Cargando…
Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study
PURPOSE: Despite its highly detrimental potential, most standard questionnaires assessing psychosocial stress at work do not include mobbing as a risk factor. In the German standard version of COPSOQ, mobbing is assessed with a single item. In the Gutenberg Health Study, this version was used togeth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25987317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1058-6 |
_version_ | 1782408272536403968 |
---|---|
author | Garthus-Niegel, Susan Nübling, Matthias Letzel, Stephan Hegewald, Janice Wagner, Mandy Wild, Philipp S. Blettner, Maria Zwiener, Isabella Latza, Ute Jankowiak, Sylvia Liebers, Falk Seidler, Andreas |
author_facet | Garthus-Niegel, Susan Nübling, Matthias Letzel, Stephan Hegewald, Janice Wagner, Mandy Wild, Philipp S. Blettner, Maria Zwiener, Isabella Latza, Ute Jankowiak, Sylvia Liebers, Falk Seidler, Andreas |
author_sort | Garthus-Niegel, Susan |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Despite its highly detrimental potential, most standard questionnaires assessing psychosocial stress at work do not include mobbing as a risk factor. In the German standard version of COPSOQ, mobbing is assessed with a single item. In the Gutenberg Health Study, this version was used together with a newly developed short scale based on the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of these two measures, to compare them and to test their differential impact on relevant outcome parameters. METHODS: This analysis is based on a population-based sample of 1441 employees participating in the Gutenberg Health Study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were used to assess the mobbing scale. To determine their predictive validities, multiple linear regression analyses with six outcome parameters and log-binomial regression models for two of the outcome aspects were run. RESULTS: Factor analyses of the five-item scale confirmed a one-factor solution, reliability was α = 0.65. Both the single-item and the five-item scales were associated with all six outcome scales. Effect sizes were similar for both mobbing measures. CONCLUSION: Mobbing is an important risk factor for health-related outcomes. For the purpose of psychosocial risk assessment in the workplace, both the single-item and the five-item constructs were psychometrically appropriate. Associations with outcomes were about equivalent. However, the single item has the advantage of parsimony, whereas the five-item construct depicts several distinct forms of mobbing. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4700086 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47000862016-01-11 Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study Garthus-Niegel, Susan Nübling, Matthias Letzel, Stephan Hegewald, Janice Wagner, Mandy Wild, Philipp S. Blettner, Maria Zwiener, Isabella Latza, Ute Jankowiak, Sylvia Liebers, Falk Seidler, Andreas Int Arch Occup Environ Health Original Article PURPOSE: Despite its highly detrimental potential, most standard questionnaires assessing psychosocial stress at work do not include mobbing as a risk factor. In the German standard version of COPSOQ, mobbing is assessed with a single item. In the Gutenberg Health Study, this version was used together with a newly developed short scale based on the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of these two measures, to compare them and to test their differential impact on relevant outcome parameters. METHODS: This analysis is based on a population-based sample of 1441 employees participating in the Gutenberg Health Study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and reliability analyses were used to assess the mobbing scale. To determine their predictive validities, multiple linear regression analyses with six outcome parameters and log-binomial regression models for two of the outcome aspects were run. RESULTS: Factor analyses of the five-item scale confirmed a one-factor solution, reliability was α = 0.65. Both the single-item and the five-item scales were associated with all six outcome scales. Effect sizes were similar for both mobbing measures. CONCLUSION: Mobbing is an important risk factor for health-related outcomes. For the purpose of psychosocial risk assessment in the workplace, both the single-item and the five-item constructs were psychometrically appropriate. Associations with outcomes were about equivalent. However, the single item has the advantage of parsimony, whereas the five-item construct depicts several distinct forms of mobbing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-05-19 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4700086/ /pubmed/25987317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1058-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Garthus-Niegel, Susan Nübling, Matthias Letzel, Stephan Hegewald, Janice Wagner, Mandy Wild, Philipp S. Blettner, Maria Zwiener, Isabella Latza, Ute Jankowiak, Sylvia Liebers, Falk Seidler, Andreas Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title | Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title_full | Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title_fullStr | Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title_short | Development of a mobbing short scale in the Gutenberg Health Study |
title_sort | development of a mobbing short scale in the gutenberg health study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700086/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25987317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1058-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garthusniegelsusan developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT nublingmatthias developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT letzelstephan developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT hegewaldjanice developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT wagnermandy developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT wildphilipps developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT blettnermaria developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT zwienerisabella developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT latzaute developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT jankowiaksylvia developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT liebersfalk developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy AT seidlerandreas developmentofamobbingshortscaleinthegutenberghealthstudy |