Solving a methodological challenge in work stress evaluation with the Stress Assessment and Research Toolkit (StART): a study protocol

Abstract

BackgroundStress evaluation is a field of strong interest and challenging due to several methodological aspects in the evaluation process. The aim of this study is to propose a study protocol to test a new method (i.e., the Stress Assessment and Research Toolkit) to assess psychosocial risk factors at work.DesignThis method addresses several methodological issues (e.g., subjective vs. objective, qualitative vs quantitative data) by assessing work-related stressors using different kinds of data: i) organisational archival data (organisational indicators sheet); ii) qualitative data (focus group); iii) worker perception (questionnaire); and iv) observational data (observational checklist) using mixed methods research. In addition, it allows positive and negative aspects of work to be considered conjointly, using an approach that considers at the same time job demands and job resources.DiscussionThe integration of these sources of data can reduce the theoretical and methodological bias related to stress research in the work setting, allows researchers and professionals to obtain a reliable description of workers’ stress, providing a more articulate vision of psychosocial risks, and allows a large amount of data to be collected. Finally, the implementation of the method ensures in the long term a primary prevention for psychosocial risk management in that it aims to reduce or modify the intensity, frequency or duration of organisational demands.

How job demands affect absenteeism? The mediating role of work–family conflict and exhaustion

“…In the previous literature, absenteeism has often been studied subjectively, but the use of different kinds of measures is recommended in stress evaluation research, as investigating psychosocial risk factors using only subjective or objective measures could produce biased results, for example from personal interpretations of risk factors (Guglielmi et al 2013). In addition, Lidwall et al (2009) postulated that, in studies aimed at investigating the relationship between work-family interference and sickness absence, both objective and subjective measures should be considered.…”

Are social conflicts at work associated with depressive symptomatology? Results from the population-based LIFE-Adult-Study

“…A common criticism concerning studies on occupational mental health refers to the fact that most empirical studies rely on self-reported measures both of independent and outcome variables [6,[29][30][31][32][33][34]. Therefore, individuals in identical jobs can rate the amount of job stress or, specifically, work-related conflict quite differently.…”

Gefährdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastung am Arbeitsplatz – (k)ein Thema für Krankenhäuser?

“…Die Beschreibung von Messinstrumenten für psychosoziale Belastungsfaktoren am Arbeitsplatz, nimmt einen großen Raum in der Literatur zu Gefährdungsbeurteilungen ein [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Messinstrumente, die zur Messung psychosozialer Belastungsfaktoren am Arbeitsplatz eingesetzt werden, lassen sich durch verschiedene Merkmale voneinander unterscheiden.…”

“…Objektive Beobachtungsverfahren sind in der Regel aufwendig und können nur einen kleinen Anteil von Arbeitsplätzen erfassen, während subjektive Fragebögen von vielen Beschäftigten an vielen Arbeitsplätzen ausgefüllt werden können. Durch Kombination subjektiver und objektiver Verfahren lassen sich mögliche Messfehler reduzieren [24].…”