BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT

published: 17 December 2020

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580196

Measurement of the Psychosocial

Work Environment in Spanish:
Validation of the Psychosocial
Factors Questionnaire 75 (PSF-Q75)
to Capture Demands and Resources
at Different Levels of Analysis
Hector P. Madrid 1* , Cristian A. Vasquez 2 and Malcolm Patterson 3
1
School of Management, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2 Alliance Business School, University
of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 3 Institute of Work Psychology, Management School, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, United Kingdom

The psychological work environment is composed of both stressful and motivational

Edited by: work conditions at different levels of analysis. However, most relevant theory and
Nikolaos Stylos,
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
research lack an integrative conceptualization and appropriate instrumentation to
Reviewed by:
account for this work context structure. These limitations are particularly present in
Shahnawaz Saqib, non-mainstream populations, such as the Spanish community of researchers and
Government College University, practitioners. In this study, based on the job demands–resources model, we present
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Viviana Sappa, an updated conceptualization in which stressful and motivational psychosocial factors
Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational are integrated and defined at the job, the group, and the organizational level of analysis
Education and Training, Switzerland
into a single conceptualization. Furthermore, derived from this conceptualization, we
*Correspondence:
Hector P. Madrid
present a study of the development and validation of a questionnaire to account
[email protected] for the psychosocial work environment in Spanish, labeled Psychosocial Factors
Questionnaire 75 (PSF-Q75), which provides measures for 23 different psychosocial
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
factors. The results of this study supported the questionnaire’s construct, convergent,
Organizational Psychology, divergent, and predictive validity, together with its reliability. Thus, this conceptualization
a section of the journal
and questionnaire provides researchers and partitioners with a more comprehensive
Frontiers in Psychology
approach to the assessment of the psychosocial work environment and promises
Received: 05 July 2020
Accepted: 23 November 2020 benefits for interventions in the workplace.
Published: 17 December 2020
Keywords: psychosocial risks, job demands–resources model, multilevel research, affect at work, stress,
Citation: engagement
Madrid HP, Vasquez CA and
Patterson M (2020) Measurement
of the Psychosocial Work INTRODUCTION
Environment in Spanish: Validation
of the Psychosocial Factors
The psychosocial work environment refers to the set of work conditions under which employees
Questionnaire 75 (PSF-Q75)
to Capture Demands and Resources
perform their activities in organizations (ILO, 1986). The components of this environment are
at Different Levels of Analysis. important to be identified and managed because they impact on the experience of health and well-
Front. Psychol. 11:580196. being of employees. As such, traditionally, the psychosocial context at work has been described in
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580196 terms of stressful conditions, also known as psychosocial risks, that have the potential to impair

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

employee mental health (Leka et al., 2003; Gonzalez-Mule and et al., 2005; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Leka and Cox,
Kim, 2019). This is the case of, for example, role ambiguity, 2010; Pejtersen et al., 2010). This limits achieving a more
time pressure, and workload (Karasek, 1979). Alternative models comprehensive understanding of psychosocial factors at work.
have also included in the definition of the psychological Furthermore, even when the work environment is described
work environment conditions associated with the experience by conditions located at different levels of analysis, namely,
of motivation, such as the case of job autonomy, feedback, the job, the group, and the organization as a whole (Bakker
skill variety and task significance (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; and Demerouti, 2018), most theoretical models of psychosocial
Oldham and Fried, 2016). factors have overlooked this multilevel structure. This constrains
Despite the advance of these issues in the field of the ecological validity of such models. In practical terms, the
organizational and occupational health psychology research above limitations also lead to issues about the methodologies to
and practice (Tetrick and Winslow, 2015; Bakker and Demerouti, account for the psychosocial work environment in organizations,
2016; Parker et al., 2017), the theoretical development of such as the availability of appropriate instruments to capture
stressful and motivational conditions of the psychological both stressful and motivational conditions at different levels
work environment has tended to be separated, with some of analysis. From a practical view, suitable measurement
models focused on stress and others on motivation (Kristensen instruments are essential for diagnosing work conditions in

TABLE 1 | Conceptual classification of the psychosocial work environment.

Psychosocial Factor Definition References

Job level
Demands
Role demands Lack of clarity about what is expected of the worker and the request of contradictory tasks. Karasek, 1979
Workload A large amount of work and number of tasks to be done. Karasek, 1979
Time pressure Little time to finish the work, tight deadlines, and fast work pace. Karasek, 1979
Cognitive demands Request to paying attention to multiple tasks at the same time, sustained concentration, and Wall et al., 1990
memory overload.
Emotional demands Request to hide emotions, calm down people and to work on emotionally laden environments. De Jonge and Dormann, 2003
Resources
Autonomy Room to make decisions about the way of doing the work, the order and timing to execute the Hackman and Oldham, 1976
tasks.
Feedback Availability of information about the quantity and quality of work done and job performance. Hackman and Oldham, 1976
Skill variety Need to use different and diverse skills and knowledge to do the work. Hackman and Oldham, 1976
Task significance Knowledge of how important the job is for other people in the organization, clients, users, and Hackman and Oldham, 1976
society in general.
Group level
Demands
Workload sharing Unfair distribution of workload, responsibilities, and tasks among workgroup members. Campion et al., 1993
Conflict Interpersonal and emotional strain among workgroup members. Jehn and Bendersky, 2003
Interpersonal violence Psychological and physical violence, humiliation, and aggression among workgroup members. Schat and Kelloway, 2005
Autocratic supervision Authoritarian supervisor behavior expressed in lack of attention of workgroup members’ De Hoogh and Den Hartog,
opinions, ideas, and suggestions. 2009
Resources
Group support Mutual support and help among workgroup members to do the work. Campion et al., 1993
Communication Appropriate information sharing and coordination among workgroup members. Campion et al., 1993
Participation Room for giving opinions, making suggestions, and participate in decision making in the Campion et al., 1993
workgroup.
Supervisor support Supervisor instrumental and emotional supportive behavior to manage the performance and Ganster et al., 1986
needs of the workgroup members.
Organizational level
Demands
Unfairness An imbalance between effort and rewards. Colquitt and Rodell, 2015
Politics Promotion decisions based on favoritism and political behavior rather than merit. Maslyn and Fedor, 1998
Insecurity Uncertainty about retaining the job over time. De Witte, 1999
Resources
Rewards clarity Clear information about the wage composition and how it is computed. Jones and James, 1979
Training opportunities Delivery of training for skill and knowledge development. Jones and James, 1979
Career development Opportunities for career opportunities fitting employee interests and goals. Jones and James, 1979

