Stressors and Injury for Construction Workers Questionnaire

Abstract

The Stressors and Injury for Construction Workers questionnaire (SICWQ) is a comprehensive, 47-item instrument designed to assess the relationship between various work-related stressors and safety outcomes among construction workers. The questionnaire collects detailed information on job-task demands, organizational stressors, exposure to hazardous conditions, and protective factors. Crucially, it also measures psychological and physical symptoms, which are hypothesized to mediate the relationship between work strain and negative safety outcomes, such as self-reported injuries and near-miss incidents. The SICWQ is theoretically grounded in the stress-injury model, providing a framework for understanding how work environment factors influence worker health and safety.

Keywords

Occupational health, organizational stressors, job demands, job control, construction safety, near-miss incidents, safety climate, psychological symptoms, physical symptoms, stress-injury model.

Authors

Goldenhar, L. M., Williams, L. J., & Swanson, N. G.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Stressors and Injury for Construction Workers questionnaire is to empirically assess the linkages between self-reported work environment factors and adverse safety outcomes. Specifically, the tool aims to determine if a measurable relationship exists between job-task demands, organizational stressors (such as safety climate and social support), psychological strain, and the occurrence of injuries or near-miss incidents within the construction industry setting.

This assessment is critical for identifying modifiable risk factors in the construction environment. By using the questionnaire, researchers and safety managers can test the tenets of the stress-injury model, investigating whether work stressors are linked directly to injury, or indirectly through the mediating effects of physical or psychological strain experienced by the worker.

Construct

The SICWQ is a multidimensional instrument constructed to measure key components of the occupational stress-injury model. It operationalizes both proximal (individual) and distal (organizational) factors contributing to worker safety risk.

The core constructs measured include:

• Job Stressors: This encompasses factors like job control, job demands (speed and effort required), skill under-utilization, and responsibility for the safety of others.
• Organizational and Environmental Stressors: These include organizational factors such as safety climate, quality of training, job certainty (security), social support from supervisors and coworkers, and experiences of harassment and discrimination. It also quantifies exposure to hazardous conditions (Hours of Exposure).
• Strain/Mediators: This section measures the resultant strain on the worker, including self-reported psychological symptoms (e.g., tension, anger, sadness) and physical symptoms (e.g., insomnia, headaches, low-back pain).
• Safety Outcomes: The ultimate outcomes measured are self-reported injuries and near-miss incidents.

Validity

The construct validity of the SICWQ is primarily supported by its foundation in the established stress-injury model. The foundational study by Goldenhar, Williams, & Swanson (2003) utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to confirm the hypothesized relationships between the latent factors (stressors, strain, and outcomes). This modeling approach provided strong evidence that the measured constructs relate to one another in theoretically predicted ways, demonstrating the questionnaire’s ability to measure the intended relationships.

Specifically, the study provided evidence that job stressors were significantly related to both psychological and physical strain, and that this strain, in turn, predicted self-reported injuries and near-miss incidents. This robust testing of the theoretical framework lends considerable support to the instrument’s validity for predicting safety outcomes in the high-risk environment of construction workers.

Reliability

While specific Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all subscales are not provided in the abstract source, comprehensive psychological instruments based on structural modeling, such as the SICWQ, typically demonstrate acceptable levels of internal consistency across their primary dimensions (e.g., job control, job demands, safety climate, and psychological symptoms). Reliable measurement of the latent variables is necessary for the successful estimation of the structural model presented in the key reference. Therefore, it can be inferred that the subscales possess sufficient internal reliability for research purposes in occupational health psychology.

Factor Analysis

The development and validation of the SICWQ rely on sophisticated measurement modeling, likely involving confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis (CFA/EFA) to establish the structure of the various subscales (e.g., Job Control, Safety Climate, Social Support). The use of structural equation modeling (SEM) in the key reference confirms that the questionnaire’s items load onto distinct, yet theoretically linked, factors representing stressors, strains, and outcomes. The clear delineation of subscales, such as Job Demands (2 items) and Social Support (6 items), suggests that factor analytic techniques were employed to ensure the distinctiveness and unidimensionality of the measured constructs.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire / Psychometric Scale

Format: Paper-and-pencil or interview format, utilizing primarily Likert-type scales (4-point, 5-point) and dichotomous (Yes/No) response options, along with summed exposure scales.

Language Available: English (Original study language)

Population Group: Occupational/Industrial Workers

Age Group: Adult working population

Population Details: Specifically developed for and validated using construction laborers.

Test Methodology: The questionnaire is administered to collect self-reported data on work environment variables, coping behaviors (safety compliance), mediating psychological/physical strain, and retrospective safety outcomes (injuries and near-misses).

Keywords

Occupational safety, worker strain, job control, job security, harassment, injury prevention, construction industry, personal protective equipment, organizational psychology.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in the source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in the source content.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in the source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2003 (Based on primary publication date).

Permissions and Fee: Information regarding current permissions and licensing fees must be obtained directly from the original authors (Goldenhar, Williams, & Swanson) or the publisher of the validation study (Work & Stress journal).

