Occupational Stress Index

By : Lukman Nul Hakim

I. PROBLEM
To study stress level of lecturer who is from engineering department comparing with lecturer from social science department.

II. INTRODUCTION
Stress is a dynamic condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity, constraint, or demand related to what he or she desires and for which the outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and important.
Stress is not necessarily bad in and of itself. While stress is typically discussed in a negative context, it also has a positive value. It is an opportunity when it offers potential gain.
The occupational stress index purpose to measure the extent of stress which employees perceive arising from various constituent and conditions of their job. However stress researchers have developed the scales which measures the stress arising exclusively from job roles (Rizzo, et al 1970 ; Pareek, 1981). The tool may conveniently be administered to the employees of every level operating in context of industries of other non production organizations. But it would prove more suitable for the employees of supervisory level and above.

MAIN FEATURES OF THE TOOL
The scale consists of 46 items, each to be rated on the five point scale. out of 46 items, 28 are ‘true keyed’ and rest 18 are ‘false keyed’. The items relate to almost all relevant components of the job life which cause stress in some way or the other, such as role over load, role ambiguity, role conflict, group and political pressures, responsibility for persons, under participation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, underparticipations, intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions, and unprofitability.

RELIABILITY
The reliability index ascertained by split half (odd even) method and cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole were found to be .935 and .90 respectively. The reliability indices of the 12 sub scales were also computed on the (split half) method. The following table records the obtained indices.

No
Sub Scales
Reliability Index
1
Role Overload
.684
2
Role Ambiguity
.554
3
Role Conflict
.696
4
Unreasonable group & political pressure
.454
5
Responsibility for persons
.840
6
Under participation
.630
7
Powerlessness
.809
8
Poor peer relation
.549
9
Intrinsic Impoverishment
.556
10
Law status
.789
11
Strenuous working condition
.733
12
Unprofitability
.767

VALIDITY
The validity of the O.S.I was determined by computing coefficients of correlation between the scales on the O.S.I and the various measure of job attitudes and job behavior. The employee scores on the O.S.I is likely to positively correlate with the scores on the measures of such work manifest attitudinal and motivational and personality variables which have proved lowering or moderating the level of occupational stress. The coefficients of correlation between the scores on the O.S.I and the measures of job involvement (Lodhal & Kejner, 1965), work motivation (Srivastava, 1980). Ego strength (Hasan, 1970), and job satisfaction (Restonjee, 1973) were found to be -.56 (N=225), -.44 (N=200), -.40 (N=205), and -.51 (N=500), respectively. The correlation between the scores on the O.S.I and the measure of job was found to be 0.59 (N=400).
The employees scores on the O.S.I have been found to be positively correlated with their scores on the measures of mental ill. Health standardized by Dr. O.N. Srivastava (Prof. Of Psychiatri). The following table presents the indices of ill mental health of the high and low occupational stress groups of the employees.

SCORING
Since the questionnaire consists of both true, keyed and false keyed items two different patterns of scoring have to be adopted for two types of items. The following table provides guide line to score the responses given to two categories of items.

Categories
of response
SCORES
For true keyed
For false keyed
Never/Strongly disagree
1
5
Seldom/disagree
2
4
Sometimes/undecided
3
3
Mostly/agree
4
2
Always/strongly agree
5
1

NORMS
Norms have been prepared for the occupational stress index as a whole as well as for its twelve sub-scales separately on a representative sample of 700 employees of different cadres operating in various productions and non-production organizations. The distribution of scores on the O.S.I was found to be slightly skewed in negative direction. To prepare the norms three methods were adopted, i.e., normal distribution, percentile point and division of upper and lower halves.
The scores were divided into three categories. I.e. high moderate and low, following the principles of normal distribution. The scores falling above + 1 s, between + 1 s, and below - + 1 s were categorized, respectively as to indicate high moderate and low levels of occupational stress.
The scores have been categorized as to indicate high moderate and low levels of occupational stress also on the basis of its percentile values. The scores below p25, between p26 and p75, and above p75 were taken as to indicate low moderate and high levels of occupational stress, respectively.
The scores were also divided into upper and lower halves on the basis of the median point the distribution of the stress scores. The score below median and above median were categorized respectively as to indicate low and high levels of occupational stress.

III. METHOD
Preliminaries of the subject

Name : TJ
Age : 33 years old
Sex : Male
Occupation : Lecturer

Name : TT
Age : 30 years old
Sex : Male
Occupation : Lecturer

MATERIALS USED
Occupational Stress Index questionaire

PREACAUTIONS
In order to get an optimum result, the following precautions were carefully taken when conducting this test :
Tester ask testee to fill in the questionnaire in a peaceful and comfortable place.
The testee was should not fill the questionnaire in rush.

PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Here is the step-by-step procedure in conducting the test:
a. Rapport formation, a brief conversation was held with testee to make her feel comfortable to fill the questionnaire.
b. Give the instruction.
c. Give the questionnaire
d. Ask testee to fill personal data.
e. Tell testee that tester might will contact her again if there is anything, which is unclear.
f. Thanking the testee.

