See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232564488

Psychosocial Safety Climate: Development of the PSC-

12

Article  in  International Journal of Stress Management · November 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0021320

CITATIONS READS

90 4,964

3 authors, including:

Maureen Dollard
University of South Australia
193 PUBLICATIONS   5,292 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PSYCHOSOCIAL SAFETY CLIMATE IN MALAYSIA View project

Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maureen Dollard on 07 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychosocial Safety Climate:
Development of the PSC-12
Garry B. Hall, Maureen F. Dollard, and Jane Coward
University of South Australia

Psychosocial risks in the workplace have the potential for causing psychological
and social harm that contributes toward the mental health disability burden.
Psychosocial risks are influenced by macrolevel factors such as the psychosocial
safety climate within the organization. This paper concerns the development and
evaluation of a short instrument to measure psychosocial safety climate (PSC).
PSC is conceived as an up-stream resource, and concerns senior management
values and attitudes toward care and practices in relation to employee psycho-
social well being. In a pilot sample (N ⫽ 78) we used an iterative procedure
incorporating regression analysis to reduce 26 items down to a parsimonious 12
item, four-factor scale (PSC-12). The PSC-12 was then assessed using confir-
matory factor analysis and the scale validated in a second representative sample
of Australian workers (N ⫽ 398). The PSC-12 showed expected relationships
with psychosocial risk factors (e.g., job demands, job resources), worker en-
gagement and health, and work related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction). We
further confirmed the invariance of the factor coefficients and factor covariance
across the two multioccupational samples using multigroup analysis. In a third
organizational study (N ⫽ 16 teams, 106 health care workers) we found that
PSC showed group like psychometric properties, and team level PSC was
associated with individual level psychological distress and work engagement.
PSC showed incremental value beyond a physical safety measure. The results
provide initial indications that the PSC-12 can be used across a range of
occupations, and within organizations.

Garry B. Hall, Maureen F. Dollard, and Jane Coward, Centre for Applied Psychological
Research, Work & Stress Research Group, School of Psychology, Social Work, and Social
Policy, University of South Australia.
This research is funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project ID:
DP0879007 awarded to M. F. Dollard, A. H. Winefield, A. D. LaMontagne, A. W. Taylor, A. B.
Bakker, and C. Mustard.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Garry B Hall, University
of South Australia, Division of Education Arts and Social Sciences, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide,
SA, Australia, 5001. E-mail: [email protected]. Correspondence concerning
PSC and the Australian Workplace Barometer project should be addressed to Maureen F.
Dollard, Centre for Applied Psychological Research, Work & Stress Research Group, GPO Box
2471, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5001. E-mail: [email protected]

353
International Journal of Stress Management © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 17, No. 4, 353–383 1072-5245/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021320
354 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

Keywords: psychosocial safety climate, worker engagement, psychological health, mental

health disability

There are significant economic and social costs associated with poor
psychological health at work. Economic costs of psychological health related
compensation claims in Australia are estimated at $200 million annually and
claim rates increased 62% from 1996 –2003 (Australian Safety and Compen-
sation Council, ASCC, 2006). Workers at high risk of depression have an
annual productivity decrement of $12,700 (Whiteford, Sheridan, Cleary, &
Hilton, 2005). Poor psychological health represents the greatest population
disability burden in Australia (Mathers, Vos, Stevenson, & Begg, 2001), and
work related factors are contributing to the problem. Empirical evidence has
accumulated demonstrating that exposure to workplace psychosocial hazards
(e.g., high workload, low control, poor relationships with coworkers and
supervisors) may be a common source of worker psychological health
problems (see Clarke & Cooper, 2004; D’Souza, Stradzins, Lim, Broom, &
Rodgers, 2003; Rugulies, Bultmann, Aust, & Burr, 2006; van Veldhoven, de
Jonge, Broersen, Kompier, & Meijman, 2002).
Psychosocial hazards at work are found in job design, the organization
and management of work, and within the social and environmental contexts
of the workplace (Cox et al., 2000). The linkage between workplace psycho-
social hazards and worker mental health is commonly referred to as occu-
pational stress. In many countries, occupational stress is considered an
occupational health and safety issue, and legislation is in place to prevent
psychosocial hazards that cause workplace psychological injury (Ertel, Stili-
janow, Cvitkovic, & Lenhardt, 2008). Moreover occupational stress is also
considered a risk assessable disease (Clarke & Cooper, 2004). Therefore
given the cost of work related psychological health problems, measures are
required to identify, assess and control psychosocial hazards that have the
potential for causing psychological harm (Cox et al., 2000). The most
dominant stress theories (e.g., Job Demands-Resources model, Demerouti,
Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Job Demands-Control model,
Karasek, 1979; Effort-Reward Imbalance model, Siegrist, 1996) focus
mainly on hazards at a job task level. We propose that an organizational
factor, psychosocial safety climate (PSC), that emanates largely from man-
agement is antecedent to these task related hazards.
Psychosocial safety climate is a facet specific dimension of organiza-
tional climate and refers to shared perceptions regarding “policies, practices
and procedures for the protection of worker psychological health and safety”
(Dollard & Bakker, 2010). We view psychological health at work as an
important occupational health and safety issue; therefore the construct has
been named in the “safety climate” genre. If PSC can be effectively mea-
Psychosocial Safety Climate 355

sured, from a pragmatic perspective in accordance with PSC theory, an

efficient target for intervention may be found. Our paper concerns the
development and evaluation of a short instrument to assess PSC.

