Recent studies identify relationships between physical and psychological health and the nature of a person’s employment (Charles, Loomis, & Demissie, 2009; Li, Chen, & Kuo, 2008; Christensen, Schmidt, Hougaard, Kriegbaum, & Holstein, 2006). Taken in conjunction with correlations between low socioeconomic status (SES) and poor quality of health (Young, 2004), the working poor are one of the most at risk populations for severe both psychological and physical health problems. Future research into the coping skills and eventual reduction of risk for this population means identifying workers currently suffering from psychological or physical pain in their current positions.
The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey is an untimed assessment that consists of 10 statements about physical and psychological pain endured by employed people. The purpose of the survey is to identify individuals who may be suffering physically and psychologically in their current occupation. The results will indicate populations for future work investigating health care decision-making.
Design Decisions
This Occupational Pain Attitude Survey must be easy to use for workers of all skill levels and abilities. Many design decisions accommodate workers of lower socioeconomic status through the test length, item format, and item construction.
A short survey provides a greater opportunity for workers potentially limited by time-demands to participate. Many members of the working poor, or employed individuals considered of low SES, carry more than one job or have significant responsibilities in the home that make enormous demands on their time (Conlin & Bernstein, 2004).
A simplified item format is very important for a test looking to reach a wide audience. Selected-response items serve to keep a test quick for respondents who may not otherwise have time to participate. Accounting for identified correlations between socioeconomic class and levels of intelligence, a true-false approach allows respondents to participate who may not have the intellectual capacity to contemplate the dimensions of their attitude in a short amount of time (Hogan, 2007). The language of each item must be simple and direct to accommodate less educated workers. Translations into several languages (Spanish, Korean, etc.) allow inclusion of recent immigrants or workers with less fluency in the English language.
One initial concern in choosing a true-false questioning method is simplicity’s possible hindrance to reliability. However, as Hogan writes, “complicated systems usually yield only slightly better (more reliable or more valid) scores” (2007, p. 214). A simple true-false survey is as likely to produce accurate results as a more comprehensive format for identifying individuals currently in a position in which they suffer pain from their occupation.
The true-false statements are broken up into two pools representing occupational pain. Each statement was written in mind that these will be administered in an employment environment. Five questions (4, 7, 8, 9, and 10) refer to the respondent’s attitude toward physical pain as reflected in the extent of physical labor, level of physical comfort, perceived level of tiredness, access to medical resources and the desire for a job of a less physically strenuous nature. These questions represent research done in the area of socioeconomic status and pain correlation (Christensen, Schmidt, Hougaard, Kriegbaum, & Holstein, 2006). Five questions (1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) refer to the respondent’s attitude toward psychological pain as represented in the ability to control aspects of their working lives such as communication channels, schedule, work/life balance, and value in the work. These questions stem from research done in the negative effects of psychological disempowerment (Li, Chen, & Kuo, 2008) and subservience (Gallo, Smith, & Cox, 2006; Gasson, 1974).
Administration, Scoring and Interpretation
The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey is individually administered in a wide variety of employment environments. Test administrators receive thorough instructions in anticipation of questions a respondent may have about the attitude test. The test administrator reads the statements to the examinee that then responds to the statements being true or false. The administrator writes down the responses as well as all related observations relevant to the survey (long pauses to think about answers, looking nervous, etc.). The respondent must answer each question.
Items in the test are converted from true-false to a “0” or “1”. “0” represents a response that does not reflect pain and “1” represents a response that does reflect pain. To ensure variation and identify instances in which a respondent either does not comprehend the question or participate completely, there are five questions requiring a reverse score.
Scoring the survey yields three results. A complete score assesses the individuals’ level of pain across categories. Interpretation of the results relies upon the ability to discriminate between populations reflecting a situation of occupational pain and those who do not. Each of the two categories yields a subscore. Subscores of this survey should also identify populations who may be suffering psychological work distress as opposed to those who may suffer pain primarily caused by manual labor.
Conclusion
Identifying populations who perceive pain as part of their working experience is important to future studies regarding health care decision-making, particularly for those who may see themselves as rationing or limiting access to health care for financial or cultural reasons (Nixon & Aruguete, 2010). The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey includes both physical and psychological factors in assessing a respondent’s experience of pain to identify this population. This information may have implications in health care service provision for the working poor as well as provide useful insights into the value of quality working conditions for employers.
References
Charles, L., Loomis, D., & Demissie, Z. (2009). Occupational hazards experienced by cleaning workers and janitors: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Work, 34(1), 105-116. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0907.
