Advertisement

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

  • Gert Lang
  • Christoph Heigl
  • Paulino Jiménez
Original Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Workplace health promotion Quality assurance Confirmatory factor analysis Validity Reliability 

Abbreviations

λ

Factor loading

(∑ λ)2

Sum of loadings squared

(∑ λ2)

Sum of squared loadings

CBFA

Confirmatory bi-factor analysis

CFA

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI

Comparative fit index

CI

Confidence interval

df

Degrees of freedom

ECV

Explained common variance

ENWHP

European Network for Workplace Health Promotion

FGÖ

Fonds Gesundes Österreich

GF

General factor

IA

Initial award

ICC

Intra-class correlation

LE

Large enterprise

m

Arithmetic mean

MGCBFA

Multi-group confirmatory bi-factor analysis

N

Number of valid cases

ÖNBGF

Österreichisches Netzwerk Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung

p

p value

QI

Quality indicator

RA

Renewal award

RF

Residual factor

RMSEA

Root mean standard error of approximation

s

Standard deviation

s3

Skewness

s4

Kurtosis

SE

Small enterprise

TLI

Tucker-Lewis index

WHP

Workplace health promotion

WLSMV

Weighted least square means and variance adjusted

α

Cronbach’s alpha

χ2

Chi-square

ωH

Omega hierarchical

ωS

Omega specific

Notes

Acknowledgements

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)

References

  1. Ader M, Berensson K, Carlsson P, Granath M, Urwitz V (2001) Quality indicators for health promotion programs. Health Promot Int 16:187–195.  https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.2.187 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. BKK Dachverband (2018a) Deutscher Unternehmenspreis Gesundheit. www.deutscher-unternehmenspreis-gesundheit.de/. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5 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.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.08.002 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.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x
  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). http://www.efpa.eu/download/650d0d4ecd407a51139ca44ee704fda4. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  18. Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz (2018) Friendly work space. www.friendlyworkspace.ch. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 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.  https://doi.org/10.1086/376806 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-003-0771-6 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-006-0072-2 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.  https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000175 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. http://www.netzwerk-bgf.at/. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Reise SP (2012) The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivar Behav Res 47:667–696.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339893 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49413-4 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7 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