PSC THEORY AND RESEARCH

PSC research builds on earlier work that recognizes the link between
occupational stress and occupational safety. Safety researchers have for some
time discussed and investigated the relationship (e.g., Clarke & Cooper,
2004; Glendon, Clarke, & McKenna, 2006; Mearns & Hope, 2005). Lines of
research include the role of stress reactions such as psychological strain as a
mediator between safety climate and safety performance (e.g., near misses
and injuries; Clarke, in press; Goldenhar, Williams, & Swanson, 2003);
psychological strain as a mediator between task demands and/or organiza-
tional stressors and safety performance (Goldenhar et al.), and the impact of
work stressors such as work pressure and role overload on safety perfor-
mance (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). The research is also situated more
broadly within the context of organizational health frameworks (e.g., Cotton
& Hart, 2003; Wilson, DeJoy, Vandenberg, Richardson, and McGrath, 2004).
These organizational health frameworks emphasize the important influence
of organizational climate of which safety climate is a facet, on job design and
in turn psychological work adjustment and morale. PSC theory is very
consistent with this framework and builds the JD-R model that has a strong
theoretical and empirical foundation linking task related job demands and
resources to health and engagement, along these lines.
PSC refers to an organizational climate for employee psychological
safety and health. The content domain of PSC comprises: (1) senior man-
agement support and commitment for stress prevention through involvement
and commitment; (2) management priority to psychological health and safety
versus productivity goals; (3) organizational communication, that is, the
organization listens to contributions from employees; and (4) organizational
participation and involvement, for example, participation and consultation
occurs with unions, and occupational health and safety representatives (e.g.,
Bond & Bunce, 2001; Cox, Randall, & Griffiths, 2002). These domains were
determined by Dollard and Bakker (2010) following a review of the princi-
ples underpinning successful stress prevention interventions (Dollard &
Bakker, 2010; Dollard & Kang, 2007; European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work, 2002; Jordan et al., 2003; Kompier & Cooper, 1999;
Kompier & Kristensen, 2001). The management priority for safety domain
was added following a review of the safety literature and its clear importance
in safety systems (Cheyne, Cox, Oliver, & Tomas, 1998; Zohar, 1980).
356 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

Evidence of these principles is believed to indicate varying levels of PSC

within organizations or units. PSC is largely driven by management values
and beliefs. PSC reflects a communicated management position about the
value and priority of worker psychological health and safety in the work-
place. In a high PSC environment managers are expected to show commit-
ment for the prevention of work stress and for the promotion of psychological
health among employees. Communication systems are established so that
stressful work conditions become known and action is taken to prevent or
control psychosocial hazards. There is involvement and participation of all
levels of the organization in stress prevention. Psychological health is a
priority at least on equal footing with production goals. Since senior man-
agers are largely responsible for the design of jobs, and their inherent
demands and resources, one may predict the psychosocial working conditions
of those within the organization by knowing about organizational levels of
PSC.
Therefore PSC is conceived as a preeminent psychosocial risk factor capable
of causing psychological and social harm through its influence on other psycho-
social risk factors (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). Within the Job Demands-Resources
(JD-R) framework, psychosocial hazards referred to earlier are evident as high
demands and low resources. The JD-R model proposes that job demands,
irrespective of occupation type, are inherent in the way jobs are designed and
primarily relate to psychological health problems (Demerouti et al., 2001). An
important premise of the JD-R model is its dual process: (1) a health impairment
process whereby job demands such as work overload, and or psychological/
emotional demands can exhaust workers’ mental and physical resources, con-
tributing to exhaustion and chronic health problems; and (2) a motivational
process whereby job resources can promote high work engagement, low cyni-
cism, and greater work performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). PSC is
conceived as an up-stream organizational trigger for the JD-R health impairment
and motivation pathways.
There is some empirical evidence in support for this. In their longitudinal
study among education workers Dollard and Bakker (2010) found PSC
aggregated to a unit (i.e., school) level, was associated with change in
psychological distress, via job demands (i.e., work pressure & emotional
demands) in line with the health impairment process. PSC also predicted
change in employee engagement through its positive relationship with skill
discretion in line with the motivation process. Similarly Bond, Tuckey, and
Dollard (2010) found that PSC aggregated to the police station level was
associated with bullying cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Notably these
results also conform with the organizational health models discussed above
(Cotton & Hart, 2003; Wilson, et al., 2004), climate preceding job design
components. Next we describe how PSC is related to other climate con-
structs.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 357

CLIMATE PERSPECTIVES

Schneider (2000) argued that for the dimensions of organizational cli-

mate to be useful, they need to be strategically focused, “a climate for
something.” As such PSC is specific, a climate for psychological health and
safety. Similarly safety climate is also a facet-specific dimension of organi-
zational climate determined by worker perceptions of organizational policies,
procedures and practices with regard to safety (Cox & Cheyne, 2000). Since
the construct was introduced over 30 years ago (Zohar, 1980) a large body of
evidence has accumulated which shows safety climate as an antecedent to
safety behavior (Clarke, in press; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000; Neal & Griffin,
2006), safety motivation (Clarke, in press; Neal & Griffin, 2006) and acci-
dents (Clarke, in press; Neal & Griffin, 2006).
PSC is related to the construct of safety climate in several respects. First,
like safety climate PSC is an organization climate variable mainly conceived
as a property of the organization rather than the individual. As such organi-
zational climate is generally defined as in terms of “shared perceptions of
organizational policies, practices, and procedures” (Reichers & Schneider,
1990, p. 22) and reflects the properties of a group or organization. The
appropriate level of theory, measurement and analysis is the group or orga-
nization (Parker et al., 2003).
Researchers in the field commonly distinguish organizational climate
from psychological climate. Psychological climate refers to individual per-
ceptions of the work environment, a “molar construct” whereby workers
attempt to derive meaning from their work experiences based on their
knowledge structures, needs, and values (Parker et al., 2003). As such
psychological climate is considered a property of the individual, and the
appropriate level of theory, measurement and analysis is at the individual
level (Parker et al., 2003). There is considerable confusion in the literature
regarding whether the safety climate construct is an organizational climate or
a psychological climate. For example a recent review of 35 studies concern-
ing the relationship between safety climate and safety performance showed
that only 20% of studies used group level analysis (Clarke, 2006). Similarly
Clarke’s (in press) meta-analysis of the relationship between psychological
climate, safety climate, and individual safety outcomes assessed 51 individ-
ual level studies rejecting studies with variables at the organizational level
(7% (n ⫽ 4) studies).
Second, like safety climate, PSC is an antecedent to safety behavior. PSC
may provide signals to employees regarding desired role safety behavior. For
example in organizations with a low PSC, bullying and other forms of
inappropriate behavior may be prevalent because employees infer that psy-
chological well-being is not a priority in the organization. Employees de-
358 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

