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.

Sedentary behavior (SB) is an important public health concern. Adults working in desk-based occupations spend a considerable proportion of the workday sitting. More information is needed regarding the factors that contribute to occupational SB. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of social cognitive theory (SCT) to explain work-related SB using a quantitative, cross-sectional design by administering an online questionnaire. Participants included 381 full-time employees at a large, public university in the south-central United States. Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to determine the relationship between SCT constructs and SB. Mean work-related SB was 6.08 (SD = 1.59) hours/day. In model 1, 9.6% of the total variance in SB was accounted for by standing desk ownership and physical activity level (p=0.001; R2=0.096). In model 2, SCT constructs led to a statistically significant R2 increase of 4.9% (p < 0.001, where standing desk ownership, physical activity, and self-efficacy explained 13.3% of the variance in work-related SB. Findings from this study suggest that self-efficacy may be an important factor in explaining variation in occupational SB. Public health researchers and practitioners should consider strategies to address employees’ self-efficacy when developing workplace interventions to target occupational SB.