Evaluating organizational stress-management interventions using ...

24 RANDALL, GRIFFITHS, COX
Gier, Smulders, & Draaisma, 1994) and by the European Commission
(1989, Article 6:2). Because it targets the causes of work stress such a ‘‘risk
assessment – risk reduction’’ strategy (Cox, Griffiths, Barlow, Randall,
Thomson, & Rial-Gonzalez, 2000a) should be the most effective in the
long-term (Cooper, Liukkonen, & Cartwright, 1996; Cox, 1993; Cox,
Griffiths, & Randall, 2002a, 2002b; Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman, &
Phillips, 1990; Murphy, 1996; van der Hek & Plomp, 1997). However, two
problems mean that this argument is, at present, difficult to justify. First, for
some time there has been a dearth of adequate evaluation studies of the
effectiveness of such interventions (Briner & Reynolds, 1999; Cox, 1993;
Parkes & Sparkes, 1998; Reynolds, 1997; Semmer, 2003). Second, many
evaluations are limited by the undermeasurement of intervention processes
(Cox et al., 2000b; Griffiths, 1999; Kompier & Kristensen, 2000; Murphy,
1996; Parkes & Sparkes, 1998; Semmer, 2003). The aim of this article is to
describe a modified approach to evaluation that helps to address these two
important interrelated problems.
TRADITIONAL EVALUATION STRATEGIES
Traditionally quasi-experiments have been used to evaluate interventions for
work-related stress because the constraints of the organizational setting and
the nature of the interventions do not support the conditions required for a
‘‘true’’ experiment (Campbell, 1957; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Parkes &
Sparks, 1998). However, much of the existing stress management evaluation
research literature has implied that two features of the ‘‘true’’ experiment
have to be retained in order to provide a robust enough evaluation (e.g.,
Briner & Reynolds, 1999; Murphy, 1996; Parkes & Sparkes, 1998). The first
point is that fixed (stable) study designs (based around the controlled or
predictable manipulation of exposure) should be used; and the second point
is that outcome evaluation should be paramount, since it has often been
(erroneously) assumed that strong quasi-experimental designs make process
evaluation redundant (Cook & Shadish, 1994).
However, the complexity and instability of organizations tends to make it
difficult (or even impracticable) to establish, and then adequately control,
the delivery of interventions to achieve even the simplest of quasiexperimental
study designs (Griffiths, 1999; Kompier & Kristensen, 2000;
Mikkelsen, Saksvik, & Landsbergis, 2000). Moreover, the process of
implementing interventions can modify indented exposure patterns (by
stopping interventions reaching their intended participants and vice versa)
and cannot be ignored in outcome evaluation (Griffiths, 1999).
This situation presents serious problems for summative evaluation
strategies (i.e., those that focus on the outcome evaluation, often at the
expense of process evaluation) that rely upon fixed or predictable exposure