velop expectancies regarding consequences for unsafe acts via observations

of the other employee’s including senior management behaviors (Bond et al.,
2010). PSC precedes unsafe acts such as bullying and harassment.
However PSC is distinct from safety climate as well; its distinction in
theory and measurement is about bandwidth versus fidelity of psychosocial
constructs (Cronbach & Gleser, 1957). PSC is about psychological health and
safety whereas safety climate emphasizes physical health and safety. Its
distinction is that it focuses specifically on psychological health and safety.
We expect PSC as defined and operationalized to predict psychological
health as well as psychosocial hazards, with more accuracy than safety
climate measures.
Finally, team psychological safety climate is a construct distinct from
PSC. Edmondson (1999) characterized team psychological safety climate by
the amount of interpersonal trust and mutual respect among workers in the
organization; psychological safety refers to a level of comfort or freedom
from fear. Safety in PSC refers to freedom from psychological harm and
injury. We see PSC as an antecedent to team psychological safety climate.
Like team psychological safety climate, PSC may affect interpersonal factors,
but additionally a range of other psychosocial hazard factors as well (i.e.,
work pressure, low job control). Next we discuss the commonality between
PSC and safety climate constituent dimensions.

THE CONTENT DOMAIN OF PSC AND SAFETY CLIMATE

Although there has been much debate in the safety science literature
concerning the dimensions of safety climate (see Clarke, 1999; Flin, Mearns,
O,Connor, & Bryden, 2000; Glendon et al., 2006) there is also some con-
gruence about the most important dimensions. Senior management commit-
ment (Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Neal et al., 2000) and, in particular, the priority
given by senior management to safety issues (Cheyne et al., 1998; Cox &
Cheyne, 2000; Flin & Mearns, 1994), communication (Cheyne et al., 1998;
Cox & Cheyne, 2000), and involvement (e.g., Cheyne et al., 1998; Clarke,
2006; Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Hahn & Murphy, 2008; Neal et al., 2000) are
commonly identified as important dimensions of safety climate. Tools using
long and short scales to measure safety climate dimensions have been
developed (e.g., Hahn & Murphy, 2008; Neal et al., 2000) and reviewed (e.g.,
Flin, 2007; Flin, Mearns, O’Connor, & Bryden, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000)
and reveal considerable inconsistencies in conceptual structure. For example
Zohar’s eight factor safety measure has been reduced to a three factor (Brown
& Holmes, 1986), and more recently a two factor structure: (1) management
commitment to safety; and (2) worker involvement in safety (Dedobbleer &
Beland, 1991).
Psychosocial Safety Climate 359

Despite a clear dimensional overlap between existing safety climate

measures and the dimensions identified for PSC, there is no specific measure
that assesses all of the PSC dimensions, or refers to psychological health and
safety. Therefore a new scale was developed drawing items from a variety of
safety scales that canvassed the pertinent dimensions and that were then
modified to focus on psychological health and safety.

CURRENT STUDY

We used three studies to address the research aims. The first two studies
used a theory driven population based approach. In occupational stress
research, population based approaches are an important adjunct to organiza-
tional research because not all organizations and their employees are acces-
sible to researchers. Further they can provide essential insights into causes of
exposure patterns that can guide public health interventions (LaMontagne,
Herrick, Van Dyke, Martyny, & Ruttenber, 2002). The size of the PSC scale
was somewhat impractical however for large scale population based studies
and required systematic reduction and validation. Study one and two aims
were to: (1) shorten the 26-item version of the PSC scale; (2) evaluate the fit
of the proposed shortened scale with the original scale; (3) present the
psychometric properties of the short version (i.e., reliability and validity); and
(4) assess invariance of the model in a separate sample. A limitation of these
studies is that PSC is an organizational construct yet in surveillance ap-
proaches the organization is commonly not known, as was the case with our
data set. Typically organizational climate is measured via individual percep-
tions aggregated to the organization or unit level. This process enables a
closer approximation to the objective situation, as “shared understanding.”
Knowing about the PSC operationalized in this way, one may predict the
working conditions and levels of psychological well-being of workers within
organizations. Therefore study three aims were to: (5) assess the climate or
group level properties of the measure; and (6) assess the unique variance
accounted for by PSC in competition with a parallel safety measure.

STUDY 1 PILOT PSC SCALE DEVELOPMENT

METHOD

The research was conducted as part of the Australian Workplace Barom-

eter project (see Dollard & Skinner, 2007). Computer assisted telephone
360 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

interviewing (CATI) was used in order to maximize response rates, minimize

data collection time and errors, and to ensure that a representative sample was
obtained. All residential households with a valid telephone connection within
NSW and WA were considered in-scope for the sample. The sample was
drawn using an abbreviated Random Digit Dialling (RDD) technique1 (Wil-
son, Starr, Taylor, & Dal Grande, 1999).

Participants

Data were collected from 100 participants who were at least 18 years old
and in current paid employment from 50 households each within New South
Wales (NSW) and Western Australia (WA). Of the 100 participants 22 were
self-employed and 78 were employed. We were concerned with the percep-
tions of employees’ PSC in their workplace so we only used the 78 non-
self-employed participants. There were 52 female and 26 male respondents
with a mean age of 45.1 years (SD ⫽ 11.49). The participant’s occupation
according to the Australian Standard Classification of Occupation (ASCO,
2008) was: 13 manager/administrator; 24 professional work; 2 technical or
associate professional; 3 tradesperson or related work; 4 advanced clerical or
service; 8 intermediate clerical, sales, or service; 2 intermediate plant oper-
ator/transport; 0 elementary clerical, sales or service; 3 laborer or related; and
19 other.

