Valencia Eustress-Distress Appraisal Scale
1
A Hierarchy of Eustress and Distress: Rating Scaling of the Valencia Eustress Distress Appraisal Scale (VEDAS) Kozusznik, M. W. * , Lloret, S. * , Rodríguez, I. * , & Peiró, J. M. *◊ *University of Valencia, IDOCAL; ◊ IVIE. Email: [email protected] The situation of questionnaire-based measurement in the I/O psychology is comparable to the times when in physics it was only possible to tell whether something is hotter or colder, before the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales were introduced. We need more information from the questionnaires that we obtain right now. We need useful results, such as which situations are considered more o less stressful. With Rasch Analysis, we are able to create a graduation of stressors . The knowledge on which of the stressful situations are considered more or less stressful would allow WOP psychologists and HR specialists to to act in a more efficient way. The improvement of our measurement methods to produce rigorous measures is an opportunity for WOP-Ps to improve our image, quality of our research, gain credibility and to produce leading edge science. LIMITATIONS The relative thinness of the sample at the lowest levels of agreeability in the distress scale and at the highest levels of agreeability in the eustress scale producing larger standard errors and decreased stability of the item estimates at these extremes of the scales. Analysis of the functioning of VEDAS Distress response scale categories. Table 1. Summary of Changes in Person and Item Separation and Reliability as a Result of Collapsing Distress and Eustress Rating Scale Categories and Removing Misfitting Items Rating Scale Separation (G) Reliability Item In- fit mean square Item Out- fit mean square Number of misfitting items Average measures Step calibrations Person Item Person Item Distress Original six-point scale 2.56 6.86 .87 .98 1.00 1.06 2 (1, 2) ordered disordered Three-point scale (combining 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6; removing 2 misfitting items) 2.25 6.75 .84 .98 1.00 1.02 0 ordered ordered Eustress Original six-point scale 2.25 11.64 .83 .99 1.02 1.04 2 (1, 2) ordered disordered Three-point scale (combining 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5, and 6; removing 2 misfitting items*) 2.12 11.04 .82 .99 1.01 1.00 0 ordered ordered Note. *Removing the ítem 1 that did not fit in the distress scale and the ítem 2 that did not fit in both distress and eustress scales. Maintaining the similarity between the two scales is in line with the purpose for the construction of these scales. Table 3. Results of the DIF analysis for VEDAS distress and eustress scale Final Deviance (Estimated Parameters) group 1 Final Deviance (Estimated Parameters) group 2 Difference Final Deviance (Estimated Parameters) Difference Sig. Chi-square test of parameter equality (df) group 1 Sig. Chi-square test of parameter equality (df) group 2 Sig. 18001.98(39) 18003.15(38) 1.1679(1) p > .05 18.60 (17) .352 18.31 (17) .370 17752.93(39) 17753.77(38) .8425(1) p > .05 11.83(17) .810 12.85(17) .746 RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Q1: Do the VEDAS data fit the Rasch Rating Scale model? Q2: How is the response scale for the VEDAS working? Q3: Are the items’ estimations satisfatory? Q4: Do items’ calibration match with our expectations? Q5: Are there any gaps or redundant items? Q6: Is there invariance of the estimations Valencia Eustress-Distress Appraisal Scale (VEDAS) (Rodríguez et al., 2011): Rooted in transactional approach to stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and positive psychology approach (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). To the best of our knowledge, to date, the only measure that focuses on both eustress and distress appraisal in different occupations). 20 items. The participants rank the degree to which they consider a situation a source of threat and, simultaneously, a source of challenge/opportunity on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (clearly, it is not a source of [challenge-opportunity/threat]) to 6 (clearly, it is a source of [challenge-opportunity/threat]). Four factors: workload (e.g. item “Taking my work home”), personal accountability (e.g. item “Implications of mistakes you make”), relationships (e.g. item “Being undervalued”), and home-work balance (e.g. item “My partner’s negative attitude towards my job and career”). VEDAS: created with the use of advanced CTT methods : a robust tool to assess eustress and distress appraisal. Rasch Analysis (RA) (Rasch, 1960): - Allows for a much more rigorous assessment of individuals than the common CTT-based tests. - Widely used in medicine (health problems diagnostics) and education (high stakes language tests, e.g. IELTS). - The likelihood of a given respondent endorsing an item is a logistic function of the relative distance between the item location and the person location on a linear scale . - The response patterns