Structured Multidisciplinary Work Evaluation Tool (SMET): Reliability testing of a multidisciplinary/multifactorial work questionnaire

• Published in: Work (Reading, Mass.) Mass.), 2019-01, Vol.62 (2), p.287-297
• Main Authors: Haraldsson, P., Jonker, D., Rolander, B., Strengbom, E., Areskoug-Josefsson, K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Environmental management; Evaluation; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Occupational health; Occupational health care; Occupational health care services; pragmatic value; Psychometrics - instrumentation; Psychometrics - methods; Psychometrics - standards; Qualitative analysis; Qualitative Research; Questionnaires; Reliability analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Studies; Surveys and Questionnaires; Systematic errors; Trustworthiness; validity; Work environment; Working conditions; Workplace - psychology; Workplace - standards
• ISSN: 1051-9815; 1875-9270; 1875-9270
• DOI: 10.3233/WOR-192863

BACKGROUND: Occupational health services (OHS) are rarely involved in preventive issues and systematic work environment management. The Structured Multidisciplinary Work Evaluation Tool (SMET) questionnaire was created to address the lack of multidisciplinary/multifactorial OHS tools with the aim to be used in preventive issues and systematic work environment management. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate trustworthiness of the inter-rater reliability in the qualitative analysis of the open-ended items and intra-rater reliability of the self-estimated items in the SMET questionnaire. METHODS: A qualitative comparison of the inter-rater reliability in the qualitative analysis of the open-ended items was performed to evaluate trustworthiness. The intra-rater reliability of the self-estimated items in the SMET questionnaire were analysed with Elisabet Svensson method. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of the open-ended items showed good trustworthiness. The self-estimated items showed a high percent agreement (PA), 0.98–0.99 in the physically, 0.99 in the environmentally and 0.98–1.0 in the psychosocially demanding items. A low degree of systematic errors and individual variability were found. CONCLUSIONS: The SMET questionnaire shows good trustworthiness and intra-rater reliability and can be used to follow up and evaluate work environmental interventions.