ABSTRACT
Background: There has been increased
attention in concepts such as meaning, self-care, work-life balance and others
designed to address human sustainability in the workplace. Nonetheless,
world-wide per capita increase in psychological related sick-leave costs
companies approximately $748 Billion annually? Approximately 55% of company
sick leave is psychosocial related and this is increasing annually. Finding the
necessary tools to identify predictors related to psychological safety and
ill-health is now more critical than ever before. Furthermore, increasing
awareness and reducing the disconnection between an individual’s situational
wellbeing and an organization’s need for productivity is paramount. Currently,
corporate mental health consists of symptomatic related solutions.
Unfortunately, these retroactive models are usually short-lived plasters. Objective: This study aims to present reliability and validity of the
Empowerment for Participation (EFP) batch of assessments and its methodology to
measure, predict and proactively monitor an individual’s mental health and
wellbeing. The study will also briefly introduce three risk assessments: Risk
for Burnout, Risk of Anxiety and Risk for Depression, as well as an employee
Engagement Potential measure. Study Design, Setting and Method: The EFP batch
of assessments, consists of 110 questions. They are used to measure employee
motivation, stress, defense routines and motivational positioning (situational
adaptiveness) on an individual and aggregate level within a company. This study
looks at the reliability and validity of the EFP batch to effectively measure
the sustainability or status of an individual in relation to their engagement
potential, wellbeing, adaptability, potential risk for burnout, anxiety, and
depression. A cohort from four small companies and several unbound individuals
(employed but not belonging to the four companies) were included in this study.
An empirical design using raw EFP psychometric data to measure value
consistency correlated to anti-depressive prescription use or any related diagnosis
was used. Results: Reliability and validity results for EFP batch of
assessments (N = 73) were analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha for internal
consistency: Motivation (Items = 20, α = 0.939), Stress (Items = 20, α =
0.887), Defense Routines (Items = 20, α = 0.870), and PMP (Items = 50, α =
0.944). Discriminant analysis was used on the four risk assessments (extracted
from 110 EFP questions) and showed excellent results: Risk for Burnout (α =
0.928, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared = 0.900, Cohen’s d = 0.900), Risk for
Anxiety (α = 0.864, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared = 0.885, Cohen’s d =
0.885), Risk of Depression (α = 0.798, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared =
0.788, Cohen’s d = 0.787). Engagement Potential (α = 0.959, M = 3.849, SD =
0.967, Var = 0.935) is calculated from the mean of means from the Burnout,
Anxiety and Depression values. External validity showed >0.885. Conclusion:
This original study suggests that EFP Batch of Psychometrics and the subsequent
derivate risk assessment reports have excellent reliability and validity.
Diagnosis is not the primary objective, but rather to highlight a tool that can
be used for proactive engagement with employees, and to introduce a sustainable
psychosocial wellbeing methodology for employee psychological safety. The
purpose of which is to assist individuals in improving their situational
self-awareness and to manage their personal situational environments
sustainably. As a mental health tool to identify and prevent psychosocial
illnesses proactively, the EFP batch produces consistently reliable results to
serve as both a diagnosis and counseling tool worthy of major research in the
future.