achieved from a set of items are tested against what is expected by the model. Provided the model fits, the use of RA conveys various benefits to evaluate instruments and valuable additional item information: • RA discovers the hierarchy of the items (shows us which of the stressful situations are most and less likely to be appraised as eustress or/and distress): o Calibrates the items. The distances between the dimensions of the measure are given on an interval scale (the use of parametric tests always require interval data). o Gives independent error estimates for each item o It shows us gaps in the items’ continuum & redundant items. • Transforms raw scores into their corresponding interval scores, necessary for some analyses like t-test. o Offers a possibility of contrasting empirically if the response category set is working appropriately for the test, instead of assuming the adequate number of response options relying solely on theoretical reasoning. • Allows us to check whether the same estimations would be obtained from other samples or to empirically contrast if there is Differential Item Functioning (DIF). There is sufficient evidence that RA can be used as a tool to improve tests constructed under CTT theory. Then analyzing the VEDAS using RA would add valuable extra information about the content of the scale. Analysis of the model’s fit. Hierarchy of the VEDAS items Analysis of invariance Raw to interval score transformation INTRODUCTION PARTICIPANTS: 603 employees (109 male, 484 female; 10 failed to specify sex) of Public Social Services in the Valencian Community. All were Spanish. Age: 20-70 years (M = 37.52, SD= 8.62). 82% women reflects the real sex distribution in this sector (INE,2010). Response rate: 75%. ANALYSES: Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM; Andrich, 1978) Rasch analysis for Likert-type scales is offered by the programs WINSTEPS (Linacre, 2008) and Conquest (Wu, Adams, Wilson, & Haldane, 2007). Separation and reliability: 2.0 the minimum acceptable value (Wright & Masters, 1982); Item and person fit analyses: statistics between 0.5 and 1.50 (Linacre & Wright, 1999); A standard error of 0.32 corresponds approx. to a traditional reliability coefficient of 0.90 (Linacre & Wright, 1999); Response scale options analyses: Thresholds should increase in a monotonous way, the distance should be of 1.4–5 logits (Linacre, 1999). Categories should not overlap too much; Construct analysis. A qualitative analysis of the items’ difficulty hierarchy to check whether the grading of items made theoretical sense; Raw data to interval scale transformation. Equality of intervals is achieved through log transformations of raw data odds and through probabilistic equations; Comparability of the samples. difference of more than 0.5 logits and p <.05 are considered evidence of lack of invariance (Zwick, Thayer & Lewis, 1999). RESULTS DISCUSSION VEDAS original 6-point response scale VEDAS modified 3-point response scale • Eighteen items of the VEDAS and the 3-point rating scale functioned well and contributed to measurement precision of the VEDAS • The revealed hierarchy of sources of distress and eustress has some implications: o Further research on home-work spillover in distress/eustress appraisal; importance of the life-work interface, the issue of work organization, work flexibility and new work modalities that impede disconnection from work at home. The importance of an effective recovery after work hours. o The highest levels of eustress produced by stressful situations that refer to personal accountability could be expected to be among the most challenging situations. o The frequency of perceiving problems with relationships at work as the greatest sources of distress and the least sources of eustress highlight the importance of the human factor at work turns. Preventing problems connected to relationships would be the most efficient way of preventing the increase of distress at and the decrease of eustress at work. Especially, “discrimination and favouritism” and isolation should be avoided. • The RA spots gaps in the item continuum where some items should be added, as well as some redundant items which should be considered for deletion • The invariance test ensures us that the 18 VEDAS items would behave in the same way if administered to a different sample of subjects. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE In managerial practice: revealing hierarchy of stress allows for concentrating on the most important demanding situations that should be prevented or stimulated. Good news: the majority of situations considered as greater sources of eustress and distress are related to work context (and not to outside-work context) and HR specialists have more control over this context. In academics: when developing measures in WOP-P, RA should complement the CTT methods using RA to clarify the number of options in the response scales should form part of the routine scale development process DIF: key to check for the cross-cultural equivalence in meaning of different language versions. REFERENCES Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York, NY: Springer. Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 103–122. Linacre, J. (2008). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1999). WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program (Version 2.88) [computer software]. Chicago: MESA Press. Rodríguez, I., Peiró, J.M. and Kozusznik, M. (2011), Development and validation of the Valencia eustress-distress appraisal scale (VEDAS), paper presented at the 15th Conference of the European Association of Work and Organization Psychology, Maastricht. Seligman, M.E. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, S. A. (2007) ACER ConQuest Version 2.0. Generalised Item Response Modelling Software. Camberwell: ACER Press Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 1-28. Table 14. Measures on test of 18 Distress scale items | SCORE MEASURE S.E. | SCORE MEASURE S.E. | SCORE MEASURE S.E. | | 18 -4.79E 1.83 | 31 -.59 .35 | 44 .97 .38 | | 19 -3.56 1.01 | 32 -.47 .34 | 45 1.11 .39 | | 20 -2.84 .73 | 33 -.35 .34 | 46 1.27 .41 | | 21 -2.41 .60 | 34 -.24 .34 | 47 1.44 .43 | | 22 -2.09 .53 | 35 -.12 .34 | 48 1.63 .45 | | 23 -1.84 .48 | 36 -.01 .34 | 49 1.85 .49 | | 24 -1.63 .45 | 37 .10 .34 | 50 2.11 .53 | | 25 -1.44 .42 | 38 .22 .34 | 51 2.43 .61 | | 26 -1.27 .40 | 39 .33 .34 | 52 2.87 .73 | | 27 -1.12 .38 | 40 .45 .35 | 53 3.60 1.02 | | 28 -.97 .37 | 41 .57 .35 | 54 4.82E 1.83 | | 29 -.84 .36 | 42 .70 .36 | | | 30 -.71 .35 | 43 .83 .37 | | 2 SITUATIONS IDENTIFIED AS EUSTRESS o LEAST FREQUENTLY: • Especially “not being able to “switch off” at home • Stressors reflecting work-life interaction and that involve other persons outside work • Problems with relationships at work, Especially, “discrimination and favoritism” and isolation o MOST FREQUENTLY: • stressful situations that refer to personal accountability and consequences of ones’ actions (especially “Having to take risks”) SITUATIONS IDENTIFIED AS DISTRESS o LEAST FREQUENTLY: • Stressors reflecting work-life interaction and that involve other persons outside work o MOST FREQUENTLY: • Workload: “not being able to “switch off” at home • Problems with relationships at work, especially, “being undervalued” -1,4 -1,2 -1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 Having to adopt a negative role (such as sacking someone). Not being able to 'switch off' at home Being undervalued Conflicting job tasks and demands in the role I play Dealing with ambiguous or 'delicate' situations Feeling isolated Pursuing a career at the expense of home life Inadequate or poor quality of training/management development. Lack of social support by people at work. Having to work very long hours Having to take risks Implications of mistakes you make. Demands that work make on my private/social life Absence of emotional support from others outside work My partner's negative attitude towards my job and career Inadequate feedback about my own performance Having to take risks Dealing with ambiguous or 'delicate' situations Implications of mistakes you make. Conflicting job tasks and demands in the role I play Having to adopt a negative role (such as sacking someone). Inadequate or poor quality of training/management development. Demands that work make on my private/social life Inadequate feedback about my own performance Lack of practical support from others outside work Lack of social support by people at work. Being undervalued Having to work very long hours Pursuing a career at the expense of home life Feeling isolated Discrimination and favouritism Absence of emotional support from others outside work My partner's negative attitude towards my job and career Not being able to 'switch off' at home -1,2 -1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Transcript of Valencia Eustress-Distress Appraisal Scale
A Hierarchy of Eustress and Distress: Rating Scaling of the Valencia Eustress Distress Appraisal Scale (VEDAS)
Kozusznik, M. W. *, Lloret, S.*, Rodríguez, I. *, & Peiró, J. M.*◊ *University of Valencia, IDOCAL; ◊ IVIE. Email: [email protected]
The situation of questionnaire-based measurement in the I/O psychology is comparable to the times when in physics it was only possible to tell whether something is hotter or colder, before the Celsius or Fahrenheit scales were introduced. We need more information from the questionnaires that we obtain right now. We need useful results, such as which situations are considered more o less stressful. With Rasch Analysis, we are able to create a graduation of stressors . The knowledge on which of the stressful situations are considered more or less stressful would allow WOP psychologists and HR specialists to to act in a more efficient way. The improvement of our measurement methods to produce rigorous measures is an opportunity for WOP-Ps to improve our image, quality of our research, gain credibility and to produce leading edge science.
