Short questionnaire for work analysis
The short questionnaire for work analysis (KFZA) is an occupational psychological questionnaire that was developed and published in 1995 by Jochen Prümper, Klaus Hartmannsgruber and Michael Frese as an instrument for determining psychological stress in the work situation. It is a theoretically well-founded, standardized, quantitative method of relative prevention that has been in use in operational practice for many years. The KFZA is a subjective survey instrument, i. In other words, it provides information about the experience of the work situation from the point of view of the employees.
description
As an analytical tool on the subject of mental stress, the KFZA is part of the ABETO procedure, which can be used to carry out risk assessments in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act for computer workstations . The KFZA is also listed in the toolbox of the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) under the heading "Instruments for recording psychological stress". In addition, the KFZA is recommended by the statutory accident insurance as an orientation method for recording psychological stress (GUV-I 8766).
In Austria, the KFZA was further developed in 2002 on behalf of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labor (AK), the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions (ÖGB) and the Austrian Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ). In continuation of this development, the Österreichische Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt (AUVA) has been providing the KFZA as an online tool with various evaluation options for determining psychological stress in the work situation since 2014. The KFZA is also recommended by the Labor Inspectorate of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (Ministry of Social Affairs) and the Austrian Chamber of Commerce (WKO).
Areas of application and purpose
The KFZA is a " screening process" with which positive and negative influences on the work and organizational structure can be recorded with regard to the presence of psychological stress. It has been developed for use by work and organizational psychologists or similarly trained people and should therefore only be carried out in the operational context by people with the appropriate specialist knowledge. Results obtained in this way can be presented to decision-makers in practical operational form in order to be able to derive concrete design measures to improve the work situation.
As an ergonomically recognized procedure, the KFZA is also suitable for carrying out personal risk assessments in accordance with Section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (assessment of working conditions) in the sense of identifying and assessing existing risk potential. It is not industry-specific, so it can be used in all areas of activity.
The IPLV method was developed so that condition-related risk assessments can also be carried out within the framework of the implementation of Section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on the basis of the quantitative KFZA results.
The KFZA is mainly used as an instrument for group diagnosis, i. That is, it allows the comparison of mean values and frequency distributions of different organizational units, groups of people, etc. Nevertheless, the questionnaire can also be used by appropriately trained staff as an individual diagnostic procedure or as a discussion guide in employee interviews.
As a method for collecting the psychological stress of KFZA frequently in connection with the Work Ability Index (ABI, English: Work Ability Index - WAI) as a method for collecting negative consequences of strain used (see this by the European Social Fund and the Ministry of Labor, Health and. Social project HAWAI-4U funded by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia).
development
The aim of the development of the KFZA was to create an instrument suitable for operational practice to analyze the work situation. The focus was on making both the implementation and the evaluation of the instrument as time-efficient as possible. When constructing the questionnaire itself, tried and tested instruments for psychological work analysis were used, from which those questions were selected that most clearly represent the most important aspects of the work and organizational structure based on field experience and item analyzes from studies that have already been carried out.
construction
The KFZA consists of 26 individual questions ( items ), which are rated by the respondents on five-fold Likert scales . The 26 items are grouped into eleven scales with two to three items each. The eleven scales can in turn be assigned to the four aspects of work content , resources , stressors and organizational climate. The following table lists the eleven scales and 26 items of the KFZA.
| Aspect of the work situation | KFZA scale | Items |
|---|---|---|
| Work content | versatility | Learning new things |
| Use of knowledge and skills | ||
| Change of duties | ||
| Holism | Evaluation of the work on the final result | |
| Completeness of the work product | ||
| resources | Room for maneuver | Self-determination of the work steps |
| Influence on the allocation of work | ||
| Possibility of independent work planning and division | ||
| Social backing | Rely on colleagues | |
| Rely on superiors | ||
| Cohesion in the department | ||
| collaboration | Requirement for close cooperation | |
| Exchange opportunity with colleagues | ||
| Feedback from superiors | ||
| Stressors | Qualitative workloads | Complexity of work |
| Requirements for the ability to concentrate | ||
| Quantitative workloads | time pressure | |
| Amount of work | ||
| Work stoppages | Availability of required information | |
| Interruptions to work | ||
| Environmental pollution | unfavorable environmental conditions | |
| insufficient room equipment | ||
| Organizational climate | Information and participation | Information about important processes |
| Taking employees' ideas into account | ||
| Operational services | Training opportunities | |
| Promotion opportunities |
An example item on the “ Social protection ” scale reads: “I can rely on my line manager when things get difficult at work” .
