Psychometric analysis of the German version of the management standards indicator tool (MSIT-D)

• Date: 26 December 2023
• Pages: 21-37
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2023-0089
• Published date: 26 December 2023
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Ekaterina Uglanova,Rosanna Cousins,Jan Dettmers

Psychometric analysis of the

German version of the

management standards indicator

tool (MSIT-D)

Ekaterina Uglanova

Department of Work and Organisational Psychology, FernUniversit€

at in Hagen,

Hagen, Germany

Rosanna Cousins

Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK, and

Jan Dettmers

Department of Work and Organisational Psychology, FernUniversit€

at in Hagen,

Hagen, Germany

Abstract

Purpose –This study aims to develop a reliable and valid German/Deutsch version of the management

standards indicator tool (MSIT-D) to broaden the pool of instruments available to practitioners and to support

international collaborations regarding this workplace management issue.

Design/methodology/approach –The MSIT-D was translated from English to German, then its

psychometric properties examined using data from British employees (n 5321) and German employees

(n 5358). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were used to evaluate the internal structure and measurement

invariance, and Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Comparisons were made with the

German language risk assessment tool Fragebogen zur Gef€

ahrdungsbeurteilung psychischer Belastungen

(FGBU) to examine concurrent and incremental validity. Criterion validity was checked using established

measures of work-related health.

Findings –The MSIT-D has an equivalent seven-factor structure (demands, control, managerial support, peer

support, relationships, role and change) as the original; the analyses confirmed configural and metric

measurement invariance with the original scale. The internal consistency of the scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.91.

Regarding criterion validity, the MSIT-D was positively correlated with emotional exhaus tion and

psychosomatic complaints and negatively correlated with work engagement and workability. The analyses

yielded meaningful correlations between the MSIT-D dimensions and the FGBU.

Originality/value –This is the first study to develop a German version of the MSIT and confirm metric

measurement invariance. This will allow a comparison of MSIT scores with related constructs between

German- and English-speaking samples. As a reliable and valid instrument for assessing work-related

stressors, the outcome of this study presents opportunities for developing a unified surveillance system for

work-related stress at the European level.

Keywords Work-relatedstress, Risk assessment, Validity, Reliability, Management standards, Indicator tool,

Stress

Paper type Research paper

Psychometric

analysis of

MSIT-D

21

© Ekaterina Uglanova, Rosanna Cousins and Jan Dettmers. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may

reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-

commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of

this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

The authors thank Frank Wals for translating the questionnaire and to Barbara Wohanka for the

back-translation and for proofreading. The authors also thank the team of Deptartment of Work and

Organisational Psychology of the FernUniversit€

at in Hagen for their helpful suggestions.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 9 July 2023

Revised 5 November 2023

Accepted 19 November 2023

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 17 No. 1, 2024

pp. 21-37

Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-07-2023-0089

Introduction

According to the Council Directive 89/3 91/EEC of June 12, 1989, employers in the European

Union are obliged to implement measures to improve th e safety and health of employees at

work. This requires workplace risk assessments to include p sychosocial hazards. Numerous

instruments –such as the Instrument zur s tressbezogenen Arbeitsanalyse (ISTA) (Semmer

et al.,1999), the Kurzfragebogen zur Arbeitsanalyse (KF ZA) (Pr€

umper et al.,1995), the

Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnai re (COPSOQ) (N€

ubling et al.,2005), the Fragebogen

zur Gef€

ahrdungsbeurteilung psychischer Be lastungen (FGBU) (Dettmers and Krause, 2020)

and the management standards indica tor tool (MSIT) (Cousins et al.,2004)–have been

developed and established in psych ological research and practice for ps ychosocial risk

assessment. They are based on different stress models and target different stre ssors. An

important practical criterion for the ch oice of the analysis instrument is confor mity with

national health regulations and re commendations (Dettmers and Krause, 2020). However, to

compare psychosocial risk factors ac ross countries, different language versions of the same

analysis instrument are required, and simi larly, it is important to use a tool with sound

psychometric properties across the psychosocial work conditions in different coun tries. A

succinct discussion of the various measures th at have been used to measure work-related

stress has been provided by Cassar et al. (202 0). They point out that the MSIT has become the

most cited of these measures, based on it s practical ability to cover the key psych osocial

hazards, and its excellent psychometr ic properties. The latter point has been recognised in

many other studies (e.g. Bevan et al.,2010;Edwards et al., 2008).

The MSIT is a 7-factor, 35-item measure that was developed specifically to support

organisations conduct a risk assessment process that informed them of whether their

working conditions were in line with the UK Health and Safety Executive’s six management

standards: demands, control, support –managerial and colleague, relationship, role and

change (Cousins et al., 2004;Mackay et al., 2004). The management standards include “states-

to-be-achieved”that indicate working conditions that reflect a low risk of work-related stress

for employees and associated harm to health and business costs (Edwards and Webster,

2012;Mackay et al., 2004). Thus, findings from the MSIT provide managers with the

information, procedures and tools needed to risk assess hazards in the workplace, as well as

to demonstrate good practice in the management of employee health at work using evidence-

based methods (Cousins et al., 2004;Mackay et al., 2004).

There is a plethora of research on the potential consequences of psychosocial hazards at

work that has used the MSIT as a reliable and valid measure. This has repeatedly revealed

that performance measures, health indicators, such as sickness absence, anxiety, depression

and exhaustion, as well as indicators of well-being, such as job satisfaction, are associated

with psychosocial stressors. Health outcomes have probably been studied most with regard

to their association with psychosocial hazards at work. For example, the following MSIT

scales significantly predict depression: change (Hackett et al., 2009;Menghini et al., 2022),

demands, control, peer support (Menghini et al., 2022) and managerial support (Kerr et al.,

2009). Anxiety is significantly predicted by demands (Kerr et al., 2009;Menghini et al., 2022),

change (Kerr et al., 2009;Menghini et al., 2022), peer support (Menghini et al., 2022) and

relationships and role (Kerr et al., 2009). The scores of psychological distress (General Health

Questionnaire, GHQ) correlate with demands, change, relationships and peer support

(Bridger et al., 2016). Two Italian studies (Guidi et al., 2012;Magnavita, 2012) presented

evidence that all dimensions of the Italian version of the MSIT were associated with

psychiatric caseness as determined by GHQ >2. Bevan et al. (2010) reported that exhaustion

(an outcome indicative of cumulative work-related stress (Gaines and Jermier, 1983)) is

strongly associated with role, whilst Ravalier et al. (2013) found that scores on the demands

and controls scales predicted level of exhaustion. Similarly, Bridger et al. (2016) found need

for recovery was correlated with the dimensions of demands and relationships and that

IJWHM

17,1

22