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

organizations to inform interventions. These issues affect involves those demands and resources that are part of the
research at international levels as a whole, but they are individual environment of employees, such as workload, time
particularly sensitive to non-mainstream research communities. pressures, autonomy, and skill variety (Hackman and Oldham,
This is the case for the Spanish population, which is the second 1976; Karasek, 1979). In turn, the group-level environment
widest spoken language in the world with more than three refers to those psychosocial factors with social and interpersonal
hundred and thirty million speakers in forty-four countries meaning, which influence all the members of the same work
distributed in, for example, Spain, Latin America, and the unit or teams, such as the case of conflict and supportive
United States (Lewis, 2009). Thus, the dearth of more advanced supervision (Ganster et al., 1986; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003).
methodologies to capture psychosocial factors at work in this Finally, the organizational-level context is given by distal work
cultural setting is an important omission in research and practice. conditions affecting all organizational members, independent
To address the above limitations in research on the of their specific jobs and groups. Examples of organizational
psychosocial work environment, the aim of this study is, based demands and resources are unfair practices, job insecurity
on a multilevel conceptualization of stressful and motivational and rewards clarity (Jones and James, 1979; De Witte, 1999;
work conditions, developing and validating a questionnaire in Colquitt and Zipay, 2015).
Spanish to measure psychosocial factors at work in organizations. In the following sections, we present a development and
To achieve this goal, we rely on the basics of the job demands– validation study of a questionnaire to measure the psychosocial
resources model of stress and motivation (Bakker and Demerouti, work environment, based on the above theoretical principles and
2016). Thus, we contribute to organizational and occupational definitions, distinguishing between demands and resources at
health psychology by describing an updated and integrative different levels of analysis.
conceptualization of work conditions that influences employee
well-being and delivering a questionnaire aligned with this
conceptualization for the Spanish community of researchers METHODS
and practitioners.
Questionnaire Development
Theoretical Framework In the first stage of the study, we surveyed theoretical
To account for both the stressful and motivating work conditions developments and empirical research in order to develop
of the psychosocial work environment, we adopted the job an inclusive set of factors describing the psychosocial work
demands–resources model proposed in the occupational health environment, examining relevant studies conducted in the
psychology literature (Bakker and Demerouti, 2016). According fields of the organizational and occupational health psychology.
to this model, demands are defined as elements of the work Two graduate students of work and organizational psychology
context associated with the experience of stress, which, therefore, conducted a scoping literature review based on the concepts
may dampen work performance and impair well-being. In of “psychosocial work environment,” “psychosocial risks,” “job
turn, resources are the conditions of the work environment demands,” and “job resources.” Based on the documents
that have the potential of motivating employees and therefore identified, we built an integration of the main demands and
facilitating their performance and enhancing their sense of well- resources, organizing them into a single multilevel classification
being. This distinction implies that demands denote threats according to our conceptual definitions for the job, group and
for the work and the self, whereas resources entail potential organizational levels of analysis. This classification served as the
rewards for the same outcomes. Thus, for example, workload
and time pressure are primarily threats for work performance,
which are prompted by the experience of stress. In turn, TABLE 2 | Samples demographics.

resources, such as job control and social support, entail Demographics Sample 1 Job Sample 2 Sample 3
opportunities to do the work beyond its minimum requirements, Level Group Level Organization
which is conveyed by the experience of motivation. Thus, Level
demands and resources are not the opposite ends of the same
Gender
continuum, but independent factors with different meaning and
Male 66.9% 68.3% 73.7%
psychological consequences, such that demands are primarily
Female 33.1% 31.7% 26.3%
predictors of stress experiences, whereas resources of motivation
Average age (SD) 39.56 (10.12) 40.19 (10.63) 40.99 (10.27)
states (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli and Taris, 2014;
Educational level
Lesener et al., 2019). High School 48.3% 43.7% 48.4%
Furthermore, the psychosocial work environment expressed College 51.7% 56.3% 51.6%
in demands and resources is given in a multilevel structure. The Job role
latter means that elements of the work context are more proximal Professional and 42.4% 38.4% 37.4%
or distal to the individual employee experience, expressed in technical staff
the job, the group, and the organization referents (Bakker Supervisor 45.0% 41.5% 44.2%
and Demerouti, 2018). Thus, this multilevel structure defines Manager 12.6% 16.1% 18.4%
a hierarchical system in which the diverse psychosocial factors Average organizational 9.70 (9.38) 9.96 (9.01) 10.49 (9.38)
are located (Martin et al., 2016). The job-level of analysis tenure (SD)

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

TABLE 3 | Confirmatory factor analysis for job resources and job demands.

ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Think about YOUR JOB and rate your agreement or disagreement

with the statements below (1: Strongly Disagree – 5: Strongly
Agree):
Autonomy
1. You can decide the order to do your tasks 0.79
2. You can decide when you start and finish your tasks 0.89
3. You can decide the way you do your work 0.78
Feedback
4. You receive feedback about how you are doing your work 0.94
5. You receive information about the quality and quantity of your 0.93
work
6. You receive information about your performance at work 0.94
Skill Variety
7. You have to use a variety of skills and knowledge at work 0.94
8. You have to use diverse skills to do your work 0.96
9. You have to apply your diverse knowledge to do your tasks 0.95
Task Significance
10. You know how important your work is for other people at work 0.86
11. You know how important your work is for clients/users of the 0.95
organization
12. You are aware of the impact in society of your work 0.77
Role Demands
13. You barely know what is expected of you at work 0.56
14. You are asked for conflicting demands at work 0.89
15. You have to handle incompatible tasks at work 0.84
Workload
16. You have to do a large amount of work 0.96
17. You have to do too many things at work 0.93
18. You have to manage heavy workloads 0.71
Time Pressure
19. You do not have enough time to finish your work 0.76
20. You have to deal with too tight deadlines at work 0.78
21. You have to work at fast-pace 0.84
Cognitive Demands
22. You have to pay attention to different tasks at the same time 0.79
23. You have to concentrate all the time to avoid errors 0.63
24. You have to use your memory a lot 0.59
Emotional Demands
25. You have to hide your emotions at work 0.69
26. You have to calm down angry or annoyed individuals at work 0.54
27. You have to work in environments where you feel threatened 0.65
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.69 0.88 0.91 0.74 0.61 0.75 0.63 0.43 0.63

theoretical framework for the subsequent development of the items was produced, the same graduate students, together
questionnaire, which is presented in Table 1. with the leading authors of this paper, evaluated the items
in terms of their content validity, differentiation, overlapping
Measures and wording, selecting a final pool of 75 items for further
In this stage the questionnaire to measure the demands and empirical examination. Specifically, at the job level, five scales
resources described in our multilevel classification was built, were developed for role demands, workload, time pressure,
following the methodology proposed by Hinkin (1995). Thus, cognitive demands, and emotional demands, together with
the initial step consisted of generating the items for measuring four scales for resources conveyed in autonomy, feedback,
each of the demands and resources described in the classification. skill variety, and task significance. At the group level, four
Two graduate students of work and organizational psychology scales for demands were built for workload sharing, conflict,
independently generated the items. After an initial set of interpersonal violence, and autocratic supervision, together with

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

TABLE 4 | Confirmatory factor analysis for group resources and group demands.

ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Think about YOUR WORKGROUP and rate your

agreement or disagreement with the statements below
(1: Strongly Disagree – 5: Strongly Agree):
Group Support
28. In my workgroup, we support each other when 0.95
somebody needs help
29. In my workgroup, we help each other 0.97
30. In my workgroup, we collaborate to solve problems 0.92
Communication
31. In my workgroup, communication is good 0.93
32. In my workgroup, information sharing is good 0.94
33. In my workgroup, coordination is good 0.79
Participation
34. In my workgroup, there is room to give opinions 0.92
35. In my workgroup, there is room to make suggestions 0.95
on the work we do
36. In my workgroup, there are opportunities to 0.80
participate in decision making
Supervisor Support
37. My supervisor plans the work well 0.83
38. My supervisor distributes the workload in a balanced 0.82
way
39. My supervisor gives clear and precise information to 0.85
get the work done
40. My supervisor offers help to solve problems at work 0.81
41. My supervisor takes into account the needs of 0.84
employees
42. My supervisor gives recognition for the well-done job 0.88
43. My supervisor advises employees to improve 0.78
performance
44. My supervisor cares about managing conflict at work 0.89
Workload Sharing
45. In my workgroup, workload distribution is unfair 0.84
46. In my workgroup, responsibilities distribution is unfair 0.93
47. In my workgroup, task distribution is unfair 0.96
Conflict
48. In my workgroup exists conflict between its 0.93
members
49. In my workgroup exists tension in the way that 0.97
members interact to each other
50. In my workgroup, members have negative 0.88
relationships with each other
Interpersonal Violence
51. In my workgroup, some members insult others 0.90
52. In my workgroup exists humiliation situations toward 0.90
some of its members
53. In my workgroup, there are situations of aggression 0.69
and physical violence
Authoritarian Supervision
54. My supervisor acts in a very authoritarian way 0.78
55. My supervisor does not listen to different opinions 0.90
56. My supervisor does not pay attention to the ideas 0.89
proposed by my workgroup
57. My supervisor makes us to understand s/he is the 0.83
only important person in the workgroup
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.89 0.78 0.78 0.70 0.83 0.86 0.76 0.72

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

TABLE 5 | Confirmatory factor analysis for organizational resources and organizational demands.

ITEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6

Think about YOUR ORGANIZATION and rate your agreement or disagreement with the statements
below (1: Strongly Disagree – 5: Strongly Agree):
Rewards Clarity
58. The organization clearly informs me how much is my salary 0.84
59. The organization clearly informs me how my wage is calculated 0.87
60. The organization clearly informs me how will be my salary at the end of the month 0.85
Training Opportunities
61. The organization offers the necessary training to do the work well 0.86
62. The organization supports me to apply to training courses 0.94
63. The organization offers training courses to develop new skills 0.83
Career Development
64. The organization offers development opportunities that fit my goals 0.91
65. The organization offers job opportunities of my interest 0.92
66. The organization offers attractive career opportunities 0.94
Unfairness
67. In the organization, I give much but receive little 0.87
68. In the organization, I do not earn the appropriate rewards for my work 0.84
69. In the organization, I feel unfairly treated 0.68
Politics
70. In the organization, the progress is achieved due to personal favoritism than merit 0.92
71. In the organization, it is more important to have good connections than performing well 0.95
72. In the organization, it is more important to be political savvy than showing good performance 0.80
Job Insecurity
73. The organization does not offer me job stability 0.92
74. The organization does not provide me job security 0.81
75. The organization does not guarantee I will keep my job for much longer 0.71
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 0.73 0.78 0.86 0.64 0.65 0.79

four scales for the resources of group support, communication, thirty-four employees responded to the questionnaires (45%
participation, and supervisor support. Finally, at the organization response rate), 151 for the job level, 183 for the group level,
level, three scales were developed for unfairness perceptions, and 190 for the organization level of analysis. Demographics and
political issues, and job insecurity, together with three scales organizational information for each sample are summarized in
for the resources of rewards clarity, training opportunities, and Table 2.
career development (Tables 3–5)1 . The scales consisted of a
series of Likert statements for which participants indicate their
agreement level, using a 5-point scale (1: Strongly Disagree, Data Analysis
2: Disagree, 3: Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4: Agree, 5: The data collected in the study was analyzed with a series of
Strongly Agree). statistical techniques to determine the validity and reliability
of the questionnaire. First, confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted to examine whether measures of demands and
Data Collection and Sample
resources, at each level of analysis, fitted the conceptual
We worked with a large food corporation in Latin America to
classification developed (Brown, 2006), which provides
administer the questionnaire to a sample of employees for its
information about the construct validity of the questionnaire.
subsequent validation. The organization requested the research
Based on the same analyses, convergent and divergent validity
team to take as little time as possible from employees to answer
between factors of the same models were evaluated using
the questionnaire. Thus, the questionnaire was partitioned in
Average Variance Extraction (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
three independent forms, one for each level of analysis of
Then, in the second round of confirmatory factor analyses,
demands and resources. These forms were randomly distributed
at each level of analysis, additional models were estimated
among the invited participants to avoid response biases linked
in which first-order latent variables denoting demands were
to systematic nesting of data relative to functional areas and job
loaded in a second-order latent variable, while first-order
roles. A sample of 1220 employees, from diverse organizational
latent variables about resources were loaded in an independent
roles, were invited to participate in the study. Five hundred
second-order latent variable. These models were then compared
1
The original measures were designed in Spanish language, which are available with models in which both demands and resources were loaded
in the Appendix. in a single second-order factor. These analyses examined

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

TABLE 6 | Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities.

Job (N = 141–151) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(1) Autonomy 4.11 0.74 (0.86)

(2) Feedback 3.64 1.15 0.46** (0.96)
(3) Skill variety 4.34 0.68 0.29** 0.35** (0.97)
(4) Task significance 4.22 0.76 0.39** 0.41** 0.56** (0.89)
(5) Role demands 2.10 0.96 −0.37** −0.60** −0.22** −0.41** (0.80)
(6) Workload 3.60 0.84 −0.19* −0.21* 0.23** −0.01 0.19* (0.89)
(7) Time pressure 3.26 0.90 −0.35** −0.22** 0.12 −0.12 0.16 0.68** (0.84)
(8) Cognitive demands 3.92 0.69 0.08 0.13 0.49** 0.27** 0.04 0.48** 0.35** (0.68)
(9) Emotional demands 2.70 0.88 −0.28** −0.34** 0.00 −0.19* 0.48** 0.29** 0.33** 0.25** (0.66)
Group (N = 174–183) M SD 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
(10) Group support 4.36 0.80 (0.96)
(11) Communication 4.08 0.83 0.76** (0.91)
(12) Participation 4.19 0.84 0.64** 0.68** (0.91)
(13) Supervisor support 4.02 0.88 0.30** 0.47** 0.52** (0.95)
(14) Workload sharing 2.32 0.98 −0.47** −0.54** −0.53** −0.50** (0.94)
(15) Conflict 1.92 0.93 −0.50** −0.51** −0.46** −0.47** 0.56** (0.94)
(16) Interpersonal violence 1.46 0.77 −0.44** −0.46** −0.47** −0.44** 0.49** 0.60** (0.85)
(17) Autocratic supervision 1.61 0.89 −0.20** −0.27** −0.43** −0.67** 0.42** 0.54** 0.55** (0.91)
Organization (N = 182–190) M SD 18 19 20 21 22 23
(18) Rewards clarity 4.15 0.93 (0.88)
(19) Training opportunities 3.41 1.11 0.50** (0.91)
(20) Career development 3.60 1.01 0.46** 0.72** (0.95)
(21) Unfairness 2.58 0.97 −0.44** −0.45** −0.49** (0.83)
(22) Politics 2.63 1.15 −0.33** −0.50** −0.54** 0.54** (0.91)
(23) Insecurity 1.78 0.86 −0.30** −0.35** −0.39** 0.37** 0.35** (0.84)

