees of freedom), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean-square Residual (RMR), whicharc important for scale development (Bentler, 1990; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). A low %^ (whenjudged against degrees of freedom) is suggestive of good fit. A CFI of above .90 is indicative of goodfit and of above .95 of excellent fit. The RMR should be about .05 or smaller for a good fit.

Results

Two types of results are presented here. First, the results on the scale developmentand on their Cronbach's a and unidimensionality in the confirmatory factoranalyses are given. Secondly, we present the intercorrelations for each area of therevised OSI.

After optimizing reliability and unidimensionality Study 1 resulted in three typeA scales with eight items each. The scales were labelled Irritation, Achievementorientation and Hostility. Within these three domains no subscales were con-structed, because within a domain most of the items were highly intercorrelated.Locus of control was finally made up of three scales with five items each. In Study2 the eight intended coping scales could be constructed. Each scale had six items.In Study 3 the number of items of the sources of pressure scales were reduced from12-14 items to eight items for each of the scales. Of the remaining 48 items 16were new. All of the above-mentioned scales were replicated in Study 4.

The revision of the satisfaction and health scales in Study 4 resulted in sixsatisfaction scales consisting of four to six items and in a reduction of the numberof items of the two health scales to 13 items each. Of the total 27 satisfaction itemsnine items were new (five items for the new satisfaction with pay scale included).These scales were replicated in Study 3.

Table 1 presents alphas and the three fit indices xV^-f-, CFI and RMR whichresulted from the LISREL analyses. Residuals were not allowed to correlate in theLISREL analyses. We used the item-total correlations and the modification indicesto select the best items in each calibration study. In many cases, these two criteriawere not necessarily congruent. As a matter of fact, LISREL analyses oftensuggested deleting items that ultimately led to a decrease in the alpha. This wasdone because we wanted a joint optimization of internal consistency andunidimensionality as tested by confirmatory factor analyses. For this reason,some of the alphas are still not quite satisfactory, especially the coping scalesCompensating behaviour and Acceptance.

On the other hand, the results were encouraging because in all other cases, thescales not only maintain an adequate alpha, but also show good fit indices in thereplication study. Thus, the three scales of type A behaviour kept their level of

226 A. Evers ct al.

1ao

•n

ro

ooo ooo oooooooo oooooo

i n " ^ ^ " ^ C M ^ T — i c o i n o o i — ' T — ' r or̂ ^ so r^ so t̂ -* r^ NO r^ r^ iri in so t^

O r— CN to o r-00 oo CO CO oo 00

"^ ^ r-l iri COo ooo s ND

oin rjo o

NO NO

o o s NO

o

oo r- esoo O\ Ov

ao•a

u

O Ooo t

O to r- fo00 00 oo 00

CO oo oc 00 00


Si

H

5

O ro o

vO »- ' CO

oooSO I^

o o

m CO ••-• 00 ms o r ^ NO NO 00

rO rO <M ro (N (MOOOOOO

CO ON oo oo Ov OvOv Os ON ON OV O S

NO

o

Os

oCMCM

o00

*JMtoCN

CO

ooo

CM

NONONO

SO

#rg

oCN00

ND

*CN

OCNvd

o00

*in

CN

00

r--00

inVOtoo

154,

0000

inVOooCN

190.

o00

228 A. Evers et al.

Table 2. Intercorrelations between type A and locus of control scales (below diagonal:calibration Study 1, above diagonal: replication Study 4)

1. Achievement orientation2. Irritadon3. Competiaveness4. Helplessness5. Chance6. Internal] ty

1

.08

.31-.15-.11-.08

2

-.01—

.40

.27

.15-.12

3

.36

.39—

.09

.05-.09

4

-.27.29.14

—.51

-.44

5

-.17.26.16.53

—- .63

6

.37-.16

.03- .32-.40—

internal consistency and the fit indices. The sani,e was also true of the three locusof control scales. Six of the eight coping style scales showed adequate or goodreliabilities in the first round and also in their replication in Study 4. Sources ofpressure showed good alphas and fit indices in both studies. Thus, there was littlereason to change these scales from the perspective of unidimensionality. Jobsatisfaction and state of health also showed adequate and good reliabilities (note:Study 3 is here used to replicate Study 4). However, in the replication study, therewere three scales that showed a low fit index Qob itself. Organizational processesand Physical health). This suggests the need to develop better measures in this areain the future.

Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 give the intercorrelations within each area for both thecalibration and the replication studies. Table 2 shows the intercorrelations of thetype A and locus of control scales. The intercorrelations in the two studies werequite similar, showing medium-sized correlations between the type A scales andbetween the locus of control scales. Most clearly differentiated was Irritation fromthe other two type A scales. The intercorrelations of the locus of control scaleswere a bit higher in Study 1. But the three scales were reasonably distinct.

Table 3 shows the intercorrelations of the coping styles. Again, the correlationswere very similar in the two studies. A few correlations were very high, suggestingthat one can combine scales.

Table 4 shows the intercorrelations between the different sources of pressure.These intercorrelations were very high and again quite regular across the twostudies. As a matter of fact, all scales together produced an alpha of .95 with thescales as items. This suggests that one can make one scale out of the differentsources, which has been done by some of the originators of the OSI (Kirkcaldy &cCooper, 1992; Robertson, Cooper, & Williams, 1990). If one is interested to reducethe length of the inventory, there is room for reduction in this area.

Table 5 shows the intercorrelations of satisfaction and health. It shows that itwas useful to develop a scale on pay because it was not highly correlated with theother scales at least in one study (thus, it captures non-redundant information).Study 3 shows somewhat higher intercorrelations between the scales than Study 4.However, in general the intercorrelations were rather high (again, with the


Table 3, Intercorrelations between coping styles scales (below diagonal: calibrationStudy 2, above diagonal: replication Study 4)

1. Active2. Planning3. Social support (instrumental)4. Social support (emotional)5. Compensating behaviour6. Acceptance7. Denial8. Positive reinterpretation

1

.52

.56

.51- .07

.09- . 31

.50

2

.45—

.42

.31- . 12

.13- . 07

.50

3

.51

.50—

.72

.18- . 02- . 3 4

.30

4

.54

.39

.62—

.27- .06- .34

.18

5

- .01.07.01.16

—- .26

.12- . 17

6

.20

.30

.35

.28

.13—.12.23

7

- . 3 3.11

- . 02- .16

.35

.25—

- . 0 3

8

.51

.40

.41

.26

.02

.34- .03—

Table 4. Intercorrelations between sources of pressure scales (below diagonal:calibration Study 3, above diagonal: replication Study 4)

1. Intrinsic to the job2. Organizational role3. Relationships with others4. Organizational structure and climate5. Home/work interface6. Career and achievement

1

.82

.68

.62

.69

.68

2

.83—.73.70.69,68

3

.72

.76—.67.73.75

4

.69

.76

.79—.50.70

5

.76

.76

.75

.64—.68

6

.75

.76

.80

.74

.74—

exception of satisfaction with pay), which may speak for a further reduction ofthese scales or of the items of these scales.

The health scales show a characteristic pattern of being related on a medium tohigh level which has been shown in other studies as well (Mohr, 1986).

The results above showed that in a few domains, such as coping, sources ofpressure, satisfaction and health, the intercorrelations of the scales were ratherhigh. For these domains we tried to reduce the number of scales and items toget a more parsimonious instrument. First, an exploratory factor analysis wasperformed using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation on all items for eachdomain. Items with high factor loadings were retained. Just as done originally, wethen selected items by using item-total correlations. We used LISREL to check andimprove the unidimensionality and cross-validated the results on the replicationsample. The results are summarized in Table 6.