Measures

All psychosocial hazards, demands, control and social support are as-
sessed using scales from the new JCQ 2.0 www.jcqcenter.org which is based
on the original Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ; Karasek, 1985).

Job Demands

Three subscales were used to measure job demands: 1) six items mea-
suring psychological demands with an example item, “My job requires
working very hard”; 2) five items measuring physical demands with an
example, “My job requires lots of physical effort”; and 3) four items mea-
suring emotional demands, an example being “My work places me in

1
Further sampling details available from Maureen F. Dollard.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 361

emotionally challenging situations.” All items were measured on a 4-point

Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Control

Skill discretion was measured using the six item scale with an example
item, “I have an opportunity to develop my own special abilities.” Decision
authority was also measured using the four item scale with an example, “My
job allows me to make decisions on my own.” Macrodecision latitude was
assessed using the three item scale, an example being, “In my company/
organization, I have significant influence over decisions made by my work
team or department.” All items were measured on a 4-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Social Support

The three item supervisor support scale was used for example, “My
supervisor/manager is concerned about the welfare of those under him/her.”
Coworker support was measured with the three item scale for example, “The
people I work with are friendly.” Items were measured on a 4-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) with an extra
item “I have no supervisor/manager” on the supervisor scale and an, “I have
no coworkers” response on the first questions to filter out those participants
that have no supervisor/managers or no coworkers with skips for the other
two items.

Engagement

Engagement was measured using the nine item shortened version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2006) consisting of three subscales of engagement: 1) vigour, “At my work,
I feel bursting with energy;” 2) dedication, “I am enthusiastic about my
work”; and 3) absorption, “I am immersed in my work.” All items were
measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (every day).

Emotional Exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion was measured using the five item Maslach Burn-
out Inventory (MBI; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996), for
362 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

example, “I feel emotionally drained from my work.” Items were measured

on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always).

Psychological Distress

Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler 10 (K10; Kessler

& Mroczek, 1994), to assess level of anxiety and depressive symptoms a
person may have experienced in the most recent 4-week period. An example
item is, “In the past 4 weeks, about how often did you feel nervous?” and the
items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (none of the
time) to 5 (all of the time).

Depression

Depression was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9;

Spitzer, Kroenke, & Williams, 1999) which is a self report instrument used
for making criteria diagnoses of depressive episodes based upon the nine
diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder in the DSM–IV. The nine items
are measured on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (nearly
every day) and an example item is, “During the last month, how often were
you bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?”

Job Satisfaction

A global single item from the Job Satisfaction scale (Warr, Cook, &
Wall, 1979) was used that measured overall job satisfaction. The item asks,
“Taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a
whole?” The item is measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (I’m
extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (I’m extremely satisfied).

Psychosocial Safety Climate

We began with the 26 item version of the PSC (Dollard & Kang, 2007;
see Table 1 for the full scale). Items used in that scale were derived from
various published safety climate scales as indicated in the table that reflected
the four PSC dimensions (e.g., Clarke, 2006; Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Gershon
et al., 2000; Pronovost et al., 2003) and were modified to focus on psycho-
Psychosocial Safety Climate 363

Table 1. Psychosocial Safety Climate Survey (Dollard & Kang, 2007);

26 Item Means and SD, N ⫽ 78
No. Item Source M SD
Management support and commitment
1 In my workplace management acts quickly to
correct problems/issues that contribute to
employees’ psychosocial health Cox et al (2000) 3.41 1.284
2 In my workplace managers/supervisors show
an interest in my psychological well-being Cox et al (2000) 3.31 1.272
3 Management is genuinely concerned about
workers’ psychological well-being Clark (2006) 3.44 1.295
4 Management acts decisively when a concern
of an employees’ psychological status is
raised Cox et al (2000) 3.60 1.166
5 In my workplace management turn a blind
eye to issues concerning employees’
psychological well-being (reversed) Cox et al (2000) 3.64 1.227
6 There is good attitude to employees’
psychological health at my workplace Clark (2006) 3.49 1.246
7 I feel that the management at my workplace
is concerned about my general welfare Clark (2006) 3.63 1.141
8 Employees’ psychological health is taken
seriously at my workplace Clark (2006) 3.64 1.195
9 The senior leaders at my workplace listen to Pronovost et al 3.65 1.138
me and care about my concern (2003)
10 Senior management show support for stress Dollard & Bakker 3.49 1.287
prevention through involvement and (2010)
commitment
Management priority
11 Psychological well-being of staff is a priority
for this organization Cox et al (2000) 3.38 1.219
12 Management clearly considers the
psychological health of employees to be of
great importance Cox et al (2000) 3.32 1.222
13 I believe that employee psychological well-
being is not assigned a high priority
(reversed) Cox et al (2000) 3.27 1.224
14 Management considers employee
psychological health to be equally as
important as productivity Cox et al (2000) 3.18 1.297
15 Management/leadership will never Pronovost et al 3.40 1.073
compromise workers’ psychological health (2003)
for productivity
Organizational communication
16 There is good communication here about
psychological safety issues which affect
me Cox et al (2000) 3.29 1.196
17 Information about workplace psychological
well-being is always brought to my
attention by my manager/supervisor Cox et al (2000) 2.96 1.156
18 My manager/supervisor does not always
inform me of current concerns and issues
(reversed) Cox et al (2000) 3.24 1.095
(table continues)
364 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

Table 1. (Continued)
No. Item Source M SD
19 Management operates an open door policy on Cox et al (2000) 3.67 1.089
psychological health issues
20 I know the proper channels to report my Pronovost et al 4.03 .720
concerns (2003)
21 I am comfortable talking with colleagues Gershon et al 4.01 .845
about workplace conditions which might (2000)
have an impact on my psychological health
Organizational participation and involvement
22 Participation and consultation in occupational Dollard & Bakker 3.71 1.033
health and safety occurs with employees’, (2010)
unions and health and safety
representatives in my workplace
23 My contributions to resolving occupational Dollard & Bakker 3.81 .954
health and safety concerns in the (2010)
organization are listened to
24 I am involved in informing management of Cox et at (2000) 3.41 1.025
the important issues that affect workplace
psychological health
25 Employees are encouraged to become Gershon et al 3.29 1.094
involved in psychological safety and health (2000)
matters
26 In my organization, the prevention of stress Dollard & Bakker 3.40 1.188
involves all levels of the organization (2010)

logical health and safety. The 26 PSC items were selected on the basis that
they reflected the four domains: 1) management commitment; 2) manage-
ment priority of PSC; 3) organizational communication; and 4) organiza-
tional participation or involvement (see Table 1). The items were all mea-
sured using a 5-point Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
that included a midpoint (neither disagree nor agree).