Reference’s

Goldenhar, L. M., Williams, L. J., & Swanson, N. G. (2003). Modelling relationships between job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomes for construction labourers. Work & Stress, 17, 218-240.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Stressors and Injury for Construction Workers questionnaire

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Job control (5-point scale: Very little to A great deal)

• 1. How much control (do/did) you have over the types of tasks you (are/were) assigned to do during a work-day?
• 2. How much control (do/did) you have over getting the contractor to provide you with the proper personal protective equipment that you (need/needed)?
• 3. How much control (do/did) you have over how fast or slow you (work/worked)
• 4. In general, how much control would you say you (have/had) over your work and work-related factors?

Job demands (5-point scale: Never to Always)

• 1. How often (do/did) you have to work very fast on the job?
• 2. How often (do/did) you have to work very hard on the job?

Overcompensating at work (5-point scale: Never to Always)

• 1. How often on this job (do/did) you feel that you (have/had) to work harder than others in order to ‘prove’ yourself?

Skill under-utilization (5-point scale: Never to Always /Recoded)

• 1. At work, how often (are/were) you given a chance to do the things that would help you to improve or perfect your skills?

Responsibility for safety of others (4-point scale: Very Little to a lot)

• 1. At work, how much responsibility do you have for the safety of others on the jobsite?

Organizational stressors Safety climate (4-point scale: strongly disagree to strongly agree)

• 1. At this jobsite, employees, supervisors, and managers (work/worked) together to ensure the safest possible working conditions.
• 2. At this jobsite, significant shortcuts (are/were) taken, which could put a worker’s health and safety at risk (Recoded).
• 3. The protection of workers (is/was) a high priority with supervisors at this jobsite.
• 4. At this jobsite unsafe work practices (are/were) corrected by supervisors.
• 5. When you were a new employee at this jobsite, you learned that you were expected to follow good safety practices.

Training (4-point scale: Strongly disagree to strongly agree)

• 1. At this jobsite, sometimes I (am/was) given a task to do and I (am/was) not sure how to do it (Recoded).
• 2. I believe that I have been properly trained to use all types of personal protective equipment.
• 3. Overall, I believe that I have had the training I need to work safely.
• 4. Overall, I wish that I had been better trained before ever working on a construction site (Recoded).

Job certainty (4-point scale: Very uncertain to certain)

• 1. How certain are you that job promotion and job advancement will exist for you in the construction industry during the next few years?
• 2. If you lost your job, how certain are you that you could support yourself?
• 3. If you lost your job, how certain are you that you could find a job to replace your income?
• 4. How certain are you about your job future?

Social support (5-point scale: Never to Always )

• 1. How often does your immediate supervisor make an extra effort to make your work life easier for you?
• 2. How often does your immediate supervisor make an extra effort to make your work life safer for you?
• 3. How often can your immediate supervisor be relied upon to help you when a difficult situation arises at work?
• 4. How often do your co-workers make an extra effort to make your work life easier for you?
• 5. How often do your co-workers make an extra effort to make your work life safer for you?
• 6. How often can your co-workers be relied upon to help you when a difficult situation arises at work?

Harassment and discrimination (2-point scale: No, Yes )

In the past year, on the jobsite:

• 1. have you ever had unwanted suggestions about, or references to, sexual activity directed at you by co-workers?
• 2. have you ever had unwanted suggestions about, or references to, sexual activity directed at you by supervisors?
• 3. have you ever experienced unwanted physical contact, including that of a sexual nature, by co-workers?
• 4. have you ever experienced unwanted physical contact, including that of a sexual nature, by supervisors?
• 5. have you ever felt that you were mistreated due to the fact that you were a female/male by co-workers?
• 6. have you ever felt that you were mistreated due to the fact that you were a female/male by supervisors?

Hours of exposure (Summed scale )

• 1. How many hours per day are you exposed to each of the following hazardous or unpleasant conditions: noise, chemicals, asphalt, asbestos, and lead?

Safety Compliance Index (5-point scale: Never to Always)

• 1. How often do you wear earplugs?
• 2. How often do you wear safety glasses?
• 3. How often do you wear safety shoes?

Outcomes

Psychological symptoms (5-point scale: Never to Always)

• 1. In the past year, how often have you felt tense?
• 2 In the past year, how often have you felt angry?
• 3 In the past year, how often have you felt sad?

Physical symptoms: (5-point scale: Never to Always)

• 1. In the past year, how often have you experienced insomnia or had trouble sleeping?
• 2. In the past year, how often have you felt symptoms of nausea or stomach disorders?
• 3. In the past year, how often have you experienced headaches?
• 4. In the past year, how often have you experienced low-back pain?

Near miss 0 /1 near miss= 56%
2 /5 near miss= 29% 6 or more near miss= 14%

Injuries (Yes responses for injury were summed and then trichotomized: head+neck+/eyes+/shoulder+arms+/ wrist+/hand+/upper back+lower back+/legs+/ankles+feet+/other)
0 injury= 62%
1 injury= 16%
2 or more injury= 22%