In the coping domain the number of items was reduced by dropping theAcceptance items, due to the low reliabilities of the scale in both studies. Thefour factor solution appeared to be the most adequate for interpretation. Thissolution revealed a Social support factor (including both the Emotional and the

.42

.46

.59

.45

.38

.59

.49

.49

.31

.13

.58

.34—

.66

.45

.17

.75

.54

.64—

.55

.10

.38

.31

.49

.51—

,04

.61

.50

.44

.56

.21

-.13-.20

.07-,23-.21

.00

-.12-.18-.01- . 1 6- . 1 2- . 0 6

230 A. Evers et al.

Table 5. Intercorrelations between sadsfaction and health scales (below diagonal:calibration Study 4, above diagonal: replication Study 3)

1. Achievement, value and growth2. The job itself3. Organizational design and structure4. Oi^nizational processes5. Personal relationships6. Pay1. Mental ill-health ' , - .24 -.32 -.18 -.28 -.25 -.03 —• ,578. Physical ill-health - .14 -.24 -.14 -.20 - .12 -.17 .57 —

Instrumental Social Support items), a Denial factor, a Compensating behaviourfactor, and a fourth factor with loadings on most of the Active, Planning andPositive reinterpretation items (although some of them showed double loadingson the Denial—negative—or Social support factors). The four factors accountedfor 40% of the variance. The new scales—Social support and Active positiveattitude—showed good alphas and fit indices. The scales for Denial andCompensating behaviour were left unchanged. The intercorrelations within the newset of coping scales were much lower than those among the former eight scales.

In the domain sources of pressure nearly all items showed high loadings on thefirst unrotated factor that accounted for 40% of the variance (this dropped to 5%for the second factor). Therefore, one new sources of pressure scale wasconstructed. For each of the six original sources of pressure scales the one item thatshowed the highest factor loading was selected for this scale. The new scale showedgood reliability and fit.

Factor analysis of the satisfaction items resulted in a good interpretabletwo-factor solution (the two factors explaining respectively 28 and 13% of thevariance). All of the Pay items showed high loadings on the second factor, all otheritems except one loaded high on the first factor. From each of the five originalsatisfaction scales (except Pay) the one item with the highest loading was selectedto construct a scale for General job satisfaction. This new scale showed goodreliability and fit. The Pay scale was left unchanged.

A factor analysis of the health items showed clearly distinct loadings for theMentai and Physical items on the first two factors (accounting for respectively 28and 8% of the variance). Consequently, no attempt was made to construct one scaledespite the rather high correlation between the two scales. Both scales could bereduced to seven items by omitting the five items with the lowest item-totalcorrelations and one item with the highest modification indices. Although thisinevitably resulted in the loss of some important symptoms (e.g. *low irritationthreshold', "worrying about mistakes in the past', 'muscles trembling', 'tendency tosweat"), the new scales still have an adequate distribution of symptoms (see theAppendix for the text of items of this shortened version). The correlations between


o o o o o o o o o o

uO O 00C C C

c0

•cC4

Co

•a«

a.

* * *ooo * *CN (N CN i n in in

o

00Nn

CN

8

in

ininCM

inCN1—•

OI—'

CO

NO

»—' O '-^'m CN f o

CM r~ r- 00 -F-[^ r^ so in ^

00qCsjCO

• * - ^ ^ r j i n m CNOONoinc 5 c 5 c 5 o o o o o o o

CM00

CO CM

o o

inCD

i/i r̂CM 1 -

CM

o

c/:0u

u

.s

c/5

C

C

2

•-Nl^^ ^^

fMCN CN

CNCTv CN X in

H CN oc:CN<NCN CTv

00 rO sor^ t*̂ so

oo soCN CS

SOCS)in

so

Cv

r-00CM

r-CNCN

in

0g

0u

cuC

o u

110 -a .

S-jj a, o

U dogU

I•a

c o 2. ^5=3

O

"̂ !75o c O

•B

V <

312229

.44—

-.21-.10

.15

.04—.12

- .04-.03

.35

232 A. Evers et al.

Table 7. Intercorrelations between coping styles scales, abridged version (belowdiagonal: calibration Study 2, above diagonal: replication Study 4)

1. Social support2. Active positive attitude3. Compensating behaviour4. Denial

the satisfaction and health scales are shown in Table 7. The correlation betweensatisfaction with pay and general job satisfaction was low in Study 4 and somewhathigher in Study 3.