Christensen, U., Schmidt, L., Hougaard, C., Kriegbaum, M., & Holstein, B. (2006). Socioeconomic Position and Variations in Coping Strategies in Muculoskeletal Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1287 40- and 50-Year Old Men and Women. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 38(5), 316-321. doi:10.1080/16501970600766467.
Chung, M., Lee, I., & Kee, D. (2005). Quantitative postural load assessment for whole body manual tasks based on perceived discomfort. Ergonomics, 48(5), 492-505. doi:10.1080/00140130400029217.
Conlin, M., & Bernstein, A. (2004). Working…and Poor. (cover story). BusinessWeek, (3885), 58. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Gallo, L., Smith, T., & Cox, C. (2006). Socioeconomic status, psychosocial processes, and perceived health: an interpersonal perspective. Annals Of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication Of The Society Of Behavioral Medicine, 31(2), 109-119. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text database.
Gasson, R. (1974). Socioeconomic Status and Orientation to Work: The Case of Farmers. Sociologia Ruralis, 14(3), 127-141. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text database.
Kristensen, T., Borg, V., & Hannerz, H. (2002). Socioeconomic status and psychosocial work environment: results from a Danish national study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 3041-48. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Li, I., Chen, Y., & Kuo, H. (2008). The relationship between work empowerment and work stress perceived by nurses at long-term care facilities in Taipei city. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(22), 3050-3058. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.
Nixon, T., & Aruguete, M. (2010). Health careAttitudes, Knowledge, and Decision Making. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 355-364. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Young, F. W. (2004). Socioeconomic status and health: the problem of explanation and a sociological solution. Social Theory and Health, 2, 123-41.
___
Occupational Pain Attitude Survey
1. I am in control of my schedule when I work. True False
2. I am doing the type of work I enjoy. True False
3. I can take time off to relax. True False
4. I would like a job a job that is less physically demanding. True False
5. I can tell my boss when I am upset about a work condition. True False
6. I have time outside of work for my own interests. True False
7. I find my job physically demanding. True False
8. I am tired at work and at home. True False
9. I find it difficult to see a doctor about pain I experience. True False
10. I am not physically comfortable at my job most of the time. True False
Numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 are reverse scored.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Occupational Pain Attitude Survey
Recent studies identify relationships between physical and psychological health and the nature of a person’s employment (Charles, Loomis, & Demissie, 2009; Li, Chen, & Kuo, 2008; Christensen, Schmidt, Hougaard, Kriegbaum, & Holstein, 2006). Taken in conjunction with correlations between low socioeconomic status (SES) and poor quality of health (Young, 2004), the working poor are one of the most at risk populations for severe both psychological and physical health problems. Future research into the coping skills and eventual reduction of risk for this population means identifying workers currently suffering from psychological or physical pain in their current positions.
The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey is an untimed assessment that consists of 10 statements about physical and psychological pain endured by employed people. The purpose of the survey is to identify individuals who may be suffering physically and psychologically in their current occupation. The results will indicate populations for future work investigating health care decision-making.
Design Decisions
This Occupational Pain Attitude Survey must be easy to use for workers of all skill levels and abilities. Many design decisions accommodate workers of lower socioeconomic status through the test length, item format, and item construction.
A short survey provides a greater opportunity for workers potentially limited by time-demands to participate. Many members of the working poor, or employed individuals considered of low SES, carry more than one job or have significant responsibilities in the home that make enormous demands on their time (Conlin & Bernstein, 2004).
A simplified item format is very important for a test looking to reach a wide audience. Selected-response items serve to keep a test quick for respondents who may not otherwise have time to participate. Accounting for identified correlations between socioeconomic class and levels of intelligence, a true-false approach allows respondents to participate who may not have the intellectual capacity to contemplate the dimensions of their attitude in a short amount of time (Hogan, 2007). The language of each item must be simple and direct to accommodate less educated workers. Translations into several languages (Spanish, Korean, etc.) allow inclusion of recent immigrants or workers with less fluency in the English language.
One initial concern in choosing a true-false questioning method is simplicity’s possible hindrance to reliability. However, as Hogan writes, “complicated systems usually yield only slightly better (more reliable or more valid) scores” (2007, p. 214). A simple true-false survey is as likely to produce accurate results as a more comprehensive format for identifying individuals currently in a position in which they suffer pain from their occupation.
