Analysis of the effectiveness of questionnaires for assessing psychosocial risks in the workplace of miners
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33271/crpnmu/86.186Keywords:
psychosocial risk assessment, comparative analysis, reliability and validity, questionnaire selection, implementation stagesAbstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to analyze questionnaires used for assessing psychosocial risks in miners’ workplaces and to identify the specific features of their application within occupational health and safety management systems.
The methods. To achieve this objective, the comparative analysis method was employed. This method is used to examine different objects, phenomena, processes, or systems with respect to their common characteristics, differences, patterns, and cause-and-effect relationships.
Findings. The analysis of four questionnaires demonstrated that the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) is a comprehensive and versatile instrument for the general assessment of psychosocial risks. The Healthy Work Survey (HWS) focuses on the balance between job demands and available resources, which are among the main factors contributing to occupational stress. The Questionnaire for Psychosocial Risk Assessment (QPRA) is designed to be adaptable to the specific legislative and regulatory requirements of particular countries or regions. The Instrument for Stress-Oriented Task Analysis (ISTA) is primarily used for an in-depth analysis of work task structure and task-related stressors.
The study showed that the selection of a questionnaire should be a well-considered decision aligned with the organization’s size, industry sector, psychosocial risk profile, available resources, and applicable legal requirements. The effectiveness of the obtained results is maximized when they are integrated into a comprehensive and continuous psychosocial risk management process. Furthermore, the implementation of psychosocial risk assessment questionnaires involves a sequence of clearly defined stages, ranging from planning and employee communication to data analysis, development of corrective measures, and ongoing monitoring of their effectiveness.
Scientific value. Relationship has been established between the effectiveness of assessing the psychosocial risks of miners and the specifics of industrial hazardous psychosocial factors, regulatory requirements and resources of the mining enterprise, as well as the occupational safety management process.
Practical value. The practical value of the study lies in the development of a clear framework for implementing psychosocial risk assessment questionnaires within occupational health and safety management systems according to their specific areas of application.
References
1. Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(6), 438–449. https://doi.org/10.5271/sj weh.948
2. Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Hannerz, H. (2002). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 28(5), 324–332. https://www.sjweh.fi/article/644
3. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
4. Dewa, C. S., & Hoch, J. S. (2014). The costs of poor mental health in the workplace: The case for investment. Psychiatric Services, 65(9), 1145–1153. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201300541
5. Belkic, K., Savic, M., & The Psychosocial Working Environment and Cardiovascular Disease Etiology Study Group. (2004). A review of evidence on psychosocial stress at work and cardiovascular diseases. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 30(2), 85–127. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40967435
6. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
7. Zapf, D., & Dormann, C. (2013). On the Job Demands-Resources Model and Its Relationship to the Job Content Questionnaire. In Working Conditions and Psychosocial Factors (pp. 59–79).
8. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
9. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
10. Nielsen, K., Taris, T. W., & Cox, T. (2010). The future of organizational interventions: Addressing the challenges of today's working life. Work & Stress, 24(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.519176
11. Biron, M., Karanika-Murray, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2016). A Guide to the Management of Psychosocial Risks in the Workplace: A European Perspective. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315673907
12. Montano, D., Hoven, H., & Nielsen, K. (2014). The effectiveness of psychosocial safety climate as a moderator of the relationship between job demands and employee health: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(2), 2003–2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110202003
13. Houdmont, J., Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (2015). The management of psychosocial risks and well-being at work: A multilevel approach. Work & Stress, 29(1), 1–10.
14. Rugulies, R., Jensen, A., & Bjorner, J. B. (2020). A short version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III): Cross-cultural validation and psychometric properties. Work & Stress, 34(4), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2020.1750583
15. Theorell, T., & Vingård, E. (2021). Does a good psychosocial work environment pay? A systematic review of the economic effects of interventions. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 47(7), 543-558. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3984
16. Heiden, M., & Höge, T. (2022). Working from home in times of COVID-19: A systematic review on psychosocial risks and resources. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64(4), 311–319.
17. Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513
18. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). (2014). Preventing Psychosocial Risks at Work: A Multilevel Approach. Publications Office of the European Union.
19. Kompier, M. A. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Preventing work stress. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 285–328). John Wiley & Sons.
20. Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a new intervention process model for organizational stress and well-being interventions. Work & Stress, 26(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.712803
21. Aust, B., & Ducki, A. (2004). Comprehensive and successful: Evaluation of a worksite health promotion program with special focus on the process of implementation. Work & Stress, 18(2), 173–191.
22. Nielsen, K., Stage, M., & Bøggild, H. (2018). The development of a participatory organizational intervention to improve psychosocial working conditions and employee well-being: A quasi-experimental field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 173–189.
23. Nielsen, K., Fredslund, H., & Krivonos, E. (2020). The effectiveness of a participatory intervention to improve psychosocial working conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7179. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197179
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to deposit the final published version of their article, or the Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM), in institutional or subject-specific open-access repositories (including the university's own institutional repository, CORE, Zenodo, or Figshare), ensuring maximum visibility, accessibility, and impact of the publication.
