Commonly Used Tools in Australia
- People at Work (PAW) – supported by Comcare, Safe Work Australia, and state regulators.
- COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire) – widely used internationally and adapted in Australia.
- PSC-12 / PSC-4 (Psychosocial Safety Climate scale) – developed by UniSA, validated across multiple sectors.
- Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) & Demand-Control-Support model tools – classic measures of work design risks.
Reliability (Consistency of Measurement)
- Internal Consistency
- Tools like PAW and COPSOQ report Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70 across scales (acceptable threshold), meaning the items consistently measure the same constructs.
- Test–Retest Reliability
- Studies show PAW and PSC measures maintain stable results over time when workplace conditions are unchanged.
- Cross-Sector Reliability
- Validated in multiple industries (healthcare, education, aged care, construction), suggesting generalisability.
Validity (Accuracy of Measurement)
- Construct Validity – Tools capture recognised psychosocial hazards (job demands, control, support, justice, bullying, harassment). Items map directly onto WHS legislative definitions (e.g. Safe Work Australia’s model Code of Practice).
- Criterion Validity – Survey results correlate strongly with outcomes such as:
- Mental health symptoms (stress, burnout, depression).
- Organisational outcomes (injury claims, absenteeism, turnover).
- Predictive Validity – The Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC) has shown strong predictive ability:
- PSC-12 predicts future risk of psychological injury claims, presenteeism, and workplace bullying.
- A 2019 meta-analysis showed PSC explained up to 14% variance in future health outcomes independent of demographics.
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths:
- Tools are benchmarked (e.g., PAW provides comparison to national norms).
- High construct and criterion validity in occupational settings.
- Supported by regulators and linked to compliance requirements.
Limitations:
- Self-report bias: Workers may under/over-report risks due to stigma or fear.
- Snapshot limitation: Surveys capture risk at a point in time, but risks are dynamic.
- Context-specific validity: Some tools may miss hazards in unique industries (e.g., emergency services).
Best Practice for Using These Tools
- Choose validated surveys – PAW, PSC, COPSOQ.
- Ensure anonymity & confidentiality – builds trust and response accuracy.
- Combine with other data – incident reports, absenteeism, turnover, exit interviews.
- Repeat periodically – to track risk changes over time.
- Link results to action – validity is only meaningful if insights lead to hazard control.
References
- Bailey, T. S., Dollard, M. F., Richards, P., & McLinton, S. S. (2015). Psychosocial safety climate, psychosocial working conditions and safety perceptions in the workplace. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
- Safe Work Australia (2023). People at Work – National psychosocial risk assessment tool.
- Burr, H., Berthelsen, H., Moncada, S., Nübling, M., & Dupret, E. (2019). The COPSOQ III: International development and validation of a comprehensive questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health.
- Dollard, M. F. & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to job demands and resources, burnout, engagement, and sickness absence. J. Occ. & Org. Psychology.
In summary:
Validated psychosocial risk assessment surveys such as People at Work, COPSOQ, and PSC are highly reliable and valid for workplace use. However, they should not be used in isolation—they work best when combined with consultation, organisational data, and ongoing monitoring.
