The measurement tools and scales in this section are presented for general intraining purposes only. They must not be used to diagnose individuals. They have been validated with groups of individuals and thus they are intended for this use only. In addition, they are for the exclusive use of professionals qualified to assess psychological factors. The compilation and analysis of the data should be carried out by a person trained in measurement and assessment.

A substantial body of scientific data indicates that certain characteristics of the environment and work situation such as work overload, recognition, mental effort, role conflict and ambiguity, work/family balance, interpersonal relations, decision-making autonomy and physical environment constitute risk factors for the well-being of employees. This section presents the tools that are used traditionally in studies on workplace stress to measure the degree of exposure to these organizational risk factors and thus to determine which characteristics of work are most strongly associated with the well-being of staff.

Employees expect to be rewarded for the efforts that they invest in their work. These rewards can take the form of recognition by co-workers and superiors (esteem, support), salary (an adequate salary) as well as job security and prospects for promotion. Several studies have shown that a lack of reciprocity between “costs” and “gains” (considerable efforts and few rewards) can give rise to a state of psychological distress and increase the risks of cardiovascular disease.

Developed by Siegrist in 1996, the recognition measurement scale was validated in French by Niedhammer and her colleagues in 2000. The eleven items that make up the scale measure the extent to which employees perceive that their efforts are recognized and that they are appreciated by the organization, their co-workers and superiors. The following is an extract:

1. Totalement en désaccord
2. En désaccord
3. En accord
4. Totalement en accord

For more intraining:

http://www.workhealth.org/strain/hpjs5.html
http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/MedicalSociology/index-eri.htm

Work overload, whether quantitative or qualitative, is undeniably a significant source of stress. The changes that have been turning the world of work upside down for the last decade have resulted in major transtrainings in the roles, functions and tasks of employees and managers. It is therefore not surprising that in 2003, 34% of Canadian workers most often mentioned having too many demands made on them or working excessively long hours as a trigger of workplace stress.

Employees are considered to be in a situation of quantitative work overload when they must accomplish many tasks or carry out tasks in too little time. This form of overload has been much more common for the last few years in organizations that have slashed jobs. The second form of work overload is qualitative. Employees have a qualitative work overload when they do not perceive themselves as having the skills or knowledge needed to carry out their work. 

A scale developed by Osipow and Spokane in 1992, measures employees' perceptions of their workload. This measure takes into account two aspects of overload, that is, qualitative overload (the complexity of tasks to be accomplished) and quantitative overload (having too little time and too much work to carry out). The scale is made up of eight items, three of which are presented below:

1. Jamais ou rarement
2. Occasionnellement
3. Souvent
4. Habituellement

5. La plupart du temps ou toujours

For more intraining:
http://www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/osir.htm

Another source of pressure relates to role ambiguity. This refers to the lack of clear work objectives, mandates and responsibilities associated with the employee’s roles. Studies show that role ambiguity is associated with absenteeism, poor job performance and job dissatisfaction. It is also closely linked to anxiety and intention to leave the organization. Like the workload measurement scale, the role ambiguity scale was developed by Osipow and Spokane in 1992. Composed of eight items, this scale quantifies the degree to which employees know the tasks to be accomplished and behaviours to be adopted in the context of their work. The three following statements are taken from this scale:

1. Jamais ou rarement
2. Occasionnellement
3. Souvent
4. Habituellement
5. La plupart du temps ou toujours

For more intraining:
http:www.sigmaassessmentsystems.com/osir.htm

Role conflict is defined from the perspective of the compatibility (or incompatibility) of the employee’s job requirements. It refers to contradictory demands and expectations and incompatible organizational policies, or to inadequate resources and material to carry out a mandate. Studies show that role conflict is associated with absenteeism, poor work performance and job dissatisfaction. It is also closely linked to anxiety and intention to leave the organization. Developed by Rizzo, House and Lirtzman in 1970 , the role conflict scale is made up of eight items intended to measure the degree of relative congruence with work requirements. The following is an extract:

1. Définitivement faux
2. Modérément faux
3. Quelque peu faux
4. Ni vrai ni faux
5. Quelque peu vrai
6. Modérément vrai
7. Définitivement vrai

For more intraining:
http://www.getcited.org/cits/PP/1PUB/103378154

Family and work are the two most important spheres of life for most people in our society. Reconciling work and personal obligations has become a problem of concern to many workers and is a major source of stress. Indeed, certain researchers reveal that 58% of parents and 42% of employees without children feel conflict between their work and family/personal life. Studies have also identified several important consequences-and-extent of work-family conflict such as depressive symptoms and psychosomatic disorders.