Tables 8 and 9 show the intercorrelations of all the scales in Study 4 for theelaborate and the abridged versions of the Dutch OSI. It shows the familiarpattern. In general the correlations among scales within the areas of the OSI werehigher than those between scales from different areas; this is true especially for theelaborate version.

Correlations between sources of pressure scales and personality and coping stylesscales were low, though there were medium-sized correladons between the sourcesof pressure scales and the scales for external locus of control (note: a correlationcoefficient of .15 is statistically significant at the \%, level). Moreover respondentswith higher external control reported higher dissatisfaction and higher ili-health.These findings parallel the findings reported by Rees and Cooper (1992b) for theoriginal OSI. Respondents with high scores on dysfunctional coping styles(compensating behaviour and denial) reported more health problems as well.Concerning the relations between sources of pressure and outcome variables therewere medium-sized negative correiations between sources of pressure and satisfac-tion scales (except for personal relationships and pay) and positive correlationsbetween sources of pressure scales and ill-health scales. This means that a high levelof pressure went along with a low level of satisaction and bad health scores.

I

DiscussionWe attempted to improve the scales of the OSI with respect to reliability andunidimensionality in a two-step process. In the first step we kept the originalstructure of the OSI, For each of the domains we constructed specific subscales forconcepts that are well known in the literature on stress research. For most of thescales our efforts were successful. However, there remained some problems withsome of the scales. In the replication study, two coping scales showed lowreliabilities (though higher than for the coping styles scales in the original OSI)despite good fit indices, and for two satisfaction scales and one health scale the fitindices were not good enough despite satisfactory reliabilities. In particular, thesharp decline in the fit indices in the replication study (Study 3) for the three


S ? - •

Ss

m M —

EC O M!l r^ Q ^ ,_•-; ^ cs (N) ^ q f^

t' r I

u

u

on

O

o•a

Ou

00u

Si

H

a?1

S i!i S

sq s a

- -1 1

2 81 1

04

-

1

1

s

1

Pi1

01

—1

o1

1507

1

ft)

01

< ^ < ^

•o m*— o

234 A. Evers et al.

00in

^— ooo —

o oI I

CM

m

OO O

I I

3

-a

o

U

-a

S SH

inCM

O

00tN

1

O —

1 1O N •^

'- O

CN T-"

1

•-j •—•

1 1

CM '-(N CM

pin

00

<^

tn

(N1—<

(N

r-1

o

o1

inCM

OCN

1

O

O

oCN

o

m

NOT —

001—'

CN

1

r-o1

-̂

o1

1—•

1

o

CM

CN

*oCM

oCN

in

I I

.08

CNO

.14

CM

i

r-

oCM1

.17

in

.08

CN

OI

.17

.07

o1

.06

s1

or-a

o

in

•4-

1

.01

g1

— oT-« y—

(A

Co•a«

I13nH

Icu

•co

o o3 JJ2 £

<CM

-III•o

S i>

i n NO t~- "3 00ou

73


outcome scales was somewhat surprising, because the fit indices for the other scalesin all the replication studies were remarkably stable. Maybe the participants in thisstudy (police officers who were rather dissatisfied with some aspects of their work)were responsible for this effect.

Another finding was the high correlations among some scales within some areasof the OSI. Therefore, a second round of psychometric analyses was carried out toreduce the number of items and to construct composite scales. This effort resultedin a reduction of the number of scales from 28 to 15 and of the number of itemsfrom 188 to 94.

The number of coping styles scales was reduced from eight to four. Three of theconstructed coping scales correspond to the three coping meta-strategies that weredistinguished by Ben-Zur (1999): problem/accommodation (active, planning,reinterpretation), support/emotion (instrumental and emotional support) andavoidance/disengagement (denial). The fourth scale for compensating behaviour isclearly a separate factor, although it showed the weakest reliability and fit indices.However, one might argue that internal consistency is irrelevant for this scale,because the items are causal indicators and that there is no underlying commonconstruct (for the difference between causal and effect indicators, see e.g. Spector& Jex, 1998). The sum of the scores on items like 'watching TV', 'going out','drinking alcohol' and 'getting nasty' will definitely give an impression of someone'sbehaviour, but the scores on these items need not necessarily correlate (see theAppendix for the full text of the items).

