Quality assurance for workplace health promotion. Validation of the quality criteria for WHP in the Austrian quality management system

  • Gert LangEmail author
  • Christoph Heigl
  • Paulino Jiménez
Original Article



Workplace health promotion (WHP) is being increasingly employed as a corporate strategy, being at its most effective when it is implemented in a high-quality and sustainable way. Based on normative principles, a quality management system for WHP was introduced in Austria in 2004. This article examines the measurement quality to validate this quality assurance system.

Subjects and methods

From 2014 to 2017, WHP projects have been assessed rigorously by means of a standardized procedure using 15 quality criteria. The foundations for this are an application submitted by the company, and the decision as to whether a WHP quality certificate is awarded or not is based on the overall assessment. Data are available for the 1131 Austrian companies. Based on theoretical and methodological considerations, the measurement quality was investigated in relation to the overall quality of WHP projects with the help of structural equation models.


The confirmatory one-factor analysis revealed satisfactory construct validity (λ ≥ 0.40) and high reliability for the overall scale (α = 0.87), although the fit was not acceptable. The bi-factor analysis with a general factor (GF) and three specific residual factors resulted in good model fit. The GF explained most of the common variance (ECV = 63.9%); the overall scale was also characterized by its high reliability (αGF = 0.90, ωHGF = 0.82).


The results justify the creation of an overall scale for assessing the quality of WHP. The mean varied by the year of submission, and there was a significant difference between both small/large enterprises and initial/renewal awards. The measurement tool can be considered a good screening instrument for awarding the WHP quality certificate.


Workplace health promotion Quality assurance Confirmatory factor analysis Validity Reliability 



Factor loading

(∑ λ)2

Sum of loadings squared

(∑ λ2)

Sum of squared loadings


Confirmatory bi-factor analysis


Confirmatory factor analysis


Comparative fit index


Confidence interval


Degrees of freedom


Explained common variance


European Network for Workplace Health Promotion


Fonds Gesundes Österreich


General factor


Initial award


Intra-class correlation


Large enterprise


Arithmetic mean


Multi-group confirmatory bi-factor analysis


Number of valid cases


Österreichisches Netzwerk Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung


p value


Quality indicator


Renewal award


Residual factor


Root mean standard error of approximation


Standard deviation






Small enterprise


Tucker-Lewis index


Workplace health promotion


Weighted least square means and variance adjusted


Cronbach’s alpha




Omega hierarchical


Omega specific



We are grateful for the feedback from Anita Bregenzer, which helped us improve the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10389_2018_1005_MOESM1_ESM.rtf (116 kb)
ESM 1 (RTF 115 kb)


  1. Ader M, Berensson K, Carlsson P, Granath M, Urwitz V (2001) Quality indicators for health promotion programs. Health Promot Int 16:187–195. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. BKK Dachverband (2018a) Deutscher Unternehmenspreis Gesundheit. Accessed 17 July 2018
  3. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bortz J, Döring N (2016) Forschungsmethoden und evaluation für human- und sozialwissenschaftler, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowling A (2017) Measuring health: a review of subjective health and quality of life measurement scales, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 136–162Google Scholar
  7. Byrne BM (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen FF, West SG, Sousa KH (2006) A comparision of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivar Behav Res 41:189–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen FF, Hayes A, Carver CS, Laurenceau J-P, Zhang Z (2012) Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: a comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. J Pers 80:219–251. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng-Hsien L (2016) Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods 48:936–949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeVellis RF (2017) Scale development: theory and applications, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamantopoulos A (2005) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing: a comment. Int J Res Mark 22:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donabedian A (1980) Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Health Administration Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  15. Donabedian A (2005 [1966]) Evaluations in quality of medical care. Milbank Q 83:691–729.
  16. ENWHP (1997) Luxembourg declaration on workplace health promotion in the European union. European Network for Workplace Health PromotionGoogle Scholar
  17. Evers A, Hagemeister C, Høstmælingen A, Lindley P, Muniz J, Sjöberg A (2013) EFPA review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests: test review form and notes for reviewers version 4.2.6. European Federation of Psychologists Associations (EFPA). Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  18. Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz (2018) Friendly work space. Accessed 17 July 2018
  19. Heigl C (2014) Qualitätssicherung als laufende Entwicklung am Beispiel der Betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung des Österreichischen Netzwerks für BGF (ÖNBGF). Wirtschaftspsy 16:35–43Google Scholar
  20. Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM (2003) A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. J Consum Res 30:199–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiménez P, Eibel K, Dunkl A, Ratswohl A (2014) Entwicklung von Qualitätskriterien für AnbieterInnen von Dienstleistungen im Bereich der Gesundheitsförderung. Wirtschaftspsy 2:27–34Google Scholar
  23. Kliche T, Töppich J, Kawski S, Koch U, Lehmann H (2004) Die Beurteilung der Struktur-, Konzept- und Prozessqualität von Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Anforderungen und Lösungen. Bundesgesundheitsbla 47:125–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kliche T, Töppich J, Kawski S, Brunecker L, Önel J, Ullrich A, Koch U (2007) Professional expectations about quality assurance: a review-based taxonomy of usability criteria in prevention, health promotion and education. J Public Health 15:11–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Lohaus D, Rietz C (2015) Arbeitgeberattraktivität. Der Stellenwert von Bekanntheit und Labels in der frühen Rekrutierungsphase. Z Arb Organ 59:70–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  28. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  30. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. ÖNBGF (2018) Die 15 Qualitätskriterien. Accessed 17 July 2018
  32. Pieper C, Schöer S, Haupt J, Kramer I (2015) Wirksamkeit und Nutzen betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention - Zusammenstellung der wissenschaftlichen Evidenz 2006 bis 2012 (iga.Report 28). In: IGA (ed) Wirksamkeit und Nutzen betrieblicher Prävention, vol 28. Initiative Gesundheit & Arbeit, Berlin, pp 11–110Google Scholar
  33. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Reise SP (2012) The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivar Behav Res 47:667–696. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG (2010) Bifactor models and rotations: exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. J Pers Assess 92:544–559. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhemtulla M, Bruosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods 17:354–373. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosian-Schikuta I, Horvath I, Juraszovich B, Renner A-T, Langmann H, Atzler B (2016) Institutionelle Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention. Internationale Evidenz. Bestandsaufnahme Österreich. Perspektiven (Wissenschaftlicher Ergebnisbericht). Gesundheit Österreich, WienGoogle Scholar
  38. Schnell R, Hill PB, Esser E (2013) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 10th edn. Oldenbourg Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  39. Spector PE (2006) Method variance in organisational research: truth or urban legend? Organ Res Methods 9:221–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van de Vijver FJR (2013) Method bias. In: Keith K (ed) The encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 878–880. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiber R, Mühlhaus D (2010) Strukturgleichungsmodellierung: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. Winter W, Grünewald C (2016) BGM als Stellschraube von Arbeitgeberattraktivität. In: Badura B, Ducki A, Schröder H, Klose J, Meyer M (eds) Fehlzeiten-Report 2016. Unternehmenskultur und Gesundheit-Herausforderungen und Chancen. Springer, Berlin, pp 225–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W (2005) Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika 70:123–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Health Promotion FundAustrian Public Health InstituteViennaAustria
  2. 2.Upper Austrian Health Insurance FundLinzAustria
  3. 3.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations