Risk assessment of occupational stress
Extensions of the Clarke and Cooper approach
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20511156 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Caroline Biron (0000-0001-7647-4315, Lancaster University), Hans Ivers (0000-0002-1004-4440, Lancaster University), Jean‐pierre Brun (0000-0001-8615-2061, Lancaster University, corresponding author), Jean-Pierre Brun (0000-0002-0149-9056), C L Cooper (0000-0002-0360-8498, Lancaster University) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 417-429 |
| Publication date | 2006-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Risk & Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-8575 • E-ISSN: 1469-8331 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13698570601008222 |
| OpenAlex | W1964237305 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 28 |
For an organization to prevent occupational stress problems, it is necessary to correctly diagnose the characteristics of the work and employment conditions that are perceived as risks by employees and to investigate the consequences of these risks. Clarke and Cooper propose a methodology to assess which organizational factors pose the highest levels of risk to the well-being of employees. A level of risk is calculated based on the exposure level of a hazard and on the level of negative consequences associated with this exposure. The methodology has proven to be useful to prioritize and target specific areas for interventions. The present study introduced significant developments to this methodology by incorporating a coping dimension into the formula in order to better reflect the theoretical stress model. Tested on a sample of employees from a hospital centre (N = 1229), the introduction of coping strategies in the computation of risk level increases the strength of the relationship between risk exposure and outcomes, illustrating that the improved formula constitutes a more precise method to assess risk. Keywords: Risk assessmentrisk managementoccupational stressmethodologycoping Notes 1 This transformation is straightforward: (a) subtract a constant to get a minimum score of zero, (b) divide the result by the maximum score of the corrected scale, and (c) multiply the resulting score per 10 to get a 0 to 10 score. For example, if we have a mean of 3.5 on a ‘1 to 7’ scale, we need to do these operations: (3.5−1)/6×10 = 4.17. 2 Clerks and the respondents from ‘other categories’ were not included in the analysis. 3 Respondents had to indicate weather or not they were exposed to toxic agents, no details were obtained concerning which type of toxic agents
Geography · Hazard · Occupational stress · Operations management · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Risk assessment · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · Engineering · Medicine · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Psychology · Risk and Safety Analysis · Social Psychology · Workplace Health and Well-being
Emotion And Adaptation
Organizational Stress
Stress-Related Transactions between Person and Environment
Coping with job stress
Well‐being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace
Stress
Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions.
The risk management of occupational stress
The Mismeasure of Coping by Checklist
Occupational sources of stress
Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates
The USA perspective
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.2 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2021 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |