nach oben

Journal of Public Health

Erschienen in:

08.12.2018 | Original Article

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

verfasst von: Gert Lang, Christoph Heigl, Paulino Jiménez

Erschienen in: Journal of Public Health | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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 (α_GF = 0.90, ωH_GF = 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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

A non-significant χ² test is preferable; however, the test tends to incorrectly reject models based on a large sample (Bollen 1989).

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 CrossRefPubMed

BKK Dachverband (2018a) Deutscher Unternehmenspreis Gesundheit. www.deutscher-unternehmenspreis-gesundheit.de/. Accessed 17 July 2018

BKK Dachverband (2018b) Deutsches Siegel Unternehmensgesundheit. https://www.bkk-dachverband.de/gesundheit/gesundheitsfoerderung-selbsthilfe/betriebliche-gesundheitsfoerderung-bgf/deutsches-siegel-unternehmensgesundheit/. Accessed 15 Sept 2018

Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkCrossRef

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 CrossRef

Bowling A (2017) Measuring health: a review of subjective health and quality of life measurement scales, 4th edn. McGraw Hill, London

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 136–162

Byrne BM (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New York

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 CrossRef

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 CrossRefPubMed

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 CrossRef

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 CrossRef

DeVellis RF (2017) Scale development: theory and applications, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

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 CrossRef

Donabedian A (1980) Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Health Administration Press, Ann Arbor

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 CrossRef

ENWHP (1997) Luxembourg declaration on workplace health promotion in the European union. European Network for Workplace Health Promotion

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

Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz (2018) Friendly work space. www.friendlyworkspace.ch. Accessed 17 July 2018

Heigl C (2014) Qualitätssicherung als laufende Entwicklung am Beispiel der Betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung des Österreichischen Netzwerks für BGF (ÖNBGF). Wirtschaftspsy 16:35–43

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 CrossRef

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 CrossRef

Jiménez P, Eibel K, Dunkl A, Ratswohl A (2014) Entwicklung von Qualitätskriterien für AnbieterInnen von Dienstleistungen im Bereich der Gesundheitsförderung. Wirtschaftspsy 2:27–34

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 CrossRef

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 CrossRef

Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York

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 CrossRef

McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified treatment. Erlbaum, Mahwah

McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46CrossRef

Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles

Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

ÖNBGF (2018) Die 15 Qualitätskriterien. http://www.netzwerk-bgf.at/. Accessed 17 July 2018

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 11–110

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 CrossRefPubMed

Reise SP (2012) The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivar Behav Res 47:667–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555 CrossRef

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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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 CrossRefPubMed

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, Wien

Schnell R, Hill PB, Esser E (2013) Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 10th edn. Oldenbourg Verlag, München

Spector PE (2006) Method variance in organisational research: truth or urban legend? Organ Res Methods 9:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284955 CrossRef

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 CrossRef

Weiber R, Mühlhaus D (2010) Strukturgleichungsmodellierung: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS. Springer, Berlin

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 CrossRef

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 CrossRef

Titel: Quality assurance for workplace health promotion. Validation of the quality criteria for WHP in the Austrian quality management system
verfasst von: Gert Lang
Christoph Heigl
Paulino Jiménez
Publikationsdatum: 08.12.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Journal of Public Health / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 2198-1833
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-2238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-018-1005-6

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Aim

Subjects and methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

Socioeconomic profile and perceptions of Chagas disease in indigenous communities of the Paraguayan Chaco

Bangladeshi immigrants in Detroit: an exploration of residential mobility and its effects on health

Burnout prevention team-process evaluation of an organizational health intervention

The role of the home environment in sugar-sweetened beverage intake among northern Mexican adolescents: a qualitative study

Incidence of prescription vitamin B12 use in relation to diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease among community-dwelling persons

Passive smoking at home increased the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in China