LIMITATIONS The relative thinness of the sample at the lowest levels of agreeability in the distress scale and at the highest levels of agreeability in the eustress scale producing larger standard errors and decreased stability of the item estimates at these extremes of the scales.
Analysis of the functioning of VEDAS Distress response scale categories.
Table 1.
Summary of Changes in Person and Item Separation and Reliability as a Result of Collapsing Distress and Eustress Rating Scale Categories
and Removing Misfitting Items
Rating Scale Separation (G) Reliability Item In-
fit mean
square
Item Out-
fit mean
square
Number of
misfitting
items
Average
measures
Step
calibrations Person Item Person Item
Distress
Original six-point scale 2.56 6.86 .87 .98 1.00 1.06 2 (1, 2) ordered disordered
Three-point scale (combining 1 and 2, 3 and 4,
5 and 6; removing 2 misfitting items)
2.25 6.75 .84 .98 1.00 1.02 0 ordered ordered
Eustress
Original six-point scale 2.25 11.64 .83 .99 1.02 1.04 2 (1, 2) ordered disordered
Three-point scale (combining 1 and 2, 3 and 4,
5, and 6; removing 2 misfitting items*)
2.12 11.04 .82 .99 1.01 1.00 0 ordered ordered
Note. *Removing the ítem 1 that did not fit in the distress scale and the ítem 2 that did not fit in both distress and eustress scales.
Maintaining the similarity between the two scales is in line with the purpose for the construction of these scales.
Table 3.
Results of the DIF analysis for VEDAS distress and eustress scale Final Deviance
(Estimated
Parameters) group 1
Final Deviance
(Estimated
Parameters) group 2
Difference Final
Deviance (Estimated
Parameters)
Difference
Sig.
Chi-square test of
parameter equality
(df) group 1
Sig. Chi-square test of
parameter equality
(df) group 2
Sig.
18001.98(39) 18003.15(38) 1.1679(1) p > .05 18.60 (17) .352 18.31 (17) .370
17752.93(39) 17753.77(38) .8425(1) p > .05 11.83(17) .810 12.85(17) .746
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
Q1: Do the VEDAS data fit the Rasch Rating Scale model? Q2: How is the response scale for the VEDAS working? Q3: Are the items’ estimations satisfatory? Q4: Do items’ calibration match with our expectations? Q5: Are there any gaps or redundant items? Q6: Is there invariance of the estimations
Valencia Eustress-Distress Appraisal Scale (VEDAS) (Rodríguez et al., 2011): Rooted in transactional approach to stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and positive psychology approach (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). To the best of our knowledge, to date, the only measure that focuses on both eustress and distress appraisal in different occupations).
20 items. The participants rank the degree to which they consider a situation a source of threat and, simultaneously, a source of challenge/opportunity on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (clearly, it is not a source of [challenge-opportunity/threat]) to 6 (clearly, it is a source of [challenge-opportunity/threat]).
Four factors: workload (e.g. item “Taking my work home”), personal accountability (e.g. item “Implications of mistakes you make”), relationships (e.g. item “Being undervalued”), and home-work balance (e.g. item “My partner’s negative attitude towards my job and career”). VEDAS: created with the use of advanced CTT methods : a robust tool to assess eustress and distress appraisal.