The Instructions given to the testee are as follows :
This questionnaire is meant for a psychological investigation. The questionnaire consists of some statements that employees say or feel about various components and conditions of their job. You are required to select any one of the following ‘five responses’ to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree wit each statement to describe the nature and conditions of you job and also your own experiences and feelings about your job.
Give your responses frankly. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Introspective report
“some questions are not fit in with my real condition, like for example this one, question number 7, my decisions and instructions concerning distribution of assignments among employees are properly followed, we are lecturers here, and we do not have subordinate, and I do not have sub ordinate, so how am I supposed to answer than? But anyhow I answered it”

IV. RESULT
GROUP STATISTIC
Group 1= Social Science and Group 2 = Engineering
No

Group
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean
1
Role Overload
1.00
20
17.4500
3.80408
.85062


2.00
20
18.6500
4.10744
.91845
2
Role Ambiguity
1.00
20
9.6500
2.92494
.65404


2.00
20
9.2000
2.56700
.57400
3
Role Conflict
1.00
20
14.5000
3.06937
.68633


2.00
20
15.0500
3.60519
.80614
4
U.Grp & Pol. Press
1.00
20
12.3500
2.62127
.58613


2.00
20
13.1500
2.97843
.66600
5
Responsibility F.P
1.00
20
10.2500
1.88833
.42224


2.00
20
9.8000
2.06729
.46226
6
Underparticipation
1.00
20
10.8500
3.11659
.69689


2.00
20
10.3500
3.133``44
.70066
7
Powerlessness
1.00
20
7.9000
1.99737
.44662


2.00
20
7.6000
2.01050
.44956
8
Poor Peer Relation
1.00
20
11.6000
1.90291
.42550


2.00
20
11.2500
2.14905
.48054
9
Intrinsic Impoverism
1.00
20
10.0000
2.77204
.61985


2.00
20
9.9000
2.73188
.61087
10
Law Status
1.00
20
7.6500
3.21632
.71919


2.00
20
7.0000
2.33959
.52315
11
Strenuous W.C
1.00
20
10.3000
3.13050
.70000


2.00
20
10.2500
3.36976
.75350
12
Unprofitability
1.00
20
6.2500
2.09950
.46946


2.00
20
5.9500
1.95946
.43815

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means


F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)

Mean
Difference

Std. Error
Difference

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference









Lower
Upper
R.Overload
Eva
.023
.881
-.959
38
.344
-120.000
125.184
-373.422
133.422

Evna


-.959
37.778
.344
-120.000
125.184
-373.471
133.471
R.Ambiguity
Eva
.073
.788
.517
38
.608
.45000
.87019
-131.161
221.161

Evna


.517
37.370
.608
.45000
.87019
-131.259
221.259
R.Conflict
Eva
.529
.471
-.519
38
.606
-.55000
105.874
-269.330
159.330

Evna


-.519
37.057
.607
-.55000
105.874
-269.509
159.509
U.G & P. P
Eva
.299
.588
-.902
38
.373
-.80000
.88719
-259.602
.99602

Evna


-.902
37.396
.373
-.80000
.88719
-259.697
.99697
Respon F.P
Eva
.411
.525
.719
38
.477
.45000
.62608
-.81743
171.743

Evna


.719
37.693
.477
.45000
.62608
-.81777
171.777
Underpart
Eva
.333
.567
.506
38
.616
.50000
.98822
-150.055
250.055

Evna


.506
37.999
.616
.50000
.98822
-150.055
250.055
Powerless
Eva
.002
.961
.473
38
.639
.30000
.63370
-.98286
158.286

Evna


.473
37.998
.639
.30000
.63370
-.98287
158.287
Poor Peer R
Eva
.392
.535
.545
38
.589
.35000
.64185
-.94936
164.936

Evna


.545
37.451
.589
.35000
.64185
-.94999
164.999
Intrinsic Imp
Eva
.045
.834
.115
38
.909
.10000
.87027
-166.177
186.177

Evna


.115
37.992
.909
.10000
.87027
-166.178
186.178
Law Status
Eva
2.285
.139
.731
38
.469
.65000
.88934
-115.037
245.037

Evna


.731
34.709
.470
.65000
.88934
-115.599
245.599
Stre W.C
Eva
.116
.735
.049
38
.961
.05000
102.848
-203.204
213.204

Evna


.049
37.796
.961
.05000
102.848
-203.241
213.241
Unprofit
Eva
.739
.396
.467
38
.643
.30000
.64216
-.99998
159.998

Evna


.467
37.820
.643
.30000
.64216
-100.019
160.019
· Eva = Equal variances assumed
· Evna = Equal variances not assumed

V. INTERPRETATION

COMPARISON WITH NORM
Both social and engineering lecturer perceive that they are not overload with their job, the are in moderate level.
Social and engineering lecturer perceive that their role is clear, there is no ambiguousity.
The teachers of both group see that there is Role conflict but is in moderate level.
Unreasonable group and political pressure are in moderate level.
Both lecturers find the responsibility for person is moderate.
The underparticipation level is moderate for both lecturers.
Both lecturers perceive that they have enough power, but not very high nor low.
For peer relation both lecturers in moderate level. Means both can built relations with others.
The intrinsic impoverishment for social science lecturer is slightly higher than the engineering lecturer.
For status they see that they are in medium level.
Also for strenuous working condition, both lecturer is in moderate level.
The last one, for the unprofitability, both lecturer is also in moderate level.

Base on the statistical calculation, the mean score of social science lecturer is higher than engineering lecturer in 9 dimensions, namely role ambiguity, underparticipation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions and unprofitability. Meanwhile the score of engineering department lecturer is higher in dimensions of role overload, role conflict and unreasonable group & political pressures.
In general the result shows that the stress level of social science lecturer is higher than engineering lecturer. But from the calculation of independent sample test, it is shown that there is no significance different between them.