Work environment correlates of WAI

R. J. Mykletun and T. Furunes

"Contemporary Problems of Prolonging Work Ability.Age Management: Extending the Work Life"

October 9-10, 2008. Tallinn

Purpose

• This study tests a four item version of the Work Ability Index (WAI-4) and relates the scale to:

– Perceived work environment factors as measured by the QPS-Nordic ADW, and

– Other psychological factors related to work • Work and life satisfaction• Perceived stress• Organisational Commitment• Self-efficacy• Ageing well at work, and

– Health related behaviour (sick leave)

– Demographics (age and gender)

Previous research on WAI and work environment factors - 1

• Ilmarinen (2005): Finland, national representative sample, n=3774. WAI relates to:– Mental strain (highest effect)– Physical demands– Supervisory support– Joy of work, enthusiasm – Competence

• Camerino et al (2005): Six European countries, nurses, n=27146. WAI relates to: – High job demands and harassment– Job control had buffering effect only for younger nurses

• Estryn-Behar et al (2005): French nurses, n=4306. WAI related to:– Work demands, uncertainty, collegial support, uneven and

high work pace– Dissatisfaction with physical working conditions and work

postures

Previous research on WAI and work environment factors - 2

• Freude et al. (2005): German female teachers, n=100. WAI relates to– efforts – rewards balance at work

• Goedhard & Goedhard (2005): Dutch army servants, n=144. WAI relates to – Stress defined by boredom, lack of support,

quantitative overload, qualitative overload, salary and physical working conditions

• Bugajska & Lastowiecka (2005): Polish cross-occupational sample, n=1485. WAI relates to– Collegial support, work pace, time for breaks

Background – few published studies report scale properties

• Torgen, 2005: Swedish sample, n=3493– Ten item questionnaire version of WAI grouped to seven

scores– Factor analysis showed homogeneity (one factor) – “Ceiling effect” and unstable correlations of items to sum-

score for healthy workforce and for younger male workers for three scores

– Gender differences, increasing average over time?• Geissler et al (2005): German home care workers, n=126

– WAI score influenced by interviewer’s profession • Radkiewcz & Widerzahl-Bazyl (2005): NEXT-study in nine

European countries, n=38000 – Seven item questionnaire version– Factor structures (1 – 2) vary across national samples– Alpha coefficient varies across national samples from .54 to

79; average Alpha = .72– Predictive validity (health, burnout)

Background – different versions of the WAI in use

• Different scales used– Full version with medical doctor examination– Ten item questionnaire version grouped to seven

subscales (Torgen, 2005; Seibt et al, 2005)– Seven item questionnaire version (Radkiewcz &

Widerzahl-Bazyl, 2005)– “Short version” (Geissler et al, 2005)– One item “What is your work ability compared to

your life-time best” (e.g., Nygård et al, 2005)

Design and sample – present study

• Data were collected by the QPS-Nordic ADW (Nordic Questionnaire for monitoring the Age Diverse Workforce)

• Sample: 1050 randomly selected teachers in Norway

• Response rate = 39 percent– 34% males, 66% females– Age ranges: 24 – 70 years (M=52)

QPS-Nordic ADW (Nordic Questionnaire for monitoring the Age Diverse Workforce)(Pahkin, Björklund, Mykletun, Furunes, Gard & Lindström, 2008)

Task level Social and organisational level

Individual level

Quantitative demandsDecision demandsLearning demands

Co-worker support Predictability at workPredictability of change

Role clarityRole conflict

Leader support, empowerment and fairness

Organisational commitmentSelf-efficacy

Control at work HR Primacy Work motivation

Harassment Discrimination of older workers

Social climate Innovative climate

WAI-4Satisfaction Stress“Ageing well at work”

WAI-4 sum-score properties

Item Mean and st.dev.

Factor loading

Item corr with sum

Alpha if deleted

Current work ability

3.06 (1,36) .87 .68 .81

Health compared to others

3.98 (.91).85 .71 .77

Work ability physical demands

3.88 (.94).83 .75 .75

Work ability mental demands

3.98 (.79).74 .60 .82

Overall 3,7 (.64)

61 % expl. var

Alpha= .83

Distribution four-items WAI-4 sum-score

WAI-4 sum-score

02468

10121416

1 2 3 4 5

Distribution of WAI-4 sum-score

Pe

rce

nt

of

sa

mp

le

Ageing well at work (AWAW) sum-score properties

Item Mean and st.d.