Rasch Analysis (RA) (Rasch, 1960): - Allows for a much more rigorous assessment of individuals than the common CTT-based
tests. - Widely used in medicine (health problems diagnostics) and education (high stakes language
tests, e.g. IELTS). - The likelihood of a given respondent endorsing an item is a logistic function of the relative
distance between the item location and the person location on a linear scale . - The response patterns achieved from a set of items are tested against what is expected by
the model.
Provided the model fits, the use of RA conveys various benefits to evaluate instruments and valuable additional item information: • RA discovers the hierarchy of the items (shows us which of the stressful situations are most
and less likely to be appraised as eustress or/and distress): o Calibrates the items. The distances between the dimensions of the measure are given on
an interval scale (the use of parametric tests always require interval data). o Gives independent error estimates for each item o It shows us gaps in the items’ continuum & redundant items.
• Transforms raw scores into their corresponding interval scores, necessary for some analyses like t-test. o Offers a possibility of contrasting empirically if the response category set is working
appropriately for the test, instead of assuming the adequate number of response options relying solely on theoretical reasoning.
• Allows us to check whether the same estimations would be obtained from other samples or to empirically contrast if there is Differential Item Functioning (DIF).
There is sufficient evidence that RA can be used as a tool to improve tests constructed under CTT theory. Then analyzing the VEDAS using RA would add valuable extra information about the content of the scale.
Analysis of the model’s fit. Hierarchy of the VEDAS items
Analysis of invariance
Raw to interval score transformation
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N
PARTICIPANTS: 603 employees (109 male,
484 female; 10 failed to specify sex) of Public Social Services in the Valencian Community. All were Spanish. Age: 20-70 years (M = 37.52, SD= 8.62). 82% women reflects the real sex distribution in this sector (INE,2010). Response rate: 75%.
ANALYSES: Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM; Andrich, 1978) Rasch analysis for Likert-type scales is offered by the programs WINSTEPS (Linacre, 2008) and Conquest (Wu, Adams, Wilson, &
Haldane, 2007). Separation and reliability: 2.0 the minimum acceptable value (Wright & Masters, 1982); Item and person fit analyses: statistics between 0.5 and 1.50 (Linacre & Wright, 1999); A standard error of 0.32 corresponds approx. to a traditional reliability coefficient of 0.90 (Linacre & Wright, 1999); Response scale options analyses: Thresholds should increase in a monotonous way, the distance should be of 1.4–5 logits (Linacre, 1999). Categories should not overlap too much; Construct analysis. A qualitative analysis of the items’ difficulty hierarchy to check whether the grading of items made theoretical sense; Raw data to interval scale transformation. Equality of intervals is achieved through log transformations of raw data odds and through probabilistic equations; Comparability of the samples. difference of more than 0.5 logits and p <.05 are considered evidence of lack of invariance (Zwick, Thayer & Lewis, 1999).
RES
ULT
S D
ISC
USS
ION
VEDAS original 6-point response scale VEDAS modified 3-point response scale
• Eighteen items of the VEDAS and the 3-point rating scale functioned well and contributed to measurement precision of the VEDAS • The revealed hierarchy of sources of distress and eustress has some implications:
o Further research on home-work spillover in distress/eustress appraisal; importance of the life-work interface, the issue of work organization, work flexibility and new work modalities that impede disconnection from work at home. The importance of an effective recovery after work hours.
o The highest levels of eustress produced by stressful situations that refer to personal accountability could be expected to be among the most challenging situations.
o The frequency of perceiving problems with relationships at work as the greatest sources of distress and the least sources of eustress highlight the importance of the human factor at work turns. Preventing problems connected to relationships would be the most efficient way of preventing the increase of distress at and the decrease of eustress at work. Especially, “discrimination and favouritism” and isolation should be avoided.
• The RA spots gaps in the item continuum where some items should be added, as well as some redundant items which should be considered for deletion • The invariance test ensures us that the 18 VEDAS items would behave in the same way if administered to a different sample of subjects.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE In managerial practice: revealing hierarchy of stress allows for concentrating on the most important demanding situations that
should be prevented or stimulated. Good news: the majority of situations considered as greater sources of eustress and distress are related to work context (and not
to outside-work context) and HR specialists have more control over this context. In academics: when developing measures in WOP-P, RA should complement the CTT methods using RA to clarify the number of options in the response scales should form part of the routine scale development process DIF: key to check for the cross-cultural equivalence in meaning of different language versions.
