A measure to assess the workplace well‐being of psychological practitioners

Abstract

The well-being of psychological practitioners is a key factor in the effective delivery of psychological therapies and the effectiveness of mental health services. Despite this, there are no measures of well-being for this professional group. The 26-item psychological practitioner workplace well-being measure (PPWWM) measures psychological well-being for psychological practitioners and was informed by a qualitative study. Items were generated and then verified by groups of practitioners using sorting tasks. The items reflect a broad range of issues relevant to the workplace well-being of psychological practitioners. The PPWWM was validated with a sample of 400 psychological practitioners recruited through professional networks. Internal consistency (α = .92) and testretest reliability (r = .94) were high. Construct validity was indicated by positive correlations with the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool and Satisfaction with Life Scale and negative correlation with the General Health Questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis produced six factors, explaining 61.2% of the variance: professional and organizational; support and flexibility; professional role; physical environment; clinical supervision; and external personal. PPWWM scoreswere not significantly associated with a range of demographic variables (gender, health/disability, profession, and type of organization), but it did correlate significantly and negatively with age.The PPWWM has potential application as a brief measure, suitable for large-scale surveys that specifically measures workplace well-being in psychological practitioners. Future research could include cross validation with new samples and validation with subgroups of psychological practitioners.

A survey of psychological practitioner workplace well‐being

“…The current sample PPWWM mean and standard deviation of 91.88 ( SD = 17.55) and Cronbach's α of .92 correspond with the results of the validation study (Summers, Morris, & Bhutani, 2020), which were 93.47 (17.67) and .92. The means did not differ significantly between the two studies.…”

“…The Qualtrics® survey included a demographic survey, the PPWWM (Summers, Morris, & Bhutani, 2020), The SWEMWBS (Stewart‐Brown et al, 2009) and a number of items taken from the NHS staff survey relating to harassment and bullying (NHS staff survey coordination centre, 2018). The questionnaire required a response to all questions; therefore, questionnaires did not have missing items, and incomplete questionnaires were screened out.…”

“…Higher scores indicate greater well‐being. It was validated with a sample of 400 psychological practitioners (Summers, Morris, & Bhutani, 2020) and showed good construct validity against: a generic workplace well‐being measure, The Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool (Health and Safety Executive, 2004) r = .88; The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) r = .50; The General Health Questionnaire (12) (Goldberg, 1992) r = −.31. Test–retest reliability and internal consistency were r = .94 and α = .92, respectively.…”

“…Commentaries suggest there is a lack of consensus as to how Bonferroni should be applied (Drezner & Drezner, 2016) and that their routine use should be avoided (Armstrong, 2014). To counter Type 1 errors, comparisons were made with Summers, Morris, and Bhutani (2020) to establish replicability.…”

“…This approach is echoed by models of workplace well‐being that identify resources as positive aspects and demands or threats to resources as negative aspects (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Summers, Morris, and Bhutani (2020) addressed the dual problems of the lack of a validated measure of workplace well‐being for psychological practitioners and the need to consider both the positive and negative facets of well‐being. This research developed the Psychological Practitioner Workplace Well‐being Measure (PPWWM), a brief 26‐item measure based on items derived from a qualitative study of practitioners.…”