Workload assessment: Time to emanate from accurate conclusions instead of preconceived notions

Abstract

Traditionally, assessments in psychosocial work environment research and practice utilize unidimensional response formats. This presupposes that higher or lower values are better or worse. Using unidimensional questions to assess multidimensional variables such as workload can be misleading. Two-dimensional assessments using completing questions that indicate different aspects of the same construct may increase assessment precision and correctness. The current study aims to elucidate if and how two-dimensional assessments of workload, that is, consistent ratings of high or low workload and level of satisfaction with it in repeated assessments, are related to outcomes in indicators of health, stress, well-being and the psychosocial work environment, both cross-sectionally and over time. 1284 study participants were followed for over 2 years. The results clearly and systematically demonstrated that often or rarely having too much to do, is not a reliable nor valid indicator of health, stress, well-being and psychosocial work environment-related outcomes. In contrast, the satisfaction dimension is systematically and consistently related to statistically significant and more pronounced differences in these outcomes. To properly help individuals at risk, both aspects of workload need to be assessed and accounted for. Whereas satisfaction is a better indicator of outcomes, the perceived workload magnitude is needed to intervene properly.