Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.674969
Title: The psychometric properties of the Irish Management Standards Indicator Tool and its associations with the WHO-Five Well-being Index.
Author: Boyd, Suzanne Elizabeth
ISNI:       0000 0004 5370 3711
Awarding Body: Ulster University
Current Institution: Ulster University
Date of Award: 2014
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Abstract:
The primary purpose of this thesis was to psychometrically evaluate the Irish version (English language) of the UK Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards Indicator Tool (ROI-MSITL a self-report survey instrument that assesses perceptions of stressors in the workplace. To that end, the thesis undertook a thorough examination of the ROI-MSIT's scales and items to appraise its criterion-related validity, construct validity, factor structure, reliability, and measurement invariance across gender. Associations between the ROI-MSIT and the WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5) were also investigated in order to explore the salutogenic potential of the Management Standards' risk model, the secondary purpose of this thesis. The aim of Study I was to provide a preliminary investigation of the psychometric properties of the ROI-M5IT. In particular, the study examined the factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity (with the WHO-5) of the ROI-MSIT in order to determine its suitability for use in Ireland. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the factor structure of the ROI-MSIT is practically identical to that of the Italian MSIT, consisting of six factors; the Demands, Control, Peer Support, Relationships, and Role factors were equiva lent to the original UK factors. As with the Italian version, the principal factor was a merger of the Manager Support and Change domains. Reliability analysis of the subscales revealed Cronbach's alpha scores ranging from .80 to .91. Finally, the ROI-MSIT's (six) subscales and WHO-5 were found to be positively correlated (r = .36-44, P <.001), while logistic regression analyses showed that increased scores on the individual items and subscales were associated with a decreased likelihood of being classified in the poor well-being category of the WHO-5 (score <13). Study II used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess competing measurement models of the ROIMSIT, including the seven-factor structure of the UK Indicator Tool. The construct reliability and internal consistency of the ROI-MSIT were also assessed, as were its convergent and discriminant validity. The seven-factor measurement model of the UK-MSIT provided the best fit to the data compared with a six-factor and one-factor measurement model. A second-order measurement model also proved to be of adequate fit. The construct reliability (CR) and internal consistency were excellent, as each factor achieved a CR and alpha score of .79 or more. The convergent and discriminant validity results were, on the other hand, disappointing, as several subscales failed to meet the minimum values necessary for demonstrating validity. The primary aim of Study III was to test the measurement invariance (MI) of the ROI-MSIT across gender. The seven-factor measurement model and items of the ROI-MSIT were tested for MI; multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) was used to test the model, while tests of differential item functioning (DIF) were applied to each item through ordinal logistic regression. The results of these analyses indicated that the ROI-MSIT is fully invariant across gender. The primary aim of Study IV was to investigate associations between scores on the ROI-MSIT and the likelihood of being categorised in the 'good wel l-being' category of the WHO-5 (total score >12). Correlation analysis revealed positive, moderate associations between the (uni-dimensional) ROI-MSIT and the WHO-5 (r = .53, P <.001). In the logistic regression analyses, those in the top ROI-MSIT scoring category were 18.44 times (95% CI: 14.46-23.50) more likely to be classified in the good well-being category of the WHO-5 than those in the bottom scoring group. Similarly, ordinal logistic regression revealed that those in the top category were 21.18 times (95% CI: 17.74-25.28) more likely to be in the good well-being category and flourishing category (WHO-5 score >19). Strong results were also found for the ROI -MSIT's subscales. Although additional research is needed to determine the full salutogenic potential of the Management Standards' risk model, the initial findings of Study IV suggest that following the approach may help employees experience positive mental states rather than just the absence of psychological harm. Small sh ifts in mean scores on the Management Standards Indicator Tool could potentially move the working population towards mental flourishing. The general conclusions of the studies are that a) the ROI-MSIT bears a very close resemb lance to the UK version, b) the ROI-MSIT is a valid and reliable questionnaire, and c) the Management Standards initiative may help employees (and working populations) experience greater 'positive mental health.' Further research is needed to validate the findings of the thesis.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.674969  DOI: Not available
Share: