The Survey Measure of Psychological Safety and Its Association with Mental Health and Job Performance: A Validation Study and Cross-Sectional Analysis

Abstract

Objectives: This study validated the Japanese version of O’Donovan et al.’s (2020) composite measure of the psychological safety scale and examined the associations of psychological safety with mental health and job-related outcomes. Methods: Online surveys were administered twice to Japanese employees in teams of more than three members. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were tested using Cronbach’s α and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Structural validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Convergent validity was tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between psychological safety and psychological distress, work engagement, job performance, and job satisfaction. Results: Two hundred healthcare workers and 200 non-healthcare workers were analyzed. Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity were acceptable. CFA demonstrated poor fit, and EFA yielded a two-factor structure, with team leader as one factor and peers and team forming the second factor. The total score showed significant and expected associations with all outcomes in the adjusted model for all workers. Conclusions: The Japanese version of the measure of the psychological safety scale presented good reliability and validity. Psychological safety is important for employees’ mental health and performance.

Perceptions of Adulthood and Mental Health

“…For instance, given the significant impact of personality traits on well-being [ 60 ], supported by meta-analytic evidence [ 34 ], incorporating personality into studies on adulthood perceptions and mental health is essential. Understanding how perceptions of adulthood interact with personality traits, as well as with other factors affecting mental health [ 61 , 62 ], could reveal key pathways for enhancing mental health outcomes.…”

Perceptions of Adulthood and Mental Health

“…The SPI score is calculated using the formula [SPI = (Occupation score * 7) + (Education score * 4)], where lower scores indicate a higher social position. According to the scoring range provided by Hollingshead and Redlich [39], the distribution of social positions within the present sample is as follows: upper (< 17) includes 973 participants (54.9%), upper-middle (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31) includes 434 participants (24.5%), middle (32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47) includes 215 participants (12.1%), low-middle (48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)…”

“…For instance, given the significant impact of personality traits on wellbeing [59], supported by meta-analytic evidence [34], incorporating personality into studies on adulthood perceptions and mental health is essential. Understanding how perceptions of adulthood interact with personality traits, as well as with other factors affecting mental health [60,61] could reveal key pathways for enhancing mental health outcomes.…”

Multifaceted ORganizational InterventiONs (M-ORION) project for prevention of depression and anxiety among workers: study protocol for a five-arm cluster randomized controlled trial

“…Psychological safety will be measured using the Japanese version of the Psychological Safety Scale (also known as PSS) [ 50 ]. It assesses workers’ perceptions of the consequences of interpersonal risks in the workplace and consists of three subscales: team leader (nine items, e.g., “If I had a question or was unsure of something in relation to my role at work, I could ask my team leader”), peers (seven items, e.g., “I can communicate my opinions about work issues with my peers”), and team as a whole (three items, e.g., “It is easy to ask other members of this team for help”) [ 51 ].…”