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

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2019/8382160.].

The Assessment of Psychosocial Work Conditions and Their Relationship to Well-Being: A Multi-Study Report.

The aim of this multi-study report is to present a questionnaire that enables researchers and practitioners to assess and evaluate psychosocial risks related to well-being. In Study 1, we conducted a cross-sectional online-survey in 15 German companies from 2016 to 2017 to verify factor- and criterion-related validity. Data consisted of 1151 employee self-ratings. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in an eight-factor structure (CFI = 0.902, RMSEA = 0.058, and SRMR = 0.070). All scales held to excellent internal consistency values (α = 0.65-0.90) and were related significantly to well-being (r = 0.17-0.35, p < 0.001). A second, longitudinal study in 2018 showed satisfying convergent and discriminant validity (N = 293) to scales from KFZA and COPSOQ. Test-retest reliability (N = 73; α = 0.65-0.88, p < 0.05) was also good. The instrument provides incremental validity above existing instruments since it explains additional variance in well-being.

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-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.