Variants of the KFZA
The KFZA exists in two variants, which differ in their length and their evaluation options.
Description of the current situation
The variant for describing the actual situation is the original and shortest version of the KFZA. Here each individual question is asked only once with regard to the current characteristics of the respective characteristic of the work situation.
Description of the actual and the target situation
The variant for the description of the actual and the target situation represents an extension of the first-mentioned version. In addition to the question about the current characteristics of the individual characteristics (IST), the respondents are asked to give their opinion on an equally graded, second answer scale specify the desired expression of the respective feature (SOLL). The evaluation of the differences between the ACTUAL and TARGET values provides further information about the categories in which the employees see a particularly great need for action to change their work situation.
execution
Answering the questionnaire takes about ten minutes.
evaluation
The eleven KFZA scales are calculated by averaging the respective items. Recoding is not required. Depending on the KFZA version used and the question of interest, the following different evaluations can be carried out descriptively or inferential statistics .
- Comparisons between organizational units, groups of people, etc.
- Deviations of the actual evaluations from criterion values (such as organizational average, benchmarks, target criteria, etc.)
- Deviations between the actual and the target evaluation
Practical example
The KFZA has been used in many practical projects since its publication. The book contribution by Imke Ehlbeck, Andrea Lohmann and Jochen Prümper exemplifies a vehicle application in a hospital. This is a model description of how individual measures to improve the work situation of employees were derived from the specific evaluation results of the KFZA for individual organizational units or individual professional groups.
literature
- ↑ http://people.f3.htw-berlin.de/Professoren/Pruemper/
- ↑ a b c Prümper, J .; Hartmannsgruber, K .; Frese, M. (1995). KFZA. Short questionnaire for work analysis. In: Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 39, 3, 125–132
- ↑ Martin, P., Prümper, J. & von Harten, G. (2008). Ergonomics tester for assessing office and computer workstations (ABETO). Bund-Verlag: Frankfurt am Main
- ↑ http://www.baua.de/de/Informationen-fuer-die-Praxis/Handlungshilfe-und-Praxisbeispiele/Toolbox/ sucht/Datarecord_toolbox.html?idDatarecord= 82529
- ^ Federal Association of Accident Insurance Funds (ed.). (2006). Information from the statutory accident insurance (GUV-I 8766). Mental stress - checklists to get started, available under Archived Copy ( Memento of the original from November 7, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ http://fragebogen-arbeitanalyse.at/help
- ↑ http://www.arbeitsinspektion.gv.at/inspektorat/Gesundheit_im_Betrieb/psychische_Belastungen/
- ↑ Archived copy ( memento of the original from March 24, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Prümper, J. (2015). From the KFZA rough analysis to the IPLV fine analysis. A method for developing measures in the evaluation of psychological stress . personal manager (supplement), 2, 1-6. ISSN 1612-2836.
- ↑ Prümper, J. (2015). Development of measures in the evaluation of psychological stress - The qualification concept: "Certified IPLV Practitioner" . personal manager (supplement), 2, 1-3. ISSN 1612-2836.
- ↑ HAWAI-4U
- ↑ Prümper, J. (2010). KFZA - short questionnaire for work analysis. In: W. Sarges, H. Wottawa & C. Ross (eds.), Handbuch Wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren - Volume II: Organizational Psychological Instruments (pp. 157-164). Lengerich: Pabst-Verlag.
- ↑ Ehlbeck, I., Lohmann, A. & Prümper, J. (2008). Recording and evaluation of psychological stress with the KFZA - practical example hospital. In: S. Leittretter (Ed.), Humanizing work in hospitals. Working aid for the practice of works councils, occupational health and safety experts and employees in hospitals (pp. 32–58). Düsseldorf: edition.