Reliabilities are in bold and displayed in parentheses in the diagonal. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

whether demands and resources were independent variables attributed to common method variance issues due to the
describing the work environment, or if they were components use of a cross-sectional design. Thus, the effect estimated
of a single dimension describing general conditions of the between demands and resources relative to negative and positive
psychosocial context. Then, the reliability of measures for affect, respectively, was based on non-shared variance between
each demand and resource was examined using internal these predictors.
consistency analysis, based on the Cronbach’s alpha index
(Cronbach, 1951).
Furthermore, criterion-related (predictive) validity analyses of
TABLE 7 | Structural equation modeling for job resources and job demands
the measures of demands and resources in relation to employee
(model 1).
stress and motivation were conducted, using affective measures
as indicators of these outcome variables, which were analyzed First-Order Factor Second-Order Negative Positive
using structural equation modeling (Kline, 2011). Specifically, Factor Loadings Factor Affect Affect
we used as dependent variables negative feelings because they Role demands 0.25 Job Demands 0.59 (0.08)** −0.09 (0.09)
are emotional components of stress, and positive feelings since Workload 0.54
they are rudiments of motivation (Warr, 2007). Affect was Time pressure 0.50
measured with 6 items from the scale of Warr et al. (2014). Cognitive 0.58
This measure asked participants to report the extent to which demands
they feel in the workplace: enthusiastic, joyful and inspired Emotional 0.77
(positive affect, α = 0.83) and anxious, tense and worried demands
(negative affect, α = 0.74) (1 = never – 5 = Always/Almost Autonomy 0.55 Job Resources −0.24 (0.09)* 0.80 (0.06)**
always). Specifically, at each level of analysis, measures of Feedback 0.62
negative and positive affect were regressed on the second-order Skill variety 0.73
models describing a latent variable for demands and another Task 0.71
for resources. In these models, the correlation between the significance
second-order latent variable of demands and resources was N = 151, χ2 (df) = 911.19 (481), CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.08,
fixed to zero, to control issues on non-essential collinearity SRMR = 0.15. **p < 0.01.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

FIGURE 1 | Structural equation models for criterion-related validity.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

TABLE 8 | Structural equation modeling for group resources and group TABLE 9 | Structural equation modeling for organizational resources and
demands (model 2). organizational demands (model 3).

First-Order Factor Second-Order Negative Positive First-Order Factor Second-Order Negative Positive
Factor Loadings Factor Affect Affect Factor Loadings Factor Affect Affect

Workload 0.71 Group 0.40 (0.10)** −0.13 (0.11) Unfairness 0.83 Organizational 0.57 (0.09)** −0.65 (0.09)**
sharing Demands Demands
Conflict 0.80 Politics 0.66
Interpersonal 0.78 Insecurity 0.63
violence Rewards clarity 0.59 Organizational 0.18 (0.09) 0.25 (0.10)**
Autocratic 0.73 Resources
supervision Training 0.95
Group support 0.83 Group −0.14 (0.11) 0.59 (0.08)** opportunities
Resources Career 0.82
Communication 0.90 development
Participation 0.79
N = 190, χ2 (df) = 443.93(241), CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07,
Supervisor 0.57 SRMR = 0.20. **p < 0.01.
support

N = 183, χ2 (df) = 1307.56 (581), CFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.08, Therefore, taking the above together, the construct validity,
SRMR = 0.24. **p < 0.01.
based on these factor analyses results, for the measures and the
classification system of demands and resources at each level of
analysis was supported (Tables 3–6).
RESULTS In terms of reliability analysis, 21 scales showed values
over α = 0.70, but slightly lower reliabilities were observed
Results of confirmatory factor analysis for measures about the job for cognitive demands, α = 0.68, and emotional demands,
level of analysis, based on 9 factors and their 27 items, showed α = 0.66. Therefore, acceptable reliabilities were supported for
acceptable goodness-of-fit, χ2 (df) = 479.39(288), CFI = 0.93, the scales measuring demands and resources at the job, group and
RMSEA = 0.07. Also, results of AVE analysis showed acceptable organizational level of analyses.
convergent validity for all the factors estimated, with values Finally, criterion-related validity analyses, based on structural
over 0.50, except for cognitive demands (AVE = 0.43) and equation modeling, showed that job level demands were
emotional demands (AVE = 0.40), with results slightly below positively related to negative affect, b = 0.59, SE = 08, p < 0.01,
this cutoff criterion. Convergent validity was also supported but not related to positive affect, b = −0.09, SE = 09, p > 0.05,
for all the factors estimated, since their AVE values were over whereas job level resources were positively related to positive
their squared pairwise correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). affect, b = 0.80, SE = 06, p < 0.01, and negatively related to
Moreover, results for the model described by the 8 factors, and negative affect, b = −0.24, SE = 09, p < 0.05 (Table 7 and
their 30 respective items, about group-level variables showed Figure 1). At the group level of analysis, demands were positively
acceptable goodness-of-fit, χ2 (df) = 746.18(377), CFI = 0.93, related to negative affect, b = 0.40, SE = 10, p < 0.01, but not
RMSEA = 0.07. Convergent and discriminant validity was also related to positive affect, b = −0.13, SE = 11, p > 0.05, whereas
supported for all the factors of this model, based on AVE values resources were positively related to positive affect, b = 0.59,
over 0.5 and over the squared pairwise correlations between SE = 08, p < 0.01, but not related to negative affect, b = −0.14,
factors. Furthermore, factor analysis for organizational level SE = 11, p > 0.05 (Table 8 and Figure 1). Finally, organizational
variables, based on 6 factors and their 18 items, also showed level demands were positively related to negative affect, b = 0.57,
excellent goodness-of-fit, χ2 (df) = 203.05(120), CFI = 0.97, SE = 09, p < 0.01, and negatively related to positive affect,
RMSEA = 0.06. The results also supported convergent and b = −0.65, SE = 09, p < 0.01, while organizational level resources
divergent validity with AVE values over 0.5 and over the squared were positively related to positive affect, b = 0.25, SE = 10,
pairwise correlations between factors of the model. p < 0.01, but not related to negative affect, b = 0.18, SE = 09,
Then, at the job level of analysis, the model describing p > 0.05 (Table 9 and Figure 1). These results, in balance,
second-order latent variables for demands and resources supported the predictive validity of the questionnaire and the
showed a goodness-of-fit slightly below the standard estimation theoretical classification of demands and resources underlying it.
benchmarks, χ2 (df) = 682.36(314), CFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.09,
but its fit was substantially better than the model in which
both demands and resources were loaded in a single factor, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
1χ2 (df) = 32(1), p < 0.01. At the group level of analysis,
the model describing demands and resources showed In this study, we aimed to develop a questionnaire to measure
acceptable goodness-of-fit, χ2 (df) = 873.02(396), CFI = 0.92, the components of the psychosocial work environment in
RMSEA = 0.08, while excellent goodness-of-fit was supported for Spanish, distinguishing between stressful and motivational work
the second-order model for the organizational level demands and conditions at different level of analysis. For this purpose,
resources, χ2 (df) = 215.10(128), CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06. we integrated a conceptual classification relying on the job

