Development and psychometric evaluation of a Total Worker Health® practice scale

Objective: Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) professionals increasingly need to assess and mitigate a broad scope of worker safety, health, and well-being concerns that extend beyond traditional OSH training curricula. Work-related and non-work-related psychosocial hazards, chronic physical and mental health conditions, and changing work arrangements call for an integrative, public health approach to occupational risk management; this approach has been called, "Total Worker Health®" by United States public health authorities (Schulte et al. 2019). OSH professionals need education to ensure that Total Worker Health (TWH) practice approaches are consistently and effectively applied. This study sought to develop a valid, reliable scale that could be used to assess TWH skills gaps that can be addressed with tailored, competency-based curricula.

Method: We developed a survey scale to assess professional competency for specific TWH practice approaches described in prior literature (Lee et al. 2016; Punnett et al. 2020). The scale contained 11 statements and used a 5-point scale (not skilled to highly skilled) to rate the level of competency. We pre-tested and refined the statements for face validity then administered the scale with a convenience sample of 258 professionals from mixed OSH disciplines. A total of 210 OSH professionals (31% safety, 17% industrial hygiene, 12% occupational nurses, 11% occupational physicians, 29% other) who completed 50% or more of the questions were included in the analysis. Scale reliability was assessed with a Cronbach's alpha test. Scale validity and structure were assessed with exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Results: The 11-item scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.92). The initial EFA solution suggested 2 factors that explained 65.3% of variance, with one cross-loaded question. A final 10-item, 2-factor scale was developed that accounted for 66.0% of variance with no cross-loaded items (Cronbach's alpha α = 0.91). Factor 1 (6 items) contributed to 55.5% of the variance and captured skills related to TWH program leadership (e.g. leader commitment, integrating program systems, engaging with other program leaders and workers). Factor 2 (4 items) contributed to 10.5% of the variance and captured technical skills related to hazard identification and control (e.g. identifying hazards, designing work to reduce hazards). Internal consistency was very good for both TWH program leadership (Cronbach α = 0.89) and TWH risk assessment and control (Cronbach α = 0.80) subscales.

Conclusion: A novel 10-item TWH skill scale to assess specific TWH practice approaches was developed with very good reliability. Factor analysis revealed 2 latent constructs: TWH leadership skills and TWH risk assessment and control skills. This study offers an evidence-based tool to assess competency for specific TWH practices among OSH professionals. The results of this study contribute to the broader research base needed to formalize a TWH competency framework, as advocated by other scholars interested in TWH workforce education (Newman et al. 2020).