Abstract
Randomization is often recommended above self-selection when allocating participants into intervention or control groups. One source of confounding in non-randomized studies is the participants’ attitudes towards the intervention. Because randomized workplace interventions are not always feasible, it is important to investigate differences between study groups in readiness for change. To meet this aim, we used data from an intervention study of the effects of work-time control. The study design entailed both self-selection (i.e. non-random) and random allocation into intervention and control groups. Some team leaders rejected randomization because they considered it to be fairest to increase work-time control among employees in most need. Others accepted randomization arguing that it was fairer to allocate a potential benefit by random. We found no difference in readiness for changes when comparing the self-selected intervention and control groups. In contrast, the randomized intervention group reported higher readiness for change when compared with both the randomized control group and the self-selected intervention group. This suggests that self-selection into intervention and control groups may reflect the local leaders’ rather than the employees’ readiness for changes and that randomization may influence the participants’ attitude towards the intervention perhaps by evoking an experience of ‘winning or losing in the lottery’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 377–392.
Griffiths, A. (1999). Organizational interventions: Facing the limits of the natural science paradigm. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 25(6 Special Issue), 589–596.
Kompier, M. A. J., & Kristensen, T. S. (2001). Organizational work stress interventions in a theoretical, methodological and practical context. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the workplace: Past, present and future (pp. 164–190). London/Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.
Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire – A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 31(6), 438–449.
Nabe-Nielsen, K., Garde, A. H., & Diderichsen, F. (2011). The effect of work-time influence on health and well-being: A quasi-experimental intervention study among eldercare workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(6), 683–695.
Nielsen, K., Fredslund, H., Christensen, K. B., & Albertsen, K. (2006). Success or failure? Interpreting and understanding the impact of interventions in four similar worksites. Work and Stress, 20(3), 272–287.
Nytrø, K., Saksvik, P. Ø., Mikkelsen, A., Bohle, P., & Quinland, M. (2000). An appraisal of key factors in the implementation of occupational stress interventions. Work and Stress, 14(3), 213–225.
Prochaska, J. O., & Diclemente, C. C. (1982). Trans-theoretical therapy – Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice, 19(3), 276–288.
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Types of epidemiologic studies. In K. J. Rothman, S. Greenland, & T. L. Lash (Eds.), Modern epidemiology (pp. 87–99). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Semmer, N. K. (2006). Job stress interventions and the organization of work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32(6), 515–527.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Simon, S. D. (2006). Apples or oranges? Selection of the control group. In Statistical evidence in medical trials: What do data really tell us? (pp. 1–36). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Lee, S. Y. (2008). Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review, 65(4), 379–436.
Whysall, Z. J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, R. (2007). Developing the stage of change approach for the reduction of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(1), 184–197.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nabe-Nielsen, K., Persson, R., Nielsen, K., Olsen, O., Carneiro, I.G., Garde, A.H. (2015). Perspectives on Randomization and Readiness for Change in a Workplace Intervention Study. In: Karanika-Murray, M., Biron, C. (eds) Derailed Organizational Interventions for Stress and Well-Being. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9867-9_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9867-9_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9866-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9867-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)