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

demands-resources model, which indicates that the components and the organization level of analysis, however, data for all
of the work environment involve conditions that may impair these factors were modeled at the individual level of analysis.
mental health, called job demands, together with contextual This strategy was the most appropriate for work conditions
conditions associated with the experience of motivation, labeled defined at the job level, which are essentially part of the
as job resources. Furthermore, the classification utilized is individual environment. However, the most suitable way to test
based on a multilevel structure in which demands and group-level factors should be based on samples of working
resources are located at the job, group and organizational units or teams, while the examination of organizational factors
levels, depending on how proximal they are to the employees’ should be done with samples of organizations. This work
individual experience. Finally, demands and resources, at each involves a greater sampling endeavor in terms of time and
level of analysis, were defined and supported as predictors resources, which future research could conduct to determine
of employees’ affective experiences, such that the former is the robustness of the validation results presented here. Finally,
associated with negative affect (e.g., anxiety), whereas the latter the test of the criterion-related validity of demands and
with positive affect (e.g., enthusiasm). Based on these principles, resources in relation to employee affect relied on data collected
the 75-item questionnaire developed, called Psychosocial Factors from self-reports in a cross-sectional fashion, which might
Questionnaire 75 (PSF-Q75), comprises measures to account introduce issues of common method variance (Podsakoff et al.,
for the 23 psychosocial factors, and empirical evaluation largely 2012). Thus, future studies should utilize multisource and
supported its validity and reliability. longitudinal designs.
This study contributes to organizational and occupational To sum up, we contribute to organizational and occupational
health psychology by presenting an updated integrative health psychology research and practice with the delivery of a
conceptualization in which stressful and motivational work Spanish language questionnaire to account for organizational
conditions are accounted for in a single model. Furthermore, in members’ experience of a comprehensive set of factors embedded
theoretical terms, the psychosocial factors are explicitly defined at in the psychosocial work environment. We trust this tool
the proper level of analysis of the work environment. Moreover, will support further research in this knowledge domain and
the significant contribution of this study is the elaboration the management of working conditions associated with well-
and development of a questionnaire to measure psychosocial being at work.
factors, according to the new conceptualization proposed,
particularly in the Spanish speaking community of researchers
and practitioners. The simple translation of questionnaires DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
available in, for example, the English language (Kristensen et al.,
2005; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Leka and Cox, 2010; The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
Pejtersen et al., 2010), would have been a limited strategy, because made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
most of these questionnaires, to the best of our knowledge, are
either focused on demands or resources and do not account
for the work environment’s multilevel structure in the design ETHICS STATEMENT
of their scales.
There are limitations to be mentioned about the validation The studies involving human participants were reviewed and
study conducted. First, we used a theory-driven strategy to approved by Ethics Committee Pontificia Universidad Católica
build the questionnaire, which contributes to its content de Chile. The patients/participants provided their written
validity. However, the questionnaire was not submitted to informed consent to participate in this study.
the assessment of subject matter experts; thus, future studies
in which, for example, content evaluation of practitioners
in the field of psychosocial factors management will provide AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
additional information about the questionnaire’s validity. Second,
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and
we validated the questionnaire and the model with appropriate
intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for
sample sizes to conduct the statistical analysis needed, which were
publication.
also diverse in terms of gender, organizational tenure, functional
areas, and job roles. However, we were unable to test metric
invariance between groups derived from these composition
FUNDING
variables due to insufficient cases for each comparison group.
Thus, replication studies with larger and more diverse samples This research initiative was supported by CONICYT
of participants from different organizations and industries will FONDECYT 1191165 award granted to HM by National
provide a greater generalization of the results observed. Third, Commission of Scientific and Technological Research, Chile
we conceptualize demands and resources at the job, the group, (CONICYT).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

