Work Tension Scale

Abstract

The Work Tension Scale, originally developed by House and Rizzo in 1972, is a widely used psychological instrument designed to quantify the degree of strain experienced by an employee in the workplace. This measure focuses specifically on describing the employee’s subjective experience of psychological and psychosomatic symptoms associated with tension experienced at work. A key focus of the scale is assessing the degree to which work-related stress interferes with personal life, including cognitive intrusion, such as constant worrying about work, and physiological consequences, such as work-induced sleep disruption (e.g., being kept awake at night).

Keywords

Work Tension, Job Stress, Occupational Health, Psychological Symptoms, Psychosomatic, Role Conflict, Organizational Behavior, Strain, Employee Well-being.

Authors

Robert J. House, John R. Rizzo

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Work Tension Scale is to provide a concise and reliable assessment of the level of job-related strain experienced by an individual within an organizational setting. It serves as an indicator of psychological well-being as it relates directly to the demands and conflicts inherent in the employee’s role. Researchers and practitioners utilize this scale to identify populations at risk for poor health outcomes, high turnover intentions, and decreased job satisfaction due to excessive workplace demands.

The scale is particularly useful for measuring the “spillover” effect of work stress, quantifying how deeply vocational demands penetrate the employee’s non-work life, manifesting as physical complaints or persistent cognitive preoccupation. This measurement is crucial for organizational development initiatives aimed at reducing stressors and improving the quality of work life.

Construct

The Work Tension Scale measures the psychological construct of Job Tension (or Work Tension), which is conceptualized as the affective and physiological state of discomfort arising from perceived pressures and conflicts within the work environment. It is not a measure of the objective organizational stressors themselves, but rather the individual employee’s subjective experience and resultant strain.

The construct covers two main dimensions of strain consequences: (1) direct psychological and somatic symptoms (e.g., nervousness, health deterioration) and (2) cognitive intrusion (e.g., inability to disconnect from work, leading to sleep disturbance). High scores on the Work Tension Scale indicate significant psychological distress resulting from the interaction between the individual and their occupational role.

Validity

The validity of the Work Tension Scale has been extensively examined across numerous studies, demonstrating strong relationships with key constructs in organizational psychology.

Convergent Validity: Job tension consistently correlated positively with several established indicators of organizational strain and conflict. These positive correlations included work role ambiguity, work role conflict, general work role stress, family role stress, work-family conflict, family distress, turnover intentions, and poor physical health (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1998; Netemeyer et al., 1990; Sanchez & Brock, 1996). These findings confirm that the scale accurately measures the intended construct of strain and its associated negative outcomes.

Discriminant Validity: Conversely, job tension correlated negatively with constructs representing positive psychological states or stable individual differences. These negative correlations were observed with organizational commitment, job satisfaction, age, and self-esteem (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1998; Netemeyer et al., 1990; Sanchez & Brock, 1996). The inverse relationship with commitment and satisfaction confirms that the scale successfully distinguishes tension from positive attitudes toward the job or organization.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Work Tension Scale has been demonstrated to be robust across various research settings and populations. Studies utilizing the measure have reported Coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha) values ranging from .71 to .89 (Bunce & West, 1996; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Grandey & Cropanzano, 1998; Kacmar, 1999; Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Sanchez & Brock, 1996).

This consistent range of alpha coefficients, which generally meets or exceeds the threshold of .70 required for acceptable reliability in social sciences research, confirms that the items within the scale measure a single, coherent psychological construct (Work Tension) with high precision and minimal measurement error.

Factor Analysis

While the original publication by House and Rizzo (1972) may not have detailed specific factor analyses in the provided source material, the scale is typically treated as a unidimensional measure of global Job Tension. Given its brevity (seven items) and focused content addressing symptoms of strain, researchers commonly employ the total summed score, reflecting a single underlying factor of employee psychological strain related to the workplace. Subsequent validation studies support the use of a single score due to the high internal consistency shown by the reliability coefficients.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Inventory

Format: Dichotomous response format (True/False)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Working Adults / Employees in organizational settings

Age Group: Adult (Typically 18+)

Population Details: Applicable across various industries and job roles where role strain and organizational stress are relevant constructs.

Test Methodology: Pencil-and-paper or online administration. Scoring involves summing the coded responses (True = 2, False = 1) to derive a total tension score, with higher scores indicating greater work tension.

Keywords

Strain Measurement, House and Rizzo, 1972, Work Role Conflict, Psychometrics, Internal Consistency, Turnover Intentions.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Work Tension Scale was originally developed in 1972 by House and Rizzo. The items presented here were reproduced from the compendium by Cook et al. (1981), which holds copyright for the compilation and reproduction rights for the items as presented in that text. Researchers seeking to utilize the scale should ensure they have appropriate permissions, typically from the original authors or the current copyright holder, depending on the context of use. Information regarding specific licensing fees is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

• Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work. Human Relations, 49(2), 209–232.
• Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press.
• Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180.
• Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52(2), 165–181.
• House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467–505.
• Kacmar, K. M. (1999). Effects of organizational politics on job attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 519–532.
• Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Role conflict and ambiguity in the sales force: Theoretical links and some empirical findings. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 155–164.
• Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination at work: A study of Hispanic employees. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 204–219.

Items of the Work Tension Scale

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

Responses are obtained as true, coded 2, or false, coded 1.

1. My job tends to directly affect my health.
2. I work under a great deal of tensions
3. I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job
4. If I had a different job, my health would probably improve
5. Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night
6. I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company
7. I often “take my job home with me” in the sense that I think about it when doing other things