The scale developed by Kopelman and her colleagues colleagues in 1983 is made up of eight items that assess certain types of work/family conflicts already identified, that is, long working hours and schedule conflicts. The following three statements are typical of this scale:

1. Jamais
2. De temps en temps
3. Assez souvent
4. Très souvent

For more intraining:

http://library.bc.edu:4545/ALEPH/-/ext-direct?base=BCL03

The quality of relations between individuals at work can have impacts on their mental health. Numerous studies have shown that, on the one hand, an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility is associated with role ambiguity and a low level of communication, satisfaction and psychological well-being. On the other hand, when interpersonal relations are harmonious, co-workers become an important source of support, which softens the negative consequences-and-extent for individuals of organizational risk factors.

Four sub-scales, each containing four items, measure the quality of interpersonal relations in an organization. Various aspects of these relations are evaluated: the relationship between individuals and their immediate superior, their co-workers, their clients or recipients and their subordinates (if applicable). An extract of the scale is shown in the following table:

1. Pas du tout    Not at all
2. Un peu    A little
3. Modérément    Moderately
4. Beaucoup    Beaucoup
5. Extrêmement    Extremely

    Presently, your relations with your superior …

In addition to carrying out a greater quantity of work, employees must often put in extra effort to accomplish their tasks. This is because more and more individuals are frequently interrupted by the telephone, co-workers, email, and so on. These interruptions can be perceived as frustrating because they slow down the accomplishment of tasks and increase the level of mental effort needed. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that work interruptions have a negative impact on the well-being of individuals, requiring that they make extra effort to avoid a deterioration in their performance.

The scale used to evaluate the degree of mental effort that employees must make to carry out their work, the extent to which their tasks are interrupted and the level of concentration required of them is taken from the Job Content Questionnaire. It includes four items, two examples of which are shown below:

1. Totalement en désaccord
2. En désaccord
3. En accord
4. Totalement en accord

For more intraining:

http://www.uml.edu/Dept/WE/research/jcq/jcq.htm

Due to their nature, certain types of jobs particularly expose individuals to sources of stress stemming from the physical environment in which their work is carried out. These physical agents include, for example, variations in temperature, noise, exposure to toxic products and substances, air quality or even the ergonomics of the work station. Moreover, studies conducted by the U.S. Marines have shown that marines working in harsh physical working conditions reported less stable mental health. Two scales in particular can be used to determine whether the health and safety of the employees of an organization are at risk.

The physical conditions and requirements scale, particularly handling of hazardous materials, exposure to noise, fumes and dust, is made up of seven items. The following is a short extract:

1. Jamais
2. Rarement
3. À l’occasion
4. Quelquefois
5. Assez souvent
6. Fortement en accord
7. Très fortement en accord

Drawn from Zohar’s Safety Climate Questionnaire, the scale measuring the perceived level of risk to physical integrity in the work environment is made up of five questions. The following is an extract:

1. Fortement en désaccord
2. En désaccord
3. Incertain(e)
4. En accord
5. Fortement en accord

Decision-making autonomy at work includes two facets of work life. First, skills autonomy refers to the capacity to use one’s skills and to develop new ones; decision authority refers to the ability to choose how to perform one’s work and participate in related decisions. Several studies have demonstrated that workers with little control and autonomy in their work and who must meet high demands have a greater risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and a high level of psychological distress.

The scale measuring autonomy at work and the possibility of using skills at work is drawn from the Job Content Questionnaire. Made up of nine items, the French version of this scale was validated by Larocque, Brisson and Blanchette. The following is an example of some of the statements contained in this scale:

1. Fortement en désaccord
2. En désaccord
3. D'accord
4. Fortement d'accord

For more intraining:
http://www.uml.edu/Dept/WE/research/jcq/jcq.htm

Social support refers to social interactions at work, with both co-workers and superiors, that help individuals. It seems to play an essential role in workplace stress, protecting individuals from the negative effects of a highly demanding job.

Cohen and Hoberman’s scale is made up of 12 items. It can be used to measure social support and to determine the extent to which individuals feel supported by their co-workers. Three types of support are measured: tangible support, which represents practical help given when needed; emotional support and availability of advice and intraining; and finally, sense of belonging. The following is an example of the statements contained in this scale:

1. Fortement en désaccord
2. Un peu en désaccord
3. Neutre
4. Un peu en accord
5. Complètement en accord