REFERENCES Andrich, D. (1978). Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York, NY: Springer. Linacre, J. M. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 103–122. Linacre, J. (2008). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1999). WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program (Version 2.88) [computer software]. Chicago: MESA Press. Rodríguez, I., Peiró, J.M. and Kozusznik, M. (2011), Development and validation of the Valencia eustress-distress appraisal scale (VEDAS), paper presented at the 15th Conference of the European Association of Work and Organization Psychology, Maastricht. Seligman, M.E. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldane, S. A. (2007) ACER ConQuest Version 2.0. Generalised Item Response Modelling Software. Camberwell: ACER Press Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 1-28.
Table 14.
Measures on test of 18 Distress scale items | SCORE MEASURE S.E. | SCORE MEASURE S.E. | SCORE MEASURE S.E. |
| 18 -4.79E 1.83 | 31 -.59 .35 | 44 .97 .38 |
| 19 -3.56 1.01 | 32 -.47 .34 | 45 1.11 .39 |
| 20 -2.84 .73 | 33 -.35 .34 | 46 1.27 .41 |
| 21 -2.41 .60 | 34 -.24 .34 | 47 1.44 .43 |
| 22 -2.09 .53 | 35 -.12 .34 | 48 1.63 .45 |
| 23 -1.84 .48 | 36 -.01 .34 | 49 1.85 .49 |
| 24 -1.63 .45 | 37 .10 .34 | 50 2.11 .53 |
| 25 -1.44 .42 | 38 .22 .34 | 51 2.43 .61 |
| 26 -1.27 .40 | 39 .33 .34 | 52 2.87 .73 |
| 27 -1.12 .38 | 40 .45 .35 | 53 3.60 1.02 |
| 28 -.97 .37 | 41 .57 .35 | 54 4.82E 1.83 |
| 29 -.84 .36 | 42 .70 .36 | |
| 30 -.71 .35 | 43 .83 .37 | |
2
SITUATIONS IDENTIFIED AS EUSTRESS
o LEAST FREQUENTLY: • Especially “not being able to “switch off” at home • Stressors reflecting work-life interaction and that involve
other persons outside work • Problems with relationships at work, Especially,
“discrimination and favoritism” and isolation
oMOST FREQUENTLY: • stressful situations that refer to personal accountability
and consequences of ones’ actions (especially “Having to take risks”)
add items
add items
add items
add items
add items
add items
add items
Eliminate some
redundant items
Eliminate some
redundant items
SITUATIONS IDENTIFIED AS DISTRESS
o LEAST FREQUENTLY: • Stressors reflecting work-life interaction and that involve
other persons outside work
o MOST FREQUENTLY: • Workload: “not being able to “switch off” at home • Problems with relationships at work, especially, “being
undervalued”
-1,4
-1,2
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
Having to adopt a negative role (such as sacking someone).
Not being able to 'switch off' at home
Being undervalued
Conflicting job tasks and demands in the role I play
Discrimination and favouritism
Dealing with ambiguous or 'delicate' situations
Feeling isolated
Pursuing a career at the expense of home life
Inadequate or poor quality of training/management development.
Lack of social support by people at work.
Having to work very long hours
Having to take risks
Implications of mistakes you make.
Demands that work make on my private/social life
Absence of emotional support from others outside work
My partner's negative attitude towards my job and career
Inadequate feedback about my own performance
Lack of practical support from others outside work
Having to take risks
Dealing with ambiguous or 'delicate' situations
Implications of mistakes you make.
Conflicting job tasks and demands in the role I play
Having to adopt a negative role (such as sacking someone).
Inadequate or poor quality of training/management development.
Demands that work make on my private/social life
Inadequate feedback about my own performance
Lack of practical support from others outside work
Lack of social support by people at work.
Being undervalued
Having to work very long hours
Pursuing a career at the expense of home life
Feeling isolated
Discrimination and favouritism
Absence of emotional support from others outside work
My partner's negative attitude towards my job and career
Not being able to 'switch off' at home-1,2
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2