The true-false statements are broken up into two pools representing occupational pain. Each statement was written in mind that these will be administered in an employment environment. Five questions (4, 7, 8, 9, and 10) refer to the respondent’s attitude toward physical pain as reflected in the extent of physical labor, level of physical comfort, perceived level of tiredness, access to medical resources and the desire for a job of a less physically strenuous nature. These questions represent research done in the area of socioeconomic status and pain correlation (Christensen, Schmidt, Hougaard, Kriegbaum, & Holstein, 2006). Five questions (1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) refer to the respondent’s attitude toward psychological pain as represented in the ability to control aspects of their working lives such as communication channels, schedule, work/life balance, and value in the work. These questions stem from research done in the negative effects of psychological disempowerment (Li, Chen, & Kuo, 2008) and subservience (Gallo, Smith, & Cox, 2006; Gasson, 1974).
Administration, Scoring and Interpretation
The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey is individually administered in a wide variety of employment environments. Test administrators receive thorough instructions in anticipation of questions a respondent may have about the attitude test. The test administrator reads the statements to the examinee that then responds to the statements being true or false. The administrator writes down the responses as well as all related observations relevant to the survey (long pauses to think about answers, looking nervous, etc.). The respondent must answer each question.
Items in the test are converted from true-false to a “0” or “1”. “0” represents a response that does not reflect pain and “1” represents a response that does reflect pain. To ensure variation and identify instances in which a respondent either does not comprehend the question or participate completely, there are five questions requiring a reverse score.
Scoring the survey yields three results. A complete score assesses the individuals’ level of pain across categories. Interpretation of the results relies upon the ability to discriminate between populations reflecting a situation of occupational pain and those who do not. Each of the two categories yields a subscore. Subscores of this survey should also identify populations who may be suffering psychological work distress as opposed to those who may suffer pain primarily caused by manual labor.
Conclusion
Identifying populations who perceive pain as part of their working experience is important to future studies regarding health care decision-making, particularly for those who may see themselves as rationing or limiting access to health care for financial or cultural reasons (Nixon & Aruguete, 2010). The Occupational Pain Attitude Survey includes both physical and psychological factors in assessing a respondent’s experience of pain to identify this population. This information may have implications in health care service provision for the working poor as well as provide useful insights into the value of quality working conditions for employers.
References
Charles, L., Loomis, D., & Demissie, Z. (2009). Occupational hazards experienced by cleaning workers and janitors: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Work, 34(1), 105-116. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0907.
Christensen, U., Schmidt, L., Hougaard, C., Kriegbaum, M., & Holstein, B. (2006). Socioeconomic Position and Variations in Coping Strategies in Muculoskeletal Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1287 40- and 50-Year Old Men and Women. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 38(5), 316-321. doi:10.1080/16501970600766467.
Chung, M., Lee, I., & Kee, D. (2005). Quantitative postural load assessment for whole body manual tasks based on perceived discomfort. Ergonomics, 48(5), 492-505. doi:10.1080/00140130400029217.
Conlin, M., & Bernstein, A. (2004). Working…and Poor. (cover story). BusinessWeek, (3885), 58. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
Gallo, L., Smith, T., & Cox, C. (2006). Socioeconomic status, psychosocial processes, and perceived health: an interpersonal perspective. Annals Of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication Of The Society Of Behavioral Medicine, 31(2), 109-119. Retrieved from MEDLINE with Full Text database.
Gasson, R. (1974). Socioeconomic Status and Orientation to Work: The Case of Farmers. Sociologia Ruralis, 14(3), 127-141. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text database.
Kristensen, T., Borg, V., & Hannerz, H. (2002). Socioeconomic status and psychosocial work environment: results from a Danish national study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 3041-48. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Li, I., Chen, Y., & Kuo, H. (2008). The relationship between work empowerment and work stress perceived by nurses at long-term care facilities in Taipei city. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(22), 3050-3058. Retrieved from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.
Nixon, T., & Aruguete, M. (2010). Health careAttitudes, Knowledge, and Decision Making. North American Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 355-364. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Young, F. W. (2004). Socioeconomic status and health: the problem of explanation and a sociological solution. Social Theory and Health, 2, 123-41.
___
Occupational Pain Attitude Survey
1. I am in control of my schedule when I work. True False
2. I am doing the type of work I enjoy. True False
3. I can take time off to relax. True False
4. I would like a job a job that is less physically demanding. True False
5. I can tell my boss when I am upset about a work condition. True False
6. I have time outside of work for my own interests. True False
7. I find my job physically demanding. True False
8. I am tired at work and at home. True False
9. I find it difficult to see a doctor about pain I experience. True False
10. I am not physically comfortable at my job most of the time. True False
Numbers 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 are reverse scored.
Like this: