Aims: The aim of the present paper is to present and validate a Knowledge-Intensive Work Environment Survey Target (KIWEST), a questionnaire developed for assessing the psychosocial factors among people in knowledge-intensive work environments. Methods: The construct validity and reliability of the measurement model where tested on a representative sample of 3066 academic and administrative staff working at one of the largest universities in Norway. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis provided initial support for the convergent validity and internal consistency of the 30 construct KIWEST measurement model. However, discriminant validity tests indicated that some of the constructs might overlap to some degree. Conclusion: Overall, the KIWEST measure showed promising psychometric properties as a psychosocial work environment measure.
IpsenCJensenPL.Organizational options for preventing work-related stress in knowledge work. Int J Ind Ergonom2012;42(4):325–34.
2.
Welle-StrandA. Knowledge production, service and quality: Higher education tensions in Norway. Quality Higher Educ2000;6:219–30.
3.
BakkerABDemeroutiESanz-VergelAI. Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behavior2014;1:1–23.
4.
ASD.Act Relating to Working Environment, Working Hours and Employment Protection, etc. (Working Environment Act). Trondheim: Directorate of Labour Inspection, 2006.
5.
TightM. Are academic workloads increasing? The post-war survey evidence in the UK. Higher Educ Quart2010; 64: 5.
6.
DallnerMEloA-LGamberaleF. Validation of the General Nordic Questionnaire (QPSNordic) for Psychological and Social Factors at Work. København: Nordisk Ministerråd, 2000, p.171 s.
7.
UndebakkeKGInnstrandSTAnthunKSChristensenM. The ARK Intervention Programme, Who - What - How. Series of reports from The Centre for Health Promotion Research. Trondheim: HiST/NTNU, 2015.
8.
HoustonDMeyerLHPaewaiS. Academic Staff Workloads and Job Satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. J Higher Educ Policy Manage2006; 28: 17–30.
9.
BellamySMorleyCWattyK. Why business academics remain in Australian universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle. J Higher Educ Policy Manage2003; 25:13–28.
10.
HarmanG. Australian Academics and prospective academics: Adjustment to a more commercial environment. In: OECD, (ed.). Higher Education Management and Policy. Paris, France: OECD, 2003.
11.
PejtersenJHKristensenTSBorgV. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health2010;38(suppl):16.
12.
McInnisC. Changing academic work roles: The everyday realities challenging quality in teaching. Quality Higher Educ2000; 6: 143–52.
13.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABVan RhenenW. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organizational Behav2009;30:893–917.
14.
CrawfordERLePineJARichBL. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J Appl Psychol2010;95:834–48.
15.
BrysonC. What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and the transformation of academic work. Industrial Relations J2004;35:38–57.
16.
SchaufeliWBTarisTW. A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In: BauerGFHämmingO (eds). Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 2014.
17.
NäswallKLåstadLVettingT-S. Job insecurity from a gender perspective: Data collection and psychometric properties. Report.Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2010.
18.
ChristensenMAronssonGBorgV. Building engagement and healthy organisations. Validation of the Nordic Questionnaire on Positive Organisational Psychology (N-POP). TemaNord. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2012, p.549.
19.
DemeroutiEBakkerAB. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout (and engagement). In: HalbeslebenJRB (ed.). Handbook of Stress and Burnout in Health Care. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2008.
20.
KristensenTSHannerzHHøghA. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work, Environ Health2005;31:11.
21.
ColquittJA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol2001;86:386–400.
22.
KuvaasBDysvikA. Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Human Resource Manage J2009;19:217–36.
23.
DemeroutiEBakkerABVardakouI. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Eur J Psycholog Assess2003;19:12–23.
24.
InnstrandSTLangballeEMFalkumE. Gender-specific perceptions of four dimensions of the work/family interaction. J Career Assess2009;17:14.
25.
DiamantopoulosASiguawJA. Introducing Lisrel: A Guide for the Uninitiated. London: SAGE, 2000.
26.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ. Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth edition ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
27.
InnstrandSTLangballeEMFalkumE. A Longitudinal study of the relationship between work engagement and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Stress Health2012;28:10.
28.
CamposJADBCarlotto MS and MarôcoJ.Oldenburg Burnout Inventory - student version: cultural adaptation and validation into Portuguese. Psicologia: Reflexão Crítica2012;25:709–18.
29.
SchaufeliWB. What is engagement? In: TrussCDelbridgeRAlfesK. (eds). Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2014.
