PSY5107-Week 6 – Assignment: Critique Research

 

Select an article from this week’s books and resources related to your topic of interest. Prepare a written assessment to address the following:

• Indicate whether this approach was appropriate or effective. Provide examples to support your thoughts.
• Identify at least one potential threat to the internal validity of this study. Then, explain how you might work around this or improve upon this study with this specific issue in mind.
• Conclude with a discussion on the issue of external validity within the study. Explain whether this is a concern. 
• Determine how you might work around this issue if you were to redo the study. Explain how you would prepare your conclusions.

Support your assignment with at least three scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including seminal articles, may be included.

Length: 5-7 pages, not including title and reference pages

Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. 

Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button

JavaScript is disabled on your browser.
Please enable JavaScript to use all the features on this page.

Skip to main content

Skip to article

• Journals & Books

Register

Sign in

Sign in
Register

Journals & Books

• Help

 

Access through your institution

to view subscribed content from home
 
Get AccessGet Access
Share

Export

Advanced

Safety Science

Volume 100, Part A

, December 2017, Pages 46-56

Employment arrangement, job stress, and health-related quality of life☆

Author links open overlay panel

Tapas K.Raya

Tat’Yana A.Kenigsbergb

ReginaPana-Cryana

Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.003

Get rights and content

Highlights

•

Demographic and organizational characteristics vary across employment arrangements.
•

Contractors and on call workers are less likely to report work stress than others.
•

Employment arrangement is an important predictor of job stress and associated HRQL.
•

The relationship between job stress and HRQL varies across employment arrangements.

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to understand the characteristics of U.S. workers in non-standard employment arrangements, and to assess associations between job stress and Health-related Quality of Life (HRQL) by employment arrangement.

Background

As employers struggle to stay in business under increasing economic pressures, they may rely more on non-standard employment arrangements, thereby increasing the pool of contingent workers. Worker exposure to job stress may vary by employment arrangement. Excessive exposure to stressors at work is considered to be a potential health hazard, and may adversely affect health and HRQL.

Methods

We used the Quality of Worklife (QWL) module which supplemented the General Social Survey (GSS) in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014. GSS is a biannual, nationally representative cross-sectional survey of U.S. households that yields a representative sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized, English-speaking, U.S. adult population. The QWL module assesses an array of psychosocial working conditions and quality of work life topics among GSS respondents. We used pooled QWL responses from 2002 to 2014 by only those who reported being employed at the time of the survey. After adjusting for sampling probabilities, including subsampling for non-respondents and correcting for the number of adults in the household, 6005 respondents were included in our analyses. We grouped respondents according to their employment arrangement, including: (i) independent contractors (contractor), (ii) on call workers (on call), (iii) workers paid by a temporary agency (temporary), (iv) workers who work for a contractor (under contract), or (v) workers in standard employment arrangements (standard). Respondents were further grouped into those who were stressed and those who were not stressed at work. Descriptive population prevalence rates were calculated by employment arrangement for select demographic and organizational characteristics, psychosocial working conditions, work-family balance, and health and well-being outcomes. We also assessed the effect of employment arrangement on job stress, and whether job stress was associated with the number of reported unhealthy days and days with activity limitations. These two health and well-being outcomes capture aspects of worker HRQL.

Results

Our results underscored the importance of employment arrangement in understanding job stress and associated worker health and well-being outcomes. Between 2002 and 2014, the prevalence of workers in non-standard employment arrangements increased from 19% to 21%; however, the observed trend did not monotonically increase during that period. Compared with workers in standard arrangements, independent contractors and on call workers were significantly less likely to report experiencing job stress. For workers in standard arrangements and for contractors, we observed significant association between perceived job stress and reported unhealthy days. We observed a similar association for reported days with activity limitations, for workers in standard and temporary arrangements.

Conclusion

The major contribution of our study was to highlight the differences in job stress and HRQL by employment arrangement. Our results demonstrated the importance of studying each of these employment arrangements separately and in depth. Furthermore, employment arrangement was an important predictor of job stress, and compared with non-stressed workers, stressed workers across all employment arrangements reported more unhealthy days and more days with activity limitations.

• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Recommended articles

Citing articles

(0)

☆

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Recommended articles
No articles found.
Citing articles

Article Metrics

View article metrics

• About ScienceDirect
• Remote access
• Shopping cart
• Advertise
• Contact and support
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the

use of cookies

.

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.