Statistical Analysis

An iterative procedure incorporating regression analysis was used to

reduce the 26 items down to the parsimonious 12-item four-factor substruc-
ture suitable to measure employee perceptions of PSC (see Clark & Watson,
1995). Following Schaufeli et al., (2006), on the basis of face validity the
most characteristic item for each of the four subscales was selected first. This
item was then regressed on the remaining items for that particular factor. The
item with the greatest ␤ value was then added to the initial item with the sum
of these two items regressed on the remaining items. In a progressive manner
the item with the highest ␤ was added to the dependent equation and then
regressed onto the remaining items until this iterative procedure produced no
further substantial variance.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 365

The regression analysis was complemented with confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) using SPSS v 15 and Amos v7 software respectively, both to
assist the decisions made in the data reduction, and to confirm the data
reduction of the full 26 items into parsimonious factors that have good fit to
the data. Specifically we used the: goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the Akaike information crite-
rion (AIC). In general, models with fit indices ⬎ .90, and RMSEA ⬍ .08
indicate a good fit and adjusting the chi-square for the number of estimated
parameters, the AIC (lowest value indicates best fit) allows for comparison of
models that need not be nested (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller,
2003). Finally using the 12-item scale following Schaufeli et al., (2006) and
Taris, Bok, and Meijer (1998), we used multigroup modeling and assessed
the factorial invariance of the one factor (M8) and four factor (M9) model by
(1) assessing the unconstrained model, and (2) comparing the fit of this model
to ones where the factor coefficients and the factor covariances were con-
strained to be equal across two samples (pilot and sample 2). If the con-
strained model is not significantly worse than the unconstrained model then
factorial invariance is shown, and the factors structure is deemed to be the
same across samples.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations and sources for the full 26 items are pre-
sented in Table 1. Overall the full 26 items showed excellent reliability with
Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .97. Correlations between all items were mostly signif-
icant at the p ⬍ .01 level (2-tailed) with the exception of Q20: “I know the
proper channels to report my concerns” which correlated poorly with the rest
of the scale, hence this item was the first to be removed. The determinant of
the correlation matrix for the remaining 25 items was 9.33E- 014 which is
greater than .00001 indicating no problem with multicollinearity.

Regression Analysis

Beginning with the “Management Commitment” (PSCMC) subscale, the

most characteristic item was Q1 “In my workplace management acts quickly
to correct problems/issues that contribute to employees’ psychological
health.” When regressed onto the other items in this scale the next item with
highest ␤ value was Q4 (␤ ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .001) “Management acts decisively
when a concern of an employee’s psychological status is raised.” Further
366 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

analysis was done with Q1 and Q4 added together and regressed on the
remaining items with Q10 “Senior management show support for stress
prevention through involvement and commitment” then showing the highest
␤ value (␤ ⫽ .34, p ⬍ .001). Continuing Q1 ⫹ Q4 ⫹ Q10 were added and
regressed on the remaining items with Q8 now presenting with the highest ␤
value. However, when Q8 was added to the equation there was no more
significant variance accounted for so the analysis ceased with management
commitment made up of Q1 ⫹ Q4 ⫹ Q10 that collectively accounted for
83% of the variance in Management Commitment, R2 ⫽ .83, F (4, 77) ⫽
90.092, p ⬍ .001. Management Commitment consisting of these 3 items had
a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .89.
The next subscale was “Management Priority” (PSCMP) of which Q14
“Management considers employee psychological health to be equally as
important as productivity” was chosen as the most characteristic item to
begin the regression analysis. When regressed onto the other items the item
with the next greatest ␤ was Q12 (␤ ⫽ .35, p ⬍ .001) “Management clearly
considers the psychological health of employees to be of great importance.”
When Q14 and Q12 were summed and regressed onto the other items the next
item to be added to the equation was Q11 (␤ ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .001) “Psychological
well-being of staff is a priority for this organization.” When Q11 was added
to Q14 and Q12 and regressed onto the other items the item with the next
highest ␤ was Q6 but when this item was added there was no more significant
variance recorded. Therefore “Organizational Priority” was determined with
Q14 ⫹ Q12 ⫹ Q11 that collectively accounted for 83% of the variance in this
subscale, R2 ⫽ .83, F(5, 77) ⫽ 71.151, p ⬍ .001. Management Priority had
an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .95.
Organizational Communication (PSCOC) was the third subscale and
Q23 “My contributions to resolving occupational health and safety concerns
in the organization are listened to” was selected as the most characteristic and
regressed onto the other items with Q17 (␤ ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .001) “Information
about workplace psychological well-being is always brought to my attention
by my manager/supervisor” presenting the highest ␤ value. When Q23 and
Q17 were added and regressed onto the rest Q16 “There is good communi-
cation here about psychological safety issues which affect me” showed the
next greatest ␤ value (␤ ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .001). With Q23, Q17 and Q16 added
together and regressed on the others Q9 had the highest ␤ value but no further
substantial variance was recorded. Hence “Organizational Communication”
(PSCOC) was determined with Q23, Q17 and Q16 that together accounted
for 63% of the variance, R2 ⫽ .63, F(3, 77) ⫽ 41.781, p ⬍ .001 and had a
good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .81.
The regression analysis for the final PSC subscale “Organizational
Participation” (PSCOP) began with Q22 “Participation and consultation
in occupational health and safety occurs with employees, unions and
Psychosocial Safety Climate 367

