Volume 7, Issue 3 (Summer 2018)                   JOHE 2018, 7(3): 145-152 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

1- MSc in Ergonomics, Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Health Faculty, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
2- MSc in Biostatistics, Paramedical Sciences Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3- BSc in Occupational Health, Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
4- Associate prof., Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran , koohpaei19@yahoo.com
5- MSc in Occupational Health, Department of Technology Systems, East Carolina University, Greenville, United States of America.
Abstract:   (666 Views)
Background: The imbalance between job demand and controls is associated with physical and mental disorders. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) is one of the newest tools for macro-ergonomics evaluation of organizations and workplaces. In this research, the reliability and validity of the Persian WDQ (PWDQ) in the evaluation of occupational accident management and safety promotion in Persian-language organizations were studied.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was performed among 397 randomly selected workers in a glass manufacturing company in Saveh, Iran, in 2016. The questionnaire had 77 questions with four main factors. A demographic questionnaire was also employed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the structure of factors in PWDQ. Data analyses were performed in SPSS software (independent t-test and Pearson's correlation test) and LISREL.
Results: The mean total score of the questionnaire was equals to 253.44 ± 45.05. Reliability for all questions, based on Cronbach’s alpha value, was calculated at 0.94. The result of the validity tests also indicated suitable generalization of the PWDQ. Furthermore, fitness parameters were in acceptable ranges. Pearson's correlation test showed that all factors of social characteristics are significantly associated with occupational accident (P<0.05). Moreover, feedback from job factor was negatively correlated with accident.
Conclusions: The PWDQ would be applicable as a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the work characteristics of Persian-language organizations and industries. In addition, it was found that using this tool based on the macro ergonomics principles is suitable for accidents control, safety promotion, cost management, and improvement of organizational efficiency/productivity.

Full-Text [PDF 347 kb]   (214 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (143 Views)  
Type of Study: original article | Subject: Occupational Health
Received: 2018/02/19 | Accepted: 2018/07/30 | ePublished: 2018/12/10

