Evaluating organizational stress-management interventions using ...

EVALUATION OF INTERVENTIONS 29
experience of work stress (work-related well-being) was measured using the
exhaustion scale of the General Well-Being Questionnaire (GWBQ; Cox &
Griffiths, 1995; Cox, Thirlaway, Gotts, & Cox, 1983). This measure was
used as the dependent variable to examine the likely impact of the
intervention on work-related well-being. The exhaustion scale is a 12-item
self-report measure of nonspecific symptoms of general malaise relating to
fatigue, cognitive confusion, and emotional irritability. It has been shown to
be sensitive to the fluctuations in well-being associated with the emotional
experience of stress at work (Cox & Gotts, 1987; Cox et al., 1983).
Participants recorded their experience of these symptoms using a 5-point
frequency scale of 0 (never) to 4 (always) with a time window of
measurement set as the preceding 6 months: The higher the participant’s
score on the questionnaire, the ‘‘poorer’’ their well-being. The scale was
found to be reliable in both studies (Cronbach’s alphas: preintervention
= .82 (Study 1) and .85 (Study 2); postintervention = .89 (Study 1) and
.83 (Study 2). Examination of the standard errors for skewness and kurtosis
showed that scores were normally distributed at both measurement points.
Existing data shows that for employees in managerial posts the normative
score on this measure is approximately 17 (Cox & Gotts, 1987; Cox et al.,
2000). Preintervention, both participant groups appeared more exhausted
than the normative group (mean Study 1 = 20.3, SD = 8.7; mean Study
2 = 18.9, SD = 7.5). These high levels were, in part, justification for both
risk management projects.
Measures of intervention exposure were taken at Time 2 and were
designed to tap into the active ingredient of the each intervention, i.e., the
aspect of exposure hypothesized to be the driver of change (Kompier,
Cooper, & Geurts, 2000b) in exhaustion scores. In Study 1, the active
ingredient was awareness of the new guidelines and procedures for fault
reporting. It was predicted that being aware of the new guidelines would
make a difference. Participants were asked to indicate their awareness of
(exposure to) the intervention through a single dichotomous item: ‘‘Indicate
whether or not you are aware of: the return of fault reporting to your
control’’ (0 = ‘‘No’’, 1 = ‘‘Yes’’). To test their reliability and validity these
data were triangulated. Senior managers (n = 3), and a sample of the
managers responsible for implementing the intervention (n = 6) were asked
to comment on its implementation. Records of written communications
were also examined for evidence of implementation.
In Study 2, the ‘‘active ingredient’’ was involvement in the programme of
updating computer equipment in the wards (i.e., a measure of whether each
participant had used new computer equipment recently installed in their
ward). Participants were asked to indicate their involvement in the
intervention through a single dichotomous item: ‘‘Indicate whether or not
you have been involved in: the use of new computer equipment in your