Factor loading

Item cor. with sum

Alpha if deleted

Can use my skills here

3.92 (.79).78 .42 .68

Experience appreciated here 3.42 (.97) .66 .58 .61

Same treatment of age groups 3.7 (1.03) .69 .46 .67

Small problems in ageing here 3.28 (.92) .64 .42 .68

Positive future here

3,27 (.99) .63 .46 .67

Overall 3,5 (.64)

47 % expl. Var

Alpha= .71

Distribution five items “Ageing well at work” sum-score

Ageing well at work sum-score

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1,4 2 2,6 3,2 3,8 4,4 5

Distribution of AWAW Sum-scores

Pe

rce

nt

of

sa

mp

le

Self-efficacy sum-score properties

Item Mean and st.dev.

Factor loading

Item corr with sum

Alpha if deleted

Manage as well as others

4.47 (.91).80 .64 .81

I can fit work tasks to my capacity

4.22 (1.00) .83 .68 .79

Handling most work situations

4.3 (.92).90 .79 .74

I hold positive attitudes to my work

4.43 (.87).76 .59 .83

Overall 4.35 (.78)

68 % expl. var

Alpha= .84

Distribution of Self-efficacy sum-score

Self-efficacy sum-score

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5

Distribution of Self-efficacy sum-score

Perc

ent o

f sam

ple

Satisfaction sum-score properties

Item Mean and st.dev.

Factor loading

Item corr with sum

Alpha if deleted

Satisfied with work

3.96 (.82).91 .64

Satisfied with life in general

3,91 (.81).91 .64

Overall 4.35 (.78)

81% of variance

Alpha= .78

Distribution of satisfaction sum-score

Satisfaction sumscore

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Distribution of Satisfaction sum-score

QPSNordic-AWD Work environment correlates of WAI-4

WAI-4 sum-score

Age discrim

Decis dem

Learn dem

Role clarity

Role confl

Control wpCo-work support

Superv support

Empowerment

Fair leader

Soc climate

Relative age

HR primacy

Harassment.10*.26***

.02

.18***

.08

-.15**

.14**

.22*** -.12*-.11*

.06

.18***

.21***

.05

.00

Quant dem

Control dec.13*

Pred change

Fair leader

Pred change.24***

Pred 2 years.26***

LMX.13*

Psychological, demographic and behavioural correlates of Work Ability sum-score

WAI sum-score

Ageing well at work

Self efficacy

Gender

Sick leave

Stress

Commitment

Age.42***

.55***

-.30*** -.39***

.35***

.18***

.13 ns

MotivationSatisfaction

.33***

-.21***

Planned exit age

.02ns

Predicting Work Ability sum score

Mod 1 Mod 2 Mod 3 Mod 4

Age discriminationLearning demandsPredictability of changePredictability 2 years Age relative to own leader

-.13*-.15**.16**.13*.14**

.04(ns)

.01(ns)

.07(ns)

.06(ns).14**

-.03(ns)-.02(ns)

-.10*.04(ns).14**

.01(ns)

.01(ns)

.07(ns)

.03(ns)

.05(ns)

Control over decisionsAgeing well at workSelf efficacy StressMotivation

-.11*.21**.29***-.14**

.08(ns)

-.11*.17*

.27***-.12*

.10(ns)

-.11*.17*

.28***-.12*.12*

Sick leave -.23*** -.22***

Age -.18***

Adjusted R2 .16*** .33*** .38*** .40**

Conclusions – 1• Work environment factors relate to ability as measured by

WAI-4, but correlations are low to moderate– Social factors, discrimination, support– Change and lack of predictability– Learning demands– Leadership, control, role conflict

• In the multiple regression, the work environment factors explain 16 % of the WAI-4 variance

• Psychological factors relate more strongly to ability as measured by WAI-4– Self-efficacy, ageing well at work, motivation

– Stress, satisfaction

• Sick leave and age relate to ability as measured by WAI-4

Conclusions – 2

The relationships between the various work environment factors and ability as measured by the WAI-4 become less significant when controlled for– Self-efficacy– Ageing well at work– Stress– Control over decisions remains significantly related to

ability as measured by the WAI-4 – These psychological factors account for 17 % of the WAI-

4 variance• In this model,

– Sick leave has a separate effect, explaining additionally 5 %, without influencing other observed relationships

– Age has a separate effect, explaining additionally 2 % of the WAI-4 variance

• A total of 40 % of the WAI-4 variance was explained by this model

Conclusions – 3

• The four item WAI version (WAI-4) has excellent scale properties

– One factor – uni-dimensional– High reliability

• The concept of Work Ability - as measured by the WAI-4 – has strong conceptual validity, representing also important psychological factors of high significance to coping and well-being at work

• Further research should position the Work Ability concept to work environment, psychological factors and health variables on the same data

• The study should be repeated across samples with different occupations and working conditions

Thank you – questions and comments, please

Reidar J. Mykletun

University of Stavanger4036 Stavanger, Norway

Email to reimykle@gmail.com