Testing the performance of a new approach to measuring employee well‐being

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to test the performance of two generic scales designed to evaluate employee well‐being against a new well‐being scale constructed for a specific sector; call centres.

Design/methodology/approach

The method to develop the new scale is based on well‐established clinical models used to evaluate the well‐being of patients. Potential variables were confirmed using an item selection method known as impact analysis which places keen emphasis on the frequency and importance of variables according to employees themselves.

Findings

From a potential pool of 102 items, impact analysis confirmed 43 variables most strongly associated with adverse well‐being. These were distributed across eight separate dimensions. Content validity and internal reliability were satisfactory. The results showed that existing scales were substantially insensitive to aspects of work that were perceived to be important and troubling to call centre employees and could therefore provide incomplete accounts of employee well‐being.

Research limitations/implications

Confirmation of the assessment's measurement properties will be the subject of future studies. The generalisability of the findings to other call centres will also be investigated.

Practical implications

For employers and researchers wishing to evaluate and act on well‐being within a particular sector, this approach to measurement may offer a practical, parsimonious alternative to existing, generic options. Impact analysis also addresses criticisms of factor analysis when used in well‐being scale construction.

Originality/value

The findings suggest support for a new approach to measuring the well‐being of sector specific workers that is based on clinical evaluation practices.

Citation

Juniper, B., Bellamy, P. and White, N. (2011), "Testing the performance of a new approach to measuring employee well‐being", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111134634