REFERENCES Leka, S., and Cox, T. (2010). “Psychosocial risk management at the workplace level,”
in Occupational Health Psychology, eds S. Leka and J. Houdmont (Hoboken, NJ:
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands–resources theory: taking Willey-Blackwell), 124–156.
stock and looking Forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22, 273–285. doi: 10.1037/ Leka, S., Griffits, A., and Cox, T. (2003). Work Organization and Stress. Geneva:
ocp0000056 World Health Organization.
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2018). “Multiple levels in job demands- Lesener, T., Gusy, B., and Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands-resources model:
resources theory: implications for employee well-being and performance,” in a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work Stress 33, 76–103. doi:
Handbook of Well-Being, eds E. Diener, S. Oishi, and L. Tay (Amsterdam: DEF 10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065
Publishers). Lewis M. P. (2009). Ethnologue Languages of the World. Dallas, TX: SIL
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, International Publications.
NY: The Guilford Press. Martin, A., Karanika-Murray, M., Biron, C., and Sanderson, K. (2016). The
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work psychosocial work environment, employee mental health and organizational
group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective interventions: improving research and practice by taking a multilevel approach.
work groups. Pers. Psychol. 46, 823–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993. Stress Health 32, 201–215. doi: 10.1002/smi.2593
tb01571.x Maslyn, J. M., and Fedor, D. B. (1998). Perceptions of politics: does measuring
Colquitt, J. A., and Rodell, J. B. (2015). “Measuring justice and fairness,” in The different foci matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 645–653. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.
Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, eds R. Cropanzano and M. L. 4.645
Ambrose (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Morgeson, F. P., and Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire
Colquitt, J. A., and Zipay, K. P. (2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job
Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2, 75–99. doi: 10.1146/annurev- design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 1321–1339. doi: 10.1037/
orgpsych-032414-111457 0021-9010.91.6.1321
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Oldham, G. R., and Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: past, present
Psychometrika 16, 297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555 and future. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proces. 136, 20–35. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus 2016.05.002
of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., and Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of
leadership with burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1058–1067. doi: 10.1037/a00 work design research: looking back and looking forward. J. Appl. Psychol. 102,
16253 403–420. doi: 10.1037/apl0000106
De Jonge, J., and Dormann, C. (2003). “The DISC model: demand-induced strain Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., and Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second
compensation mechanisms in job stress,” in Occupational Stress in the Service version of the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand. J. Public Health
Professions, eds M. F. Dollard, H. R. Winefield, and A. H. Winefield (Abingdon: 38, 8–24. doi: 10.1177/1403494809349858
Taylor & Francis), 43–74. doi: 10.1201/9780203422809.ch2 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: review of the bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Ann.
literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. Eur. J. Work Organ. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Psychol. 8, 155–177. doi: 10.1080/135943299398302 Schat, A. C. H., and Kelloway, E. K. (2005). “Workplace violence,” in Handbook of
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with Work Stress, eds J. Barling, E. Kelloway, and M. Frone (Thousand Oaks, CA:
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 30–50. doi: Sage), 189–218.
10.2307/3151312 Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., and Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ.
experience of stress at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 102–110. doi: 10.1037//0021- Behav. 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248
9010.71.1.102 Schaufeli, W. B., and Taris, T. W. (2014). “A critical review of the job demands-
Gonzalez-Mule, E., and Kim, M. (2019). A Meta-analytic test of additive and resources model: Implications for improving work and health,” in Bridging
multiplicative models of stress. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019:18416. doi: 10.5465/ Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach,
ambpp.2019.18416abstract eds G. F. Bauer and O. Hämmig (Berlin: Springer), 43–68. doi: 10.1007/978-94-
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through design of work - 007-5640-3_4
Test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16, 250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030- Tetrick, L. E., and Winslow, C. J. (2015). Workplace stress management
5073(76)90016-7 interventions and health promotion. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the 2, 583–603. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111341
study of organizations. J. Manag. 21, 967–988. doi: 10.1177/0149206395021 Wall, T. D., Corbett, J. M., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., and Martin, R. (1990).
00509 Advanced manufacturing technology and work design – Towards a theoretical
ILO (1986). Psychosocial Factors at Work: Recognition and Control: Occupational framework. J. Organ. Behav. 11, 201–219. doi: 10.1002/job.4030110304
Safety and Health Series. Geneva: International Labor Office. Warr, P. B. (2007). Work, Happiness and Unhapiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Jehn, K. A., and Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: a Erlbaum Associates.
contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Res. Organ. Warr, P. B., Bindl, U., Parker, S. K., and Inceoglu, I. (2014). Job-related affects
Behav. 25, 187–242. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X and behaviors: activation as well as valence. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 23,
Jones, A. P., and James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: dimensions and 342–363. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449
relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23, 201–250. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(79) Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
90056-4 absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain - potential conflict of interest.
Implications for job redesign. Admin. Sci. Q. 24, 285–308. doi: 10.2307/2392498
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, Copyright © 2020 Madrid, Vasquez and Patterson. This is an open-access article
NY: The Gilford Press. distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., and Borg, V. (2005). The copenhagen The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
psychosocial questionnaire – A tool for the assessment and improvement of the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
psychosocial work environment. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 31, 438–449. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
doi: 10.5271/sjweh.948 use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

APPENDIX
Original Measures in Spanish
PIENSE ACERCA DE SU PUESTO DE TRABAJO y señale su grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones (1: Muy
en desacuerdo; 2: En desacuerdo, 3: Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4: de acuerdo; 5: Muy de acuerdo).