health and safety representatives in my workplace.” When Q26 was regressed

onto the other items for this subscale Q25 “Employees are encouraged to
become involved in psychological safety and health matters” presented the
best ␤ value (␤ ⫽ .48, p ⬍ .001). Adding Q22 and Q25 and regressing them
onto the remaining items showed Q26 (␤ ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .001) “In my organi-
zation, the prevention of stress involves all levels of the organization” and
when these three items where added and regressed onto the others, Q24
presented the next highest ␤ value but there was no more substantial variance
accounted for. The PSCOP subscale was constructed with Q26 ⫹ Q25 ⫹
Q22 that together accounted for 32% of the variance of “Organizational
Participation,” R2 ⫽ .30, F(1, 77) ⫽ 32.409, p ⬍ .001 with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .77 indicting good internal consistency. Reliability of the 12 items
tested together also showed a good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .95 (see Appendix 1, PSC-12).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The iterative procedure incorporating regression analysis was comple-

mented with confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) that both confirmed the
factorial validity of the items, and by way of fit indices analysis, tested and
compared the fit of each model progressively to the data (see Table 2).
Model M1 tested the full PSC 26 item scale and M2 confirmed that with
the removal of Q20 the 25 item scale fitted the data better. CFA was then
conducted on a 25-item four-factor solution with M3 [␹2(269) ⫽ 492.53, p ⬍
.001] demonstrating a better fit to the data as indicated by the fit indices (see
Figure 1).
Model M4 tested the 12-item four-factor solution developed in the
regression analysis with CFA further revealing better fit to data M4 [␹2(48) ⫽

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Standard Estimates and Fit Indices,

N ⫽ 78 & N ⫽ 398
Model ␹2 df Cmin/df RMSEA GFI IFI CFI AIC
M1. 1 Factor 26 item 614.65 299 2.06 .12 .62 .85 .85 718.65
M2. 1 Factor 25 item
(Q20 removed) 551.80 275 2.01 .11 .64 .86 .86 651.80
M3. 4 Factor 25 item 492.53 269 1.83 .10 .68 .89 .89 604.53
M4. 4 Factor 12 item 84.56 48 1.76 .10 .86 .96 .96 144.56
M5. 1 Factor 12 item 119.05 54 2.20 .13 .81 .93 .93 167.05
M6. 4 Factor 12 item N ⫽ 398 219.20 48 4.57 .09 .91 .95 .95 279.20
M7. 1 Factor 12 item N ⫽ 398 437.27 54 8.10 .13 .83 .89 .89 485.27
Note. ␹2 ⫽ Chi-square; df ⫽ degrees of freedom; Cmin/df ⫽ minimum discrepancy/df;
RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; GFI ⫽ goodness fit index; CFI ⫽
comparative fit index; AIC ⫽ akaike information criterion.
368 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

er_92 Q92. .83

.86
er_91 Q91
. PSC
.57
Q90
Organization Participation
er_90 .55
.
er_88 Q88

er_89 Q89
. .63
.84
er_87 Q87 .39

.56
er_84 Q84 PSC
.
.77
er_83 Q83 Organization Communication .84
.88

er_82 Q82 .82

er_75 Q75

Q85
.94 .75
er_85
.82
er_81 Q81 .63

er_80 Q80 .84

.
.89 PSC
er_79 Q79
. Management Priority
er_78
.96 .92
Q78. .93
er-77 Q77 .92
.
.89
er_72 Q72
.

er_69 Q69 .97

er-76 Q76
. .93
er_74 Q74 .96
.
.85
er_73 Q73 PSC
.73
Management Commitment
er_71 Q71 .84
.
er_70 Q70 .77
.
.82
er_68 Q68

er_67 Q67

Figure 1. Model M3. CFA 25 Item 4 Factor-Showing Standard Estimates and Fit Indices.

84.56, p ⬍ .001] with fit indices showing an acceptable RMSEA .10, and
better GFI ⫽ .86, IFI ⫽ .96, CFI ⫽ .96 and much lower AIC 144.56 than the
previous models (see Figure 2). Model M4 also had much better fit to the data
than model M5 that tested a 12 item 1 factor solution M5 [␹2(54) ⫽ 119.05,
p ⬍ .001].
Psychosocial Safety Climate 369

er_92 .81
Q92

.89 PSC
er_91 Q91
.54 Organization Participation
er_88 Q88

.85
er_89 Q89 .62

.79
er_83 Q83 PSC
.88 Organization Communication .82
er_82 Q82

.91 .80

er_80 Q80 .83

.99 PSC
er_78 Q78
.95
Management Priority .93
er-77 Q77

.98

er-76 Q76 .91

.85 PSC
er_70 Q70 Management Commitment
.82

er_67 Q67

Figure 2. Model M4. CFA Final Solution 12 Item 4 Factor-Showing Standard Estimates and Fit
Indices.

Demographic Group Differences and Correlations

One-way ANOVAs found no significant difference between age and gender

for all four factors of the PSC scale. Pearson bivariate correlations between the
12-item (combined), four-factor subscales, and other relevant measures used in
the pilot (N ⫽ 78) study are reported in Table 3. The 12-item combined and
all four factors of the PSC scale correlated positively with each other. Only
the management commitment factor correlated negatively with psychological
job demands. The 12-item combined and two of the subscales: management
commitment and management priority correlated negatively with emotional
 370

