Scale to assess quality of working life in university environment by using item response theory

Ledic, Jerko; Andrade, Dalton F.; Klein, Leander L.; Tirloni, Adriana S.; Moro, Antônio R. P.

doi:10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG220102.en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Human and Social Management • RAM, Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 23 (3) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG220102.en copy

Scale to assess quality of working life in university environment by using item response theory

Escala para avaliar a qualidade de vida no trabalho em ambiente universitário pela teoria de resposta ao item

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Purpose:

This study aims to validate Ferreira’s (2011)Ferreira, M. C. C. (2011). Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho: Uma Abordagem Centrada no Olhar dos Trabalhadores. Ergopublic. quality of working life (QWL) scale by using item response theory (IRT) and specialists’ knowledge to be applied in higher education institutions (HEIs).

Originality/value:

The paper advances QWL theoretical knowledge by validating a scale to appraise QWL in this specific context using IRT. The scale can be applied in any HEI. Items can be removed or added to adapt the instrument to each institutions’ particularities and respond to context change over time. Results can assist decision-makers in identifying critical aspects to be improved, guiding them to allocate resources precisely, and assessing the efficiency of interventions.

Design/methodology/approach:

With a qualitative and quantitative approach, this exploratory study used the data collected from Klein et al.’s research (2019)Klein, L. L., Pereira, B. A., & Lemos, R. B. (2019). Qualidade de vida no trabalho: Parâmetros e avaliação no serviço público. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 20(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG190134
https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMG1... . The IRT model used to analyze the data was the Graded Response Model. Anchored items were identified to allow the interpretation of the levels on the scale. Specialists were consulted to conduct a qualitative analysis so the scale could reveal the institution’s QWL status quo. The scale was applied as a case study in the sample.

Findings:

The instrument’s internal consistency was confirmed, and the results reveal the scale has high reliability. The scale was classified into six cumulative levels. The parameters found demonstrate that the set of items accurately estimates the entire QWL latent trait. Items related to recognition were the aspects with the highest discrimination parameters proving their importance in distinguishing QWL.

Keywords:
psychometrics; organizational factors; ergonomics; item response theory; higher education institutions

