TY  - JOUR
A1  - Appel, Patricia
A1  - Schuler, Michael
A1  - Vogel, Heiner
A1  - Oezelsel, Amina
A1  - Faller, Hermann
T1  - Short Questionnaire for Workplace Analysis (KFZA): factorial validation in physicians and nurses working in hospital settings
JF  - Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
N2  - Background:
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in psychosocial workplace risk assessments in Germany. One of the questionnaires commonly employed for this purpose is the Short Questionnaire for Workplace Analysis (KFZA). Originally, the KFZA was developed and validated for office workers. The aim of the present study was to examine the factorial validity of the KFZA when applied to hospital settings. Therefore, we examined the factorial structure of a questionnaire that contained all the original items plus an extension adding 11 questions specific to hospital workplaces and analyzed both, the original version and the extended version.
Methods:
We analyzed questionnaire data of a total of 1731 physicians and nurses obtained over a 10-year period. Listwise exclusion of data sets was applied to account for variations in questionnaire versions and yielded 1163 questionnaires (1095 for the extended version) remaining for factor analysis. To examine the factor structure, we conducted a principal component factor analysis. The number of factors was determined using the Kaiser criterion and scree-plot methods. Factor interpretation was based on orthogonal Varimax rotation as well as oblique rotation.
Results:
The Kaiser criterion revealed a 7-factor solution for the 26 items of the KFZA, accounting for 62.0% of variance. The seven factors were named: “Social Relationships”, “Job Control”, “Opportunities for Participation and Professional Development”, “Quantitative Work Demands”, “Workplace Environment”, “Variability” and “Qualitative Work Demands”. The factor analysis of the 37 items of the extended version yielded a 9-factor solution. The two additional factors were named “Consequences of Strain” and “Emotional Demands”. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.63 to 0.87 for these scales.
Conclusions:
Overall, the KFZA turned out to be applicable to hospital workers, and its content-related structure was replicated well with some limitations. However, instead of the 11 factors originally proposed for office workers, a 7-factor solution appeared to be more suitable when employed in hospitals. In particular, the items of the KFZA factor “Completeness of Task” might need adaptation for the use in hospitals. Our study contributes to the assessment of the validity of this popular instrument and should stimulate further psychometric testing.
KW  - KFZA
KW  - mental health
KW  - work-related stress
KW  - hospital
KW  - psychosocial workplace risk assessment
KW  - validation
Y1  - 2017
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-157510
VL  - 12
IS  - 11
ER  -