[Work-related stress: comparing two assessment methods]

Area of Science:

• Occupational Health
• Risk Management
• Industrial Psychology

Background:

• Work-related stress poses significant risks to employee well-being and organizational productivity.
• Existing risk assessment methods vary in their approach, leading to potential gaps in comprehensive evaluation.
• The ISPESL-HSE (subjective/perceptive) and VIS (objective/intersubjective) methods represent distinct approaches to stress risk assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare and evaluate the integration potential of the ISPESL-HSE and VIS methods for work-related stress risk assessment.
• To determine the congruence and complementarity of subjective and objective risk assessment approaches.
• To explore the application of these methods across different industrial sectors.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of two distinct risk assessment methodologies: ISPESL-HSE (subjective) and VIS (objective).
• Application of both methods across four diverse company types: public education, social services, forestry, and agricultural machinery.
• Evaluation of the overlap and integration capabilities of the assessment results.

Main Results:

• Both the VIS and ISPESL-HSE methods identified differential risk levels among the examined companies.
• A notable overlap was observed between the results obtained using the two different investigation methods.
• The findings suggest that the VIS and HSE methods can be integrated for a more detailed and nuanced study of work-related stress risks.

Conclusions:

• The integration of subjective (ISPESL-HSE) and objective (VIS) methods provides a more comprehensive understanding of work-related stress risks.
• Both assessment approaches are valuable and can be synergistically employed in diverse occupational settings.
• Further research can leverage combined methodologies for improved workplace risk management strategies.