Item	Item description	Parameters estimates, standard errors (SE), and factor loading (FL)
Item	Item description	a	SE(a)	b₁	SE(b₁)	b₂	SE(b₂)	FL
1*	Communication between co-workers is unsatisfactory.	0.65	0.12	1.66	0.31	4.15	0.75	0.36
2	Coexistence in the work environment at the university is harmonious.	1.30	0.13	-1.07	0.12	1.43	0.15	0.61
3	The distribution of tasks is fair.	1.10	0.13	0.40	0.11	2.99	0.33	0.54
4	The practice of recognition contributes to my professional achievement.	0.75	0.10	-1.55	0.24	0.50	0.15	0.40
5	Society recognizes the importance of my work.	1.12	0.12	0.05	0.10	2.13	0.23	0.55
6	Norms for carrying out the tasks are strict.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	Opportunities for professional growth are the same for everyone.	1.32	0.14	0.49	0.10	1.65	0.17	0.61
8*	It is common not to complete initiated work.	0.68	0.13	1.88	0.34	3.93	0.70	0.37
9*	Conflict in the workplace is common.	1.07	0.13	0.40	0.11	2.18	0.25	0.53
10	Access to immediate superiors is easy.	1.32	0.15	-2.09	0.21	-0,59	0.09	0.61
11	There is performance monitoring.	0.54	0.10	0.54	0.20	4,50	0.85	0.30
12*	There are difficulties in superior-subordinate communication.	1.29	0.13	-0.52	0.10	0,55	0.11	0.60
13*	There is a lack of support from superiors for my professional development.	1.73	0.16	-0.16	0.08	0,84	0.10	0.71
14*	Time to take a break is lacking.	0.77	0.11	-0.49	0.15	0.69	0.16	0.41
15	I like the institution where I work.	1.91	0.18	-1.55	0.13	-0.22	0.07	0.75
16	Deadlines are demanded to complete the tasks.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
17	There is trust among co-workers.	1.34	0.13	-0.55	0.10	1.64	0.16	0.62
18	There are incentives for career growth.	1.74	0.16	-0.24	0.08	1.33	0.12	0.71
19	My co-workers are willing to help me.	1.23	0.12	-1.25	0.14	0.94	0.12	0.58
20	My immediate superior is interested in helping me.	1.64	0.15	-1.17	0.11	0.12	0.08	0.69
21	My working relationship with the immediate superior is cooperative.	1.50	0.14	-1.36	0.13	0.18	0.09	0.66
22	My working relationships with co-workers are harmonious.	1.35	0.14	-2.01	0.19	0.42	0.10	0.62
23	I am free to say what I think about the work.	1.38	0.13	-1.12	0.12	0.73	0.11	0.62
24	At this university, the activities I do are sources of pleasure.	1.45	0.14	-0.91	0.11	1.09	0.12	0.65
25*	Working conditions are precarious.	1.00	0.12	0.11	0.11	1.62	0.20	0.51
26*	Tasks are repetitive.	0.72	0.12	1.32	0.23	3.65	0.58	0.39
27	At the university, I have time to do my job with zeal.	0.94	0.11	-1.45	0.19	1.07	0.16	0.48
28*	At the university, there is a strong demand for results.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
29	At this university, my dedication to work is recognized.	1.99	0.18	0.00	0.07	1.54	0.13	0.76
30	At this university, results obtained from my work are recognized.	2.06	0.19	-0.04	0.07	1.69	0.13	0.77
31	At this university, I am encouraged by my superior.	1.84	0.17	0.09	0.08	1.22	0.11	0.73
32	At this university, I have free access to higher superiors.	1.24	0.13	-0.70	0.11	0.79	0.12	0.59
33	The university offers opportunities for professional growth.	1.60	0.15	-0.33	0.08	1.19	0.12	0.68
34	Managerial behavior is characterized by dialogue.	2.00	0.18	-0.20	0.07	1.12	0.10	0.76
35	Personal development is a real possibility at the university.	2.11	0.18	-0.20	0.07	1.11	0.10	0.78
36	The physical space to perform my work is satisfactory.	0.95	0.12	-0.01	0.11	1.92	0.24	0.49
37	The workplace is comfortable.	1.13	0.12	-0.35	0.11	1.40	0.16	0.55
38	The room temperature is comfortable.	0.87	0.11	-0.61	0.14	0.89	0.16	0.45
39	The lighting level is sufficient to carry out the activities.	1.08	0.12	-1.22	0.15	0.12	0.10	0.53
40	The workplace is suitable for carrying out tasks.	1.08	0.12	-0.60	0.12	1.17	0.15	0.53
41*	The work I do puts my physical security at risk.	0.67	0.10	-1.17	0.22	-0.06	0.14	0.37
42*	The equipment needed to perform the tasks is precarious.	0.86	0.11	-0.72	0.14	0.98	0.17	0.45
43	The work instruments are sufficient to carry out the tasks.	0.89	0.11	-0.90	0.15	1.44	0.20	0.46
44	Consumables are sufficient.	0.84	0.11	-0.92	0.16	1.17	0.18	0.44
45	Recognition of collective work is an effective practice.	2.39	0.23	0.53	0.07	1.90	0.14	0.81
46	Recognition of individual work is an effective practice.	1.96	0.19	0.60	0.08	2.29	0.19	0.72
47*	The pace of work is excessive.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
48	The time I spend at the university makes me happy.	1.85	0.16	-0.68	0.09	0.88	0.10	0.76
49	The work I do is useful for society.	1.02	0.13	-2.17	0.26	-0.42	0.11	0.51
50	I can do my job without pressure.	0.87	0.11	-1.43	0.20	1.37	0.20	0.45
51	I can do my job without overloading tasks.	0.75	0.10	-0.79	0.17	2.03	0.29	0.40
52	My work makes me feel good.	2.20	0.18	-0.90	0.09	0.59	0.08	0.79
53	I feel recognized by the institution where I work.	2.58	0.23	0.15	0.07	1.40	0.10	0.83
54*	I have the impression that I do not exist for the institution.	1.68	0.16	-0.15	0.08	0.64	0.09	0.70
55	I have the possibility to be creative in my work.	1.00	0.11	-1.25	0.16	0.96	0.15	0.51
56	I have the freedom to execute the tasks.	1.19	0.12	-1.59	0.17	0.89	0.12	0.57

Anchor levels	85	90	95	100	105	110	115	120	125	130	135
QWL scale	Poor		Somewhat satisfactory		Satisfactory	Good		Very good		Excellent
	10b₁	15b₁	2b₁	12*b₁	5b₁	3b₁	13*b₂	2b₂	5b₂	9*b₂	3b₂
	22b₁	21b₁	19b₁	17b₁	13*b₁	7b₁	19b₂	18b₂	7b₂	46b₂
	49b₁	56b₁	20b₁	18b₁	29b₁	9*b₁	23b₂	29b₂	17b₂
			23b₁	32b₁	30b₁	25*b₁	24b₂	30b₂	25*b₂
			24b₁	33b₁	34b₁	45b₁	31b₂	37b₂	45b₂
			39b₁	35b₁	31b₁	46b₁	32b₂	40b₂
			52b₁	40b₁	37b₁	12*b₂	33b₂	53b₂
			55b₁	48b₁	53b₁	22b₂	34b₂
				10b₂	54*b₁	39b₂	35b₂
				15b₂	20b₂	52b₂	48b₂
				49b²	21b₂	54*b₂	55b₂
							56b₂

Level		Description
No QWL 82.5]		At this level, workers have no perceived QWL. They have a high probability of not agreeing with all the items of the instrument. They may partially agree with some items, but their score will likely be lower than 82.5.
Poor (82.5; 92.5]		Workers placed at this level begin to experience QWL. They partially agree to have easy access to the immediate superior, relationships with co-workers are harmonious, the work they do is useful for society, they like the institution where they work, have a cooperative relationship with their immediate superior, and the freedom to execute the tasks.
Somewhat satisfactory (92.5; 102.5]		Besides the characteristics of the previous level, since it is a cumulative scale, this level identifies workers who partially agree that coexistence in the work environment is harmonious, co-workers and immediate superior are willing to help, they are free to say what they think about work, the activities they do are sources of pleasure, lighting level is sufficient, their work makes them feel good, they can be creative, there are no difficulties in superior-subordinate communication, there is trust among co-workers, there are incentives for career growth, they have free access to higher superiors, the university offers opportunities for professional growth, personal development is a real possibility, the workplace is suitable for carrying out tasks and the time they spend at the university make them happy. This is the first level in which workers begin to agree with some items completely. They completely agree that they have easy access to the immediate superior, they like the institution where they work, and the work they do is useful for society.
Satisfactory (102.5; 107.5]		Added to the features of the previous items, workers in this level partially agree that society recognizes their work, superiors support their professional development, dedication to work is recognized, results obtained from their work are recognized, managerial behavior is characterized by dialogue, they are encouraged by their superiors, the workplace is comfortable, they feel recognized by the institution, and have the impression that they exist for it. They completely agree that the immediate superior is willing to help and that the working relationship with the immediate superior is cooperative.
Good (107.5; 117.5]		In addition to the items above, workers partially agree that distribution of tasks is fair, opportunities for professional growth are the same for everyone, conflict in the workplace is not common, working conditions are not precarious, and recognition of collective and individual work is an effective practice. They completely agree that there are no difficulties in superior-subordinate communication, relationships with co-workers are harmonious, lighting level is sufficient, their work makes them feel good, they have the impression that they exist for the institution, superiors support their professional development, co-workers are willing to help, they are free to say what they think about work, the activities they do are sources of pleasure, they are encouraged by their superiors, have free access to higher superiors, the university offers opportunities for professional growth, managerial behavior is characterized by dialogue, personal development is a real possibility, the time they spend at the university make them happy, they can be creative, and they have the freedom to execute the tasks.
Very good (117.5; 127.5]		From this level on, workers are expected to, at least, partially agree with all the items. In addition, they completely agree that coexistence in the work environment is harmonious, there are incentives for career growth, dedication to work is recognized, as well as the results obtained from it, the workplace is comfortable and suitable for carrying out the tasks, they feel recognized by the institution, society recognizes the importance of their work, opportunities for professional growth are the same for everyone, there is trust among co-workers, working conditions are not precarious, and recognition of collective work is an effective practice.
Excellent (127.5;		Additionally to the previous items, workers in this level completely agree that conflict in the workplace is not common, recognition of individual work is an effective practice, and distribution of tasks is fair.

Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jerko Ledic, at Rua Engenheiro Agrônomo Andrei Cristian Ferreira, S/N, Campus Universitário, Engenharia de Produção, Trindade, Florianópolis, Brazil, ZIP Code 88040-535. Email: jerko.ledic@ufsc.br