Given the high correlations among the sources of pressure scales we were notsurprised that the factor analysis revealed only one strong factor in this area.Apparently pressure can be measured by means of only six items, but this reductionmay make the OSI in total less of an indicator of stressful working conditions andmore of an indicator of personality characteristics and personal well-being. As aconsequence the abridged version of the OSI may be more valuable in stressmanagement programmes directed at individual rather than organizational change.The abridged version of the revised OSI may also be used as a quick screeninginstrument in practice. In the Appendix the English translations of all the items ofthe abridged version, as well as an abbreviated form of the instructions, are given.Practitioners or researchers who are interested in differential information can usethe elaborate version although they have to take into account a few weaker scales.^

Finally, we would like to point to some methodological issues. We did notaddress issues in stress research that are potential threats for research results. Theseare well-known in the literature (see e.g. Frese & Zapf, 1988; Spector, 1992):common method variance, unwanted influence of 'third' variables such as negativeaffectivity, uncertainty about the causality of the relations found in a cross-sectionaldesign, etc. Further research on these issues is still needed for the revised OSI, butthey were beyond the scope of the present study. One might argue that theresponse rates in some of our samples were rather low. This may have influencedthe results in an unknown way. However, we think that the effect, if any, is minimal

^Because of copyright regulations (copyright held by Swcts &. Zeitiingcr and NFER-Nelson) the text of theelaborate edibon cannot be published in this paper, but can be obtained from the iirst authoi.

236 A. Evers et al.

because of the great similarity of the results of the calibration and the replicationstudies.

In all, we think the revised OSI provides a valuable tool for the diagnosis ofstress in organizations. The comprehensiveness of the instrument allows for theassessment of many different aspects of the stress process. Parts of the OSI may beuseful in other than stress research as well. However, we realize that furtherresearch on the construct validity and criterion validity is needed.

Acknowledgementa

The authors want to thank students Eiso Bos and Erwin Tabak (Study 1), Thomas dc Vries (Study 2),Casper Bcntinck (Study 3) and Maud van Aalderen and Jacqueline van Heeswijk (Study 4). Theirenthusiasm and creativity was essential for the making of this revised OSI.

References

Baglionj, A. J. Jr., Cooper, C. L., St Hingley, P. (1990). Job stress, mental health and job sadsfactionamong UK senior nurses. Stress Medicine, 6, 9—20.

Bender, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycholoffcal Buiielin, 107, 238—246.Ben-Zur, H. (1999). The effecdveness of coping meta-strategies: Perceived efficiency, emodonal

correlates and cognidve performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 923—939.Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981), The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuadng

the stress of life events. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 26—38.Broers, P., Evers, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1995). Differences in occupadonal stress in three European

countries. International Journal of Stress Management, 2, 171-180,Cohen, F., Reese, L. B., Kaplan, G. A., &c Riggio, R. E. (1986). Coping with the stresses of arthritis.

In R. W. Moskowitz & M. R. Haug (Eds.), Arthritis and tbe elderfy (pp. 47-56). New York: Springer.Cooper, C. L., & Baglioni, A. J. Jr. (1988). A structural model approach toward the development of

a theory of the link between stress and mental health. British Journal of Medical Psycholog}^, 61, 87-102.Cooper, C. L,, Sloan, S. J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational Stress Indicator management guide. Windson

NFER-Nelson.Davis, A. J. (1996). A re-analysis of the Occupadonal Stress Indicator. V^ork and Stress, 10, 174-182.Drenth, P. J. D., &c Sijtsma, K, (1990). Testtheorie. Houten/Antwerpen: Bohn Staflen Van Loghum.Evers, A., Van Vliet-MtUder, J. C, & Groot, C. J. (2000). Documentatie van Tests en Testresearch in

Nederland. Amsterdam/Assen: NIP/Van Gorcum.Frese, M,, & Zapf, D, (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objecdve versus

subjecdve measurement of work stress and the quesdon of longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper &R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375—411). Chichester: Wiley,

Friedman, M., & Powell, L. (1984). The diagnosis and qualitadve assessment of type A behaviorIntroducdon and descripdon of the videotaped structured interview. Integrative Psychiatry, 2,123-136.

Hcneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfacdon: Its mulddimensional nature andmeasurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 129-141.

Ingledew, D. K,, Hardy, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). On the reliability and validity of the locus ofcontrol scale of the Occupadonal Stress Indicator. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,1183-1191.

Jenkins, C. D,, Zyzanski, S,, & Roscnman, R. H. (1979), Tbe Jenkins Actipity Survry manual. New York:The Psychological Corporadon,

Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Managing the stress of change: Occupational stress amongsenior police officers in Berlin. Stress Medicine, 8, 219-231.

La2arus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.


Levensoo, H . (1981). Diffcrentiatiog among intemality, powerful others and chance. In H. M.Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the iocus cf control construct: Vol. 1. Assessment methods (pp. 15-63). NewYork: Academic Press.

MacCallum, R. C , Roztiowski, M., & Necowitz, L- B. (1992). Model modifications in covariancestructure analysis: The problem of capitaJi2ation on chance. Psycholoffcat Bulletin, 111, 490-504.

Mohr , G. (1986). Die Erfassung psychischer Befindensbeeintrachtigungen bei Industriearbeiten. Fratikfurt amMain: Peter Lang.

Palenzuela, D . L. (1988). Refining the theory and measurement of expectancy of internal vs externalcontrol of reinforcement. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 607-629.

Rees, D. , & Cooper, C. L. (1992d). Occupational stress in health service workers in the UK. StressMedicine, 8, 79-90.

Rees, D. W., & Cooper, C. L. (1992i). The Occupational Stress Indicator locus of control scale:Should this be regarded as a state rather than trait measure? Work and Stress, 6, 45 -48 .

Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., & Williams, j . (1990). The validity of the Occupational StressIndicator. Work and Stress, 4, 29-39.

Schreurs, P. J. G., Willige, G. van de, Brosschot, J. F., Tellegen, B., Sc Graus, G. M. H. (1993). DeUtrechtse Coping Lijst. Omgaan metproblemen en gebeurtenissen. Her^ene handteidung (The Utrecht CopingInventory. Dealing with problems and events. Revised manual). LJsse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). -^ beginners guide to structural equation modelling. Mahwah, NJ:Eribaum.

Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of jobconditions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organisationalpsychology (Vol. 7, pp . 123-151). Chichester: WUey.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors andstrain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workloadinventory, and physical symptoms mvzntory. foumal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Thierry, Hk. (1997). Motivation and satisfaction. In P. J, D. Drenth , Hk. Thierry, & Ch.J. De Wolff(Eds.), Handbook of work and organisational psychology: Vol. 4. Organisational psychology (2nd cd,pp . 89-119). Hove: Psychology Press.

Receieed 8 April 1998; revistd version received 25 May 1999

AppendixItems of the short version of the Dutch OSI (Spanningsmetet)

Type A behaviour

(You are required to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with statements about yourselfand your behaviour.)

Achievement orientationI work quicker than other peopleI demand a lot of the quality of my workI take my job seriouslyI like a challenging jobI feel responsible for my workI keep trying to improve my workI want to perform well in my workI am a conscientious worker

<>Irritation

I can not stand it when people do not immediately understand what I am explainingWhen someone annoys me I will speak curtly to that personPeople sometimes say that I easily get a temper

A. Evers et al.

• I am very impatient when people arc late foe an appointment• When I get angry at someone, I do not want to work with him or Tier anymore• I cannot work with people who have difficulty making decisions• When my collegues worked as hard as I do, we would be able to do a lot more• When someone makes an error, I will be very explicit about it to him/her

Competitiveness• I always compare my achievements at work with those of others• I strive to do my work better than others• I am an achievement-oriented person who has the need to win• When I do my very best I do not have to compete with colleagues• I am annoyed when a colleague of mine is promoted• It irritates me to see someone else being lazy, while I have to work hard• I do my best to please the management• I do not go home hefore I have finished what I have planned

ZJJCUS of control •,

(You are asked to indicate your agreement with the following statements.)

