Cargando…

Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?

OBJECTIVE: The suitability of self-ratings and observer ratings within organisational management approaches is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of agreement between self-rated and observer-rated occupational psychosocial demands. The comparison took place within a work-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schneider, Isabell, Mädler, Martin, Lang, Jessica
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31309118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8382160
_version_ 1783430229713223680
author Schneider, Isabell
Mädler, Martin
Lang, Jessica
author_facet Schneider, Isabell
Mädler, Martin
Lang, Jessica
author_sort Schneider, Isabell
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The suitability of self-ratings and observer ratings within organisational management approaches is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of agreement between self-rated and observer-rated occupational psychosocial demands. The comparison took place within a work-activity and not worker-centred assessment, according to official policies for psychosocial risk assessment. Through simultaneous application of two versions of the same instrument, we aimed to reduce the rating bias to a minimum demonstrating the suitability of self-ratings and observer ratings in companies of all kinds. METHODS: A multimethod online assessment of 22 different work activities was conducted in Germany from October 2016 to October 2017. Workers (self-ratings) and occupational safety and health (OSH) committees (observer ratings) rated the occupational psychosocial risks of each activity with the same instrument (N = 669). The instrument measured psychosocial risk conditions at work. Reliability and agreement indices were computed. RESULTS: The within-group agreement (WGA; r(wg,mean) =  .42) of the workers' self-ratings was good for each psychosocial risk and the interrater reliability (IRR) was excellent on average (ICC 2 =  .77) with a medium effect size of ICC 1 =  .15. The interrater agreement (IRA) between the two groups varied across the activities depending on rating group and activity composition (from ICC(unjust,mean) =  .39 to ICC(unjust,mean) =  .86) but was good to excellent on average (ICC(unjust,mean) =  .71). CONCLUSION: The reasonable agreement and excellent reliability in workers' self-ratings justify aggregation of item means at the group level. Furthermore, if the work activities are homogenous and the committee consists of members from different OSH specialties, observer ratings and self-ratings provide comparable results. According to this study's results, both methods are reliable assessment strategies in the context of psychosocial risk assessment. The observer rating approach is especially suitable for small-to-medium enterprises that do not have access to a large anonymous survey assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6594325
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65943252019-07-15 Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement? Schneider, Isabell Mädler, Martin Lang, Jessica Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: The suitability of self-ratings and observer ratings within organisational management approaches is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of agreement between self-rated and observer-rated occupational psychosocial demands. The comparison took place within a work-activity and not worker-centred assessment, according to official policies for psychosocial risk assessment. Through simultaneous application of two versions of the same instrument, we aimed to reduce the rating bias to a minimum demonstrating the suitability of self-ratings and observer ratings in companies of all kinds. METHODS: A multimethod online assessment of 22 different work activities was conducted in Germany from October 2016 to October 2017. Workers (self-ratings) and occupational safety and health (OSH) committees (observer ratings) rated the occupational psychosocial risks of each activity with the same instrument (N = 669). The instrument measured psychosocial risk conditions at work. Reliability and agreement indices were computed. RESULTS: The within-group agreement (WGA; r(wg,mean) =  .42) of the workers' self-ratings was good for each psychosocial risk and the interrater reliability (IRR) was excellent on average (ICC 2 =  .77) with a medium effect size of ICC 1 =  .15. The interrater agreement (IRA) between the two groups varied across the activities depending on rating group and activity composition (from ICC(unjust,mean) =  .39 to ICC(unjust,mean) =  .86) but was good to excellent on average (ICC(unjust,mean) =  .71). CONCLUSION: The reasonable agreement and excellent reliability in workers' self-ratings justify aggregation of item means at the group level. Furthermore, if the work activities are homogenous and the committee consists of members from different OSH specialties, observer ratings and self-ratings provide comparable results. According to this study's results, both methods are reliable assessment strategies in the context of psychosocial risk assessment. The observer rating approach is especially suitable for small-to-medium enterprises that do not have access to a large anonymous survey assessment. Hindawi 2019-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6594325/ /pubmed/31309118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8382160 Text en Copyright © 2019 Isabell Schneider et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schneider, Isabell
Mädler, Martin
Lang, Jessica
Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title_full Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title_fullStr Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title_full_unstemmed Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title_short Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?
title_sort comparability of self-ratings and observer ratings in occupational psychosocial risk assessments: is there agreement?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6594325/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31309118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8382160
work_keys_str_mv AT schneiderisabell comparabilityofselfratingsandobserverratingsinoccupationalpsychosocialriskassessmentsisthereagreement
AT madlermartin comparabilityofselfratingsandobserverratingsinoccupationalpsychosocialriskassessmentsisthereagreement
AT langjessica comparabilityofselfratingsandobserverratingsinoccupationalpsychosocialriskassessmentsisthereagreement