4.3 Article

Working during a Pandemic between the Risk of Being Infected and/or the Risks Related to Social Distancing: First Validation of the SAPH@W Questionnaire

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115986

关键词

occupational health; COVID-19; perceived safety assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic caused a crisis in the healthcare system, prompting the validation of a new tool, SAPH@W, to assess workers' perceptions of safety. The study demonstrated the validity and measurement invariance of SAPH@W across different gender, ecological risk level, and type of occupation.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led the worldwide healthcare system to a severe crisis in which personnel paid the major costs. Many studies were promptly dedicated to the physical and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 exposure among healthcare employees, whereas the research on the other working populations has been substantially ignored. To bridge the current lack of knowledge about safe behaviors related to the risk of COVID-19 contagion at work, the aim of the study was to validate a new tool, the SAPH@W (Safety at Work), to assess workers' perceptions of safety. Methods: A total of 1085 participants, employed in several organizations sited across areas with different levels of risk of contagion, completed an online questionnaire. To test the SAPH@W validity and measurement invariance, the research sample was randomly divided in two. Results: In the first sub-sample, Confirmatory Factor Analysis demonstrated the adequacy of the SAPH@W factorial structure. In the second sub-sample, multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed that the SAPH@W was invariant across gender, ecological risk level, and type of occupation (in-person vs. remote working). Conclusions: The study evidenced the psychometric properties of the SAPH@W, a brief tool to monitor workers' experiences and safety perceptions regarding the COVID-19 risk in any organisational setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据