Helplessness• I have no say in the assignments I get at my work• I fed like I am only a number at my work• My work is just a cog in the machine over which I have little control• It is useless to try hard, since there is no relation between my efforts and the appreciation for it• The management does not appreciate good ideas and creativity, since they do the thinking and

make the decisions

Chance• Finding another job is like taking part in a lottery• Success in your work is mainly determined by favourable conditions• When there is a reorganization in your company, you are just lucky not being fired• The way my career will develop is something I have little influence on• Being promoted depends on whether there happens to be a vacancy

Internality ,• I am in control of my own career• When I am promoted 1 owe that to my own efforts• I owe a promotion to my own abilities• I am fully responsible for the errors I make at work• Enjoying your work depends on what you make out of it yourself

Coping styles

(Rate these potential coping strategies in terms of the eitent to which you actually use them as waysof coping with stress,)

Social support• I go to colleagues for advice when my superior and I disagree• I ask people who have had the same problem as I what they have done to solve it• I talk to colleagues who can actually help me out with a problem• When 1 have problems I discuss them with my partner or my friends• I talk about how I feel about my work• When there are problems I look for understanding and sympathy


Denial• When there are difficulties I pretend that everything is OK• When problems arise I avoid thinking about them• Whenever possible I try to stay away from problems• I avoid annoying confrontations with my supervisors and/or colleagues• In problematic situations I just wait and see what will happen• When there are problems I just pretend nothing has happened

Active positive attitude• I think I can learn from certain unpleasant expedences as well• In times of stress I try to think of the nice elements of my work• When there are problems I stay optimistic about the future• I try to see problems in a different perspective so as to make them look more positive• In problematic situations I try to convince the person who is in charge• In times of stress I can plan my work well• I arrange my work in such a way that 1 do not have to hurry

Compensating behaviour• I notice that I drink more alcohol when I have problems• When there are problems I tend to watch more TV• I go out more often when there are problems• Under pressure I lose myself in daydreaming or fantasies• When there are problems I tend to take more risks• Under pressure I get nasty

Sources of pressure

(Rate the items below in terms of the degree of pressure you perceive each may place on you.)• Insufficient control over your job• Ambiguity about your responsibilities• Feeling isolated• Covert discrimination and favouritism• Pursuing a career at the expense of home life• Being undervalued

Job satisfaction

(Indicate the extent to which you feel satisfied ot dissatisfied with your joh.)

General job satisfaction• The degree to which you can personally develop or grow in your job• Your working conditions• The way in which conflicts are resolved in your company• The psychological 'feel' or climate that dominates your organizadon• The style of supervision

Satisfaction with pay• The prospect of a raise• Your current salary• Changes in your salary in the course of time• Your benefit package (e.g, car of the company, bonuses, pension plan)• The company's pay policy

240 A. Epers et al.

Health

(Assess your current state of health. Consider the questions with reference to how you have felt overthe last three months,)

Mental ill-health• During an ordinary working day are there times when you feel unsettled though the reasons for this

might not always be clear?• Are there times at work when you feel so exasperated that you think to yourself that 'life is all really

too much effort'?• As you do your job have you noticed yourself questioning your own ability and judgment?• Do you usually feel relaxed and at ease or do you tend to fee! restless and tense?• If the jobs you are doing start to go wrong do you sometimes feel a lack of confidence and panicky?• Concerning work and life in genral, would you describe yourself as a 'worrier'?• Do you find yourself experiencing fairly long periods in which you feel melancholy for no apparent

reason?

Physical ill-health• Inability to get to sleep• Headaches• Feeling unaccountably tired• Decrease in sexual interest• Pricking sensations or twinges in parts of your body• Feeling as though you do not want to get up in the mormng• Feeling dizzy

Revisions and further developments of the Occupational...

Documents

Transcript of Revisions and further developments of the Occupational...