Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

143
the study of minor psychiatric problems (Makikangas et al., 2006) and was originally designed to assess disruptions
in normal functioning and the emergence of new distressing symptoms (Shevlin & Adamson, 2005). Additionally,
the tool has been proven to be both valid and reliable in numerous studies (e.g. Quek et al., 2001; Ye, 2009).
One of the reasons that the GHQ was designed was to measure changes in normal psychological functioning,
which means it could be used as part of a strategy to evaluate the impact that psychosocial hazards may have had
on a particular psychological outcome, for example stress in the workplace. The tool could therefore have been
utilised in order to help answer at least part of Research Objective 1, concerning the creation of a ‘local stress
theory’ and discovery of the potential psychosocial health outcomes associated with the stress
Results of Pilot Study 1, however, were not overly encouraging. While quantitative outcomes realised good
reliability levels for both the MSIT and GHQ, it was the qualitative comments which prompted the change in stress
outcome measure chosen. Eight out of nine participants who left a comment about use of the two tools together
commented that they did not feel the GHQ was a good fit with the anticipated work-based outcomes of the study
due to the generic health nature of the tool. The tool is designed to be used in a variety of situations and pilot
participants felt that this would not make employees feel at ease with taking part in not only the survey phase of
the project, but may reduce participation in the rest of the project also. Additionally, with the focus of the current
study being psychosocial stress it was felt that there are likely to be tools available which are more suitable to
assessing the impact that chronic daily psychosocial stress may have had on individuals. Additionally, participants
also commented that the MSIT seemed to be a good tool for the assessment of psychosocial workplace stress,
indicating good face validity. For two of the seven factors measured by the MSIT, Cronbach’s Alpha reliability
calculations resulted in lower-than the accepted 0.7 results. Therefore, despite recent studies (e.g. Cousins et al.,