Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

The Survey Measure of Psychological Safety and Its Association with Mental Health and Job Performance: a Validation Study and Cross-Sectional Analysis

Version 1 : Received: 27 June 2022 / Approved: 29 June 2022 / Online: 29 June 2022 (03:27:08 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Sasaki, N.; Inoue, A.; Asaoka, H.; Sekiya, Y.; Nishi, D.; Tsutsumi, A.; Imamura, K. The Survey Measure of Psychological Safety and Its Association with Mental Health and Job Performance: A Validation Study and Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9879. Sasaki, N.; Inoue, A.; Asaoka, H.; Sekiya, Y.; Nishi, D.; Tsutsumi, A.; Imamura, K. The Survey Measure of Psychological Safety and Its Association with Mental Health and Job Performance: A Validation Study and Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9879.

Journal reference: Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9879
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169879

Abstract

Objectives: This study validated the Japanese version of O’Donovan et al.’s (2020) composite measure of psychological safety scale and examined the associations of psychological safety with mental health and job-related outcomes. Methods: Online surveys were administered twice to Japanese employees with teams of more than three members. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability was tested using Cronbach’s α and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Structural validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Convergent validity was tested. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between psychological safety and psychological distress, work engagement, job performance, and job satisfaction. Results: Two hundred healthcare workers and 200 non-healthcare workers were analyzed. The Cronbach’s alpha of the total score was 0.92 - 0.96 and ICC was 0.88 - 0.92. CFA demonstrated poor fit, and EFA yielded a two-factor structure, suggesting one factor combined with peers and team. The scale showed good convergent validity. The total score of the scale showed significant associations with all outcomes in adjusted model in all workers. Conclusions: The Japanese version of the measure of the psychological safety scale presented good reliability and validity. Psychological safety is important for employees’ mental health and performance.

Keywords

occupational health; leadership; mental health; workplace climate; worksite

Subject

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, Social Psychology

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.