1. Drown DT. Work design characteristics as moderators of the relationship between proactive personality and engagement [PhD thesis]. Portland, Oregon, United States: Portland State University; 2013. P. 15-25. [Thesis]
2. Habibi E, Poorabdian S, Shakerian M. Job strain (demands and control model) as a predictor of cardiovascular risk factors among petrochemical personnel. J Educ Health Promot 2015; 4:16. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Tang K. A reciprocal interplay between psychosocial job stressors and worker well-being? A systematic review of the "reversed" effect. Scand J Work Environ Health 2014; 40(5):441-56. [DOI] [PMID]
4. Butterworth P, Leach LS, Kiely KM. The relationship between work characteristics, wellbeing, depression and workplace bullying: technical findings from a survey of 32-36 year old workers in Canberra and Queanbeyan. Canberra: Safe Work Australia. 2013 June. 69 p. [Report]
5. Notelaers G, Witte HD, Einarsen S. A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2010; 19(4):487-504. [Article] [DOI]
6. Grant AM, Parker SK. 7 Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals 2009; 3(1):317-75. [Article] [DOI]
7. Hendrick HW. Kleiner B. Macroergonomics: theory, methods, and applications. 1st ed. Florida, United States: CRC Press; 2002. [Book]
8. Kleiner BM. Macroergonomics: analysis and design of work systems. Appl Ergon 2006; 37(1):81-9. [DOI] [PMID]
9. Carayon P, Hoonakker P. Macroergonomic Organizational Questionnaire Survey (MOQS). In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrik HW, editors. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. 1st ed. California, United States: CRC Press; 2004. Chapter 76.
10. Carayon P, Smith MJ. Work organization and ergonomics. Appl Ergon 2000; 31(6):649-62. [DOI] [PMID]
11. Taber TD, Taylor E. A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the job diagnostic survey. Pers Psychol 1990; 43(3):467-500. [Article] [DOI]
12. Edwards JR, Scully JA, Brtek MD. The measurement of work: hierachical representation of the multimethod job design questionnaire. Pers Psychol 1999; 52(2):305-34. [Article] [DOI]
13. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Work redesign (Prentice hall organizational development series). 1st ed. New Jersey, United States: FT Press; 1980.
14. Parker SK, Wall TD, Cordery JL. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. J Occup Organ Psychol 2001; 74(4):413-40. [Article] [DOI]
15. Campion MA. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. J Appl Psychol 1988; 73(3):467-81. [Article] [DOI]
16. Campion MA, Thayer PW. Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. J Appl Psychol 1985; 70(1):29-43. [Article] [DOI]
17. Bayona JA, Caballer A, Peiró JM. The work design questionnaire: Spanish version and validation. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2015; 31(3):187-200. [Article] [DOI]
18. Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J Appl Psychol 2006; 91(6):1321-39. [DOI] [PMID]
19. Stegmann S, Dick RV, Ullrich J, Charalambous J, Menzel B, Egold N, et al. The work design questionnaire - Introduction and validation of a German version. Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 2010; 54:1-28.
20. Zaniboni S, Truxillo DM, Fraccaroli F. Validation of the Italian version of the Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ). In Hertel G, Binnewies C, Krumm S, Holling H, Kleinmann M, editors. Imagine the future world: How do we want to work tomorrow? Proceeding of the 16th EAWOP Congress; 2013 May 22-25; Munster, Germany. Miami: Münstersche Informations- und Archivsystem multimedialer Inhalte; 2013. P. 621.
21. Vigeh M, Mazaheri M, Seyedaghamiri Z. Status of occupational health and safety in Iran. J UOEH 2011; 33(4):283-91. [DOI] [PMID]
22. Walker JT, Maddan S. Statistics in criminology and criminal justice: Analysis and interpretation. 4th ed. Burlington, United States: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2012. [Book]
23. Putka DJ, Sackett PR. Reliability and validity. 1st ed. In: Farr JL, Tippins NT, editors. Handbook of employee selection. New York, United States: Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group; 2010. Chapter 2. P. 9-49.
24. Streiner DL. Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. ‎J Pers Assess 2003; 80(1):99-103. [DOI] [PMID]
25. Brians CL. Empirical political analysis. 8th ed. Abingdon-on-Thames, United Kingdom: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
26. Guo B, Aveyard P, Fielding A, Sutton S. Testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the decisional balance scale of the transtheoretical model using the multi-trait multi-method approach. Psychol Addict Behav 2008; 22(2):288-94. [DOI] [PMID]
27. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 2015; 43(1):115-35. [Article] [DOI]
28. Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Pearson Education: London, England; 2010.
29. Babyak MA, Green SB. Confirmatory factor analysis: an introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers. Psychosom Med 2010; 72(6):587-97. [DOI] [PMID]
30. Eisinga R, Grotenhuis Mt, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health 2013; 58(4):637-42. [DOI] [PMID]
31. Awang Z. A handbook on Structural equation modeling using AMOS. 2nd ed. Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi MARA’s (UiTM); 2012.
32. Hooman HA. Structural equation modeling with LISREL application. 1st Ed. Tehran: Samt. 2006.
33. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88(5):879-903. [DOI] [PMID]
34. Kleiner BM, Hettinger LJ, DeJoy DM, Huang YH, Love PE. Sociotechnical attributes of safe and unsafe work systems. Ergonomics 2015; 58(4):635-49. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. Carayon P, Hancock P, Leveson N, Noy I, Sznelwar L, van Hootegem G. Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safety--developing the conceptual framework. Ergonomics 2015; 58(4):548-64. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Robertson MM, Hettinger LJ, Waterson PE, Noy YI, Dainoff MJ, Leveson NG, et al. Sociotechnical approaches to workplace safety: Research needs and opportunities. Ergonomics 2015; 58(4):650-58. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Waterson P, Robertson MM, Cooke NJ, Militello L, Roth E, Stanton NA. Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety. Ergonomics 2015; 58(4):565-99. [DOI] [PMID] [PMCID]