Autonomía
1. Puede decidir el orden en que realiza sus tareas
2. Puede decidir cuando comenzar y finalizar sus tareas
3. Puede decidir la manera en que realiza su trabajo

Retroalimentación
4. Recibe retroalimentación acerca de como está realizando su trabajo
5. Recibe información sobre la calidad y cantidad del trabajo que realiza
6. Recibe información acerca de su desempeño en el trabajo

Variedad de las Habilidades

7. Tiene que utilizar distintas habilidades y conocimientos en su trabajo
8. Tiene que usar diversas habilidades para hacer su trabajo
9. Tiene que aplicar sus distintos conocimientos para realizar sus tareas

Significado de las Tareas

10. Conoce que tan importante es su trabajo para otras personas de la organización
11. Sabe cuán importante es su trabajo para los clientes/usuarios de la organización
12. Tiene claridad del impacto que su trabajo tiene para la sociedad

Demandas de Rol
13. Tiene poca claridad de qué es lo que se espera de usted en el trabajo
14. En su trabajo le piden cosas contradictorias
15. En su trabajo le piden tareas que son incompatibles entre sí

Carga de Trabajo
16. Tiene que realizar una gran cantidad de trabajo
17. Tiene que hacer muchas cosas en el trabajo
18. Tiene que hacer una cantidad excesiva de trabajo

Presión de Tiempo
19. Tiene poco tiempo para finalizar el trabajo
20. Tiene que cumplir con plazos muy ajustados
21. Tiene que trabajar a un ritmo rápido para hacer sus tareas

Demandas Cognitivas
22. Tiene que estar pendiente de varias tareas a la vez
23. Tiene que estar concentrado todo el tiempo para evitar errores
24. Tiene que utilizar mucho su memoria

Demandas Emocionales
25. Tiene que evitar mostrar sus emociones
26. Tiene que tranquilizar a personas que están molestas o enojadas
27. Tiene que trabajar en ambientes en los que se siente amenazado
PIENSE ACERCA DE SU GRUPO DE TRABAJO y señale su grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones (1:
Muy en desacuerdo; 2: En desacuerdo, 3: Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4: de acuerdo; 5: Muy de acuerdo).

Apoyo Grupal
28. En mi grupo de trabajo nos apoyamos cuando algún compañero de trabajo solicita ayuda

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

29. En mi grupo de trabajo nos ayudamos mutuamente entre los compañeros de trabajo
30. En mi grupo de trabajo colaboramos para resolver los problemas

Comunicación
31. En mi grupo de trabajo existe una buena comunicación
32. En mi grupo de trabajo existe un buen intercambio de información
33. En mi grupo de trabajo existe una buena coordinación

Participación
34. En mi grupo de trabajo existe el espacio para dar opiniones
35. En mi grupo de trabajo existe el espacio para hacer sugerencias acerca del trabajo que realizamos
36. En mi grupo de trabajo existen oportunidades para participar cuando se toman decisiones

Supervisión de Apoyo
37. Mi jefe planifica bien el trabajo
38. Mi jefe asigna de forma equilibrada la carga de trabajo
39. Mi jefe entrega información clara y precisa para hacer el trabajo
40. Mi jefe ofrece ayuda para resolver problemas en el trabajo
41. Mi jefe toma en cuenta las necesidades de los trabajadores
42. Mi jefe da reconocimiento por el trabajo bien hecho
43. Mi jefe da consejos para mejorar el desempeño de los trabajadores
44. Mi jefe se preocupa de resolver los conflictos en el trabajo

Inequidad de las Cargas de Trabajo

45. En mi grupo la distribución de las cargas de trabajo es injusta
46. En mi grupo la distribución de las responsabilidades es injusta
47. En mi grupo la distribución de tareas es injusta

Conflicto
48. En mi grupo de trabajo existe conflicto entre sus integrantes
49. En mi grupo de trabajo existe mucha fricción en la forma que se relacionan sus integrantes
50. En mi grupo de trabajo los integrantes se llevan mal entre sí

Violencia
51. En mi grupo de trabajo hay integrantes que insultan a otros
52. En mi grupo de trabajo hay situaciones de humillación hacia algunos de sus integrantes
53. En mi grupo de trabajo hay situaciones de agresión y violencia física

Supervisión Autocrática
54. Mi jefe actúa de forma muy autoritaria
55. Mi jefe no escucha opiniones distintas a las de él
56. Mi jefe no presta atención a las ideas propuestas por mi grupo de trabajo
57. Mi jefe nos da a entender que él es la única persona importante de mi grupo de trabajo
PIENSE ACERCA DE SU ORGANIZACIÓN y señale su grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones (1: Muy
en desacuerdo; 2: En desacuerdo, 3: Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo; 4: de acuerdo; 5: Muy de acuerdo).

Claridad de las Remuneraciones

58. La organización me informa claramente cuánto es mi sueldo
59. La organización me informa claramente acerca de cómo se calcula mi sueldo
60. La organización me informa claramente cuál va a ser mi sueldo a fin de mes

Oportunidades de Capacitación
61. La organización ofrece la capacitación necesaria para hacer bien el trabajo
62. La organización me da apoyo para postular a cursos de capacitación
63. La organización ofrece cursos de entrenamiento para desarrollar nuevas habilidades

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196

Madrid et al. Psychosocial Work Environment

Oportunidades de Desarrollo
64. La organización ofrece oportunidades de desarrollo que se ajustan a mis metas
65. La organización ofrece oportunidades laborales que son de mi interés
66. La organización ofrece oportunidades de desarrollo de carrera que son atractivas

Inequidad
67. En la organización entrego mucho, pero recibo poco
68. En la organización no recibo las recompensas adecuadas por mi trabajo
69. En la organización me siento injustamente tratado

Política Organizacional
70. En la organización se progresa por favoritismos y no por el mérito
71. En la organización es más importante tener buenos contactos que hacer bien el trabajo
72. En la organización ser “político” es más importante que tener un buen desempeño

Inseguridad Laboral
73. La organización no me da estabilidad laboral
74. La organización no entrega seguridad laboral
75. La organización no me asegura que conservaré mi trabajo por mucho tiempo más

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 December 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 580196