Match!

Better safe than sorry: Methods for risk assessment of psychosocial hazards

Published on Apr 1, 2019in Safety Science3.62
· DOI :10.1016/j.ssci.2019.01.003
Yannick Arnold Metzler1
Estimated H-index: 1
(University of Duisburg-Essen),
Georg von Groeling-Müller , Silja Bellingrath17
Estimated H-index: 17
(University of Duisburg-Essen)
Cite
Abstract
Abstract Psychosocial risk assessment is becoming increasingly important for research and occupational health and safety due to legislative amendments obliging employers to implement psychosocial work factors into general risk assessment. While various sources provide guidance on hazard identification, statistically assessing the risk probability of psychosocial hazards remains poorly understood. In the current study, we investigate the risk potential of psychosocial hazards using the German Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, in a cross-sectional sample of 549 blast furnace workers of a German steel company. We examine and compare established methods for risk evaluation in four occupational groups and in total, reflecting the working area, aiming to determine the utility of these methods for risk assessment: (1) An exposure-based approach using the scales’ average scores, (2) comparing the scales’ average scores with a job-exposure matrix using t-tests, (3) regression analyses, and (4) an approach by Clarke and Cooper (2000) referring to a common risk equation. Analyses show similar results of risk evaluation by each method when used within four occupational groups. Therefore, results on the sample level sufficiently represent results on the job level. Substantial differences, however, appear between the methods. Determining the approach of Clarke and Cooper to be most promising, our findings indicate that the choice of risk evaluation method strongly impacts risk management, as the derived risk minimizing measures are conducted only for those hazards evaluated as risks and according to their level of priority. Future research and policy development must focus stronger on how to best achieve psychosocial risk evaluation.
  • References (104)
  • Citations (0)
Cite
References104
Newest
#1Juliet Hassard (Birkbeck, University of London)H-Index: 9
#2Kevin Teoh (Birkbeck, University of London)H-Index: 5
Last.Tom Cox (Birkbeck, University of London)H-Index: 38
view all 5 authors...
#1Dirk-Matthias Rose (University of Mainz)H-Index: 8
#2Andreas Seidler (TUD: Dresden University of Technology)H-Index: 22
Last.P.S. Wild (University of Mainz)H-Index: 8
view all 10 authors...
#1Floris Goerlandt (Aalto University)H-Index: 22
#2Nima Khakzad (TU Delft: Delft University of Technology)H-Index: 19
Last.Genserik Reniers (TU Delft: Delft University of Technology)H-Index: 23
view all 3 authors...
#1Nini Xia (College of Management and Economics)H-Index: 5
#2Xueqing Wang (College of Management and Economics)H-Index: 4
Last.Bingsheng Liu (College of Management and Economics)H-Index: 2
view all 5 authors...
#1D. Taeger (RUB: Ruhr University Bochum)H-Index: 1
View next paperAnalysis of Determining Factors of the Public's Risk Acceptance Level in China