Table 3. Pearson Correlations Between PSC Subscales and Other Relevant Variables for AWBQP22008 Pilot, N ⫽ 78
PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC Dem Dem Skill Dec Macro- Super Co-work Emo Psych Job
MC MP OC OP 12 Psych Emot Discret Auth Dec Aut Support Support Eng Ex Dist Dep Satis
PSCMC 1 .89ⴱⴱ .80ⴱⴱ .75ⴱⴱ .94ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ .15 .14 .58ⴱⴱ .64ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .18 ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.14 .43ⴱⴱ
PSCMP 1 .81ⴱⴱ .77ⴱⴱ .95ⴱⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺.24ⴱ .14 .16 .54ⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .16 ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.15 .43ⴱⴱ
PSCOC 1 .74ⴱⴱ .90ⴱⴱ ⫺.11 ⫺.17 .17 .31ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ .63ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .22 ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.13 ⫺.25ⴱ .47ⴱⴱ
PSCOP 1 .88ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.18 .18 .25ⴱ .56ⴱⴱ .55ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .19 ⫺.21 ⫺.09 ⫺.17 .38ⴱⴱ
PSCALL 1 ⫺.18 ⫺.25ⴱ .16 .22ⴱ .61ⴱⴱ .67ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .20 ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.19 .47ⴱⴱ
Note. PSC ⫽ psychosocial safety climate; ALL ⫽ twelve items combined; MC ⫽ management commitment; Mp ⫽ management priority; OC ⫽
organizational communication; Op ⫽ organization participation; Dem ⫽ demands; Psych ⫽ psychological; Emot ⫽ emotional; Discret ⫽ discretion;
Dec ⫽ decision; Aut ⫽ authority; Super ⫽ supervisor; Eng ⫽ engagement; EmoEx ⫽ emotional exhaustion; Dist ⫽ distress; Dep ⫽ depression;
Satis ⫽ satisfaction.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
Hall, Dollard, and Coward
Psychosocial Safety Climate 371

job demands. The 12-item combined and all four factors correlated positively
with the control measures: macrodecision authority; supervisor support; and
coworker support but only the 12-item combined, organizational communi-
cation, and organizational participation correlated positively with decision
authority. None of the PSC factors correlated with skill discretion. All four
PSC factors and the 12-items combined correlated positively with the job
satisfaction measure. Three of the PSC scale factors: management commit-
ment, management priority, and organizational communication, along with
the 12 items combined correlated negatively with emotional exhaustion.
None of the PSC scale factors correlated with engagement and psychological
distress but organizational communication did correlate negatively with
depression.

STUDY 2 PSC-12 SCALE VALIDATION

METHOD

To validate the PSC-12 we tested the scale with the employed only (not
self-employed) workers from the first 500 participants of the main survey
proper (AWBQ2009), using the same method as in study one. Confirmatory
factor analysis was used to test the fit to the data using the same criteria for
fit as described for the pilot study. Bivariate correlations were used to assess
relations with other relevant variables as in the pilot.

Participants

Participants were the first 500 people who completed the AWBQ2009
CATI survey (NSW, N ⫽ 264; WA, N ⫽ 236). Of the first 500 participants
there were 398 employed and 102 self-employed. As with the pilot study we
were only concerned with the 398 employed participants. Of the employed
participants there were 179 male and 219 female with an average age of
45.95 years (SD ⫽ 12.25). The ASCO job representation was 67 managers or
administrators; 111 professional work; 18 technical or associate professional;
24 tradesperson or related work; 41 advanced clerical, sales, or service work;
36 intermediate clerical, sales, or service work; 14 intermediate plant oper-
ator/transport; 13 elementary clerical, sales, or service work; 36 laborer or
related work, and 38 other.
372 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

Measures

All measures were from the final version of the survey (AWBQ2009)
refined from the pilot version and now contained the new PSC-12 item, four
factor version of the PSC scale (see Appendix 1).

RESULTS

Internal consistencies of the each of the four factors of the PSC-12 were:
management commitment .88; management priority .90; organizational com-
munication .77; and organizational participation .80 with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .94 for the 12 items. Confirmatory factor analysis (see M6) using the
employed N ⫽ 398 sample validated M4, and showed that the 12-item
four-factor model presented good fit to data [␹2(48) ⫽ 219.20, p ⬍ .001] with
fit indices showing acceptable RMSEA ⫽ .09, GFI ⫽ .91, IFI ⫽ .95, CFI ⫽
.95 and AIC ⫽ 279.20. As also found with the pilot data a 12-item one-factor
model M7 [␹2(54) ⫽ 437.27, p ⬍ .001] did not fit the data as well as the
12-item four-factor model M6 (see Table 2). Also as with the pilot study
one-way ANOVAs showed no significant difference between age and gender
for all four factors of the PSC scale. Table 4 shows the Pearson correlations
for the four factors of the PSC 12-item scale and other relevant variables from
the AWBQ2009 main survey. Consistent with the pilot study the table shows
that all four factors of the PSC-12 scale and the 12 items combined correlate
positively with each other. However, significant results increased from the
pilot study with the full scale and all four factors of the PSC-12 scale
correlated negatively with all demands and correlated positively with all
resource measures. The PSC-12 four factors and the 12 items combined
correlated positively with both worker engagement, and job satisfaction.
Further, all four factors of the PSC-12 scale and the full scale combined
correlated negatively with all three mental health scales: emotional exhaus-
tion, psychological distress, and depression.

Factorial Validity

Using SEM multigroup analysis, the one-factor (M8) and four-factor

(M9) models were fitted to the pilot sample and the AWB 390 sample
simultaneously. In particular M9 fitted the data quite well with all fit indices
showing acceptable levels of fit. Alternatively M8 showed reasonably poor fit
for all indices. All items showed statistically significant Beta coefficients
(p ⬍ .001) as they loaded on the latent factors, in both samples. The fit of M9
 Psychosocial Safety Climate

Table 4. Pearson Correlations Between PSC Subscales and Other Relevant Variables for AWBQ2009, N ⫽ 398
PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC Dem Dem Skill Dec Macro- Super Co-work Emo Psych Job
MC MP OC OP 12 Psych Emot Discret Auth Dec Aut Support Support Eng Ex Dist Dep Satis
PSCMC 1 .81ⴱⴱ .67ⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱ .88ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ
PSCMP 1 .75ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .92ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ
PSCOC 1 .70ⴱⴱ .88ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ
PSCOP 1 .82ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ .11ⴱ .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ
PSCALL 1 ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ
Note. PSC ⫽ psychosocial safety climate; ALL ⫽ twelve items combined; MC ⫽ management commitment; Mp ⫽ management priority; OC ⫽
organizational communication; Op ⫽ organization participation; Dem ⫽ demands; Psych ⫽ psychological; Emot ⫽ emotional; Discret ⫽ discretion;
Dec ⫽ decision; Aut ⫽ authority; Super ⫽ supervisor; Eng ⫽ engagement; EmoEx ⫽ emotional exhaustion; Dist ⫽ distress; Dep ⫽ depression;
Satis ⫽ satisfaction.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
373
374 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

was superior to that of M8: [⌬␹2(15) ⫽ 280.56, p ⬍ .001]. Next we

constrained the factor coefficients in both models to be equal across both
samples. The fit of the M8 constrained model did not deteriorate significantly
M8 [⌬␹2(8) ⫽ 7.71, ns] and the fit for the M9 [⌬␹2(8) ⫽ 7.66, ns] also did
not deteriorate indicating that for both models the factor coefficients were
invariant between samples, that is, they did not differ between samples.
Finally for M9 we tested the invariance of the factor covariances between
samples. We constrained the covariances of the factors to be equal simulta-
neously across samples. Compared to the unconstrained model [⌬␹2(14) ⫽
12.95, ns] this model was not significantly different. In sum, for both the one
factor and four factor model, the factor coefficients were invariant across
samples, and the factor covariances were invariant. The four-factor model is
superior to the one-factor model across samples (see Table 5).

STUDY 3 PSC UNIQUE AND GROUP LEVEL PROPERTIES

Participants and Results

Additional pilot work with a health care sample (N ⫽ 16 teams, N ⫽ 106

health care workers) showed PSC aggregated to the team level had group
level properties, with ICC (1) ⫽ .14202, indicating that team membership
accounted for 14% of the variance in PSC, mean r(WG) (j) ⫽ .93 (SD ⫽ .04).
Using random coefficient modeling we also found that PSC at a group (team)
level showed significant cross-level correlations with emotional exhaustion,
B ⫽ ⫺.56, SE ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05, and work engagement, B ⫽ .66, SE ⫽ .18,
p ⬍ .01.
We checked the convergent validity of the 12-item PSC measure with a
12-item physical health safety measure. Given that the domain content of
safety measures varies, to provide a fair test of PSC in comparison to a safety
climate measure we began with the PSC measure, then substituted the words
“psychological” with “physical,” and verified its group level properties, ICC
(1) ⫽ .1253, r (WG) (j) ⫽ 1.05 (SD ⫽ .39). The physical health and safety
measure aggregated at a team level was not significantly related to emotional
exhaustion, B ⫽ ⫺.27, SE ⫽ .20, p ⫽ .18, but was significantly correlated
with work engagement, B ⫽ .67, SE ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01. PSC at the team level
showed significant effects on emotional exhaustion, B ⫽ ⫺0.77, SE ⫽ 0.29,
p ⬍ .01, and work engagement B ⫽ 0.60, SE ⫽ 0.34, p ⬍ .05 (1-tailed) with

2
Dollard & Bakker (2010) report ICC (1) ⫽ .20 indicating that 20% of the variance in
PSC was explained by differences between schools.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 375

Table 5. Fit of the PSC-12 Models; Multi-Group Analysis

Model ␹2 df Cmin/df RMSEA GFI IFI CFI AIC
M8. One-factor
Freely estimated 584.69 111 5.27 .10 .82 .89 .89 674.69
Constrained factor coefficients 591.86 119 4.97 .09 .82 .89 .89 665.86
M9. Four-factor model
Freely estimated 304.13 96 3.17 .07 .91 .95 .95 424.13
Constrained factor coefficients 311.79 104 3.00 .07 .90 .95 .95 415.79
Constrained covariances 317.08 110 2.98 .06 .90 .95 .95 409.08
Null model 4359 132
Note. ␹2 ⫽ Chi-square; df ⫽ degrees of freedom; Cmin/df ⫽ minimum discrepancy/df;
RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; GFI ⫽ goodness fit index; CFI ⫽
comparative fit index; AIC ⫽ akaike information criterion.

the physical safety measure in the model, whereas the physical safety
measure did not account for unique variance over and above PSC.

DISCUSSION

We set out to develop and evaluate a shortened instrument to assess

psychosocial safety climate for use in population based surveys, using a pilot
sample. We then validated the shortened version of the scale using N ⫽ 398
working participants in the Australian Workplace Barometer project. Finally
we tested the group level properties of PSC in an organizational study and
assessed its relationship to outcomes of interest in comparison to another
measure that simply changed the focus from physical health and safety to
psychological health and safety.
Overall the PSC-12 scale development was successful with all of the
three items each of the four factors accounting for significant levels of
variance in each factor in both population based samples. Factorial validity of
the scale was confirmed by CFA of the pilot data that showed the 12-item
four-factor option fitting the data better than any other model. This indicates
that the PSC-12 should be just as effective, if not more efficient in measuring
PSC than the larger 26-item scale for population based research.
Further following Taris et al. (1998) we used multigroup analysis and
found that the factorial validity of the constrained models was the same
across the samples. We also found that the factor coefficients were invariant
and the factor covariances were invariant for the four factor model across
both samples. Invariance across the models and the two different samples for
the PSC-12 indicates that the scale can be used as a reliable and valid
measure across a range of occupations.
Reliabilities of all four factors of the PSC-12 scale are good satisfying
the criterion of .70 (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). Also the internal consis-
376 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

tencies are very good for the 12 item single-factor option; therefore research-
ers could elect to compute a single score PSC indicator. However, Clark and
Watson (1995) argue that internal consistency is not sufficient for affective
scale analysis and that theory-driven assessment should seek to measure a
single construct systematically pursuing the goal of homogeneity or unidi-
mensionality. Hence, a four-factor subscale structure that takes into account
the four dimensions of PSC as separate individual subfactors is best for
effective subscale homogeneity and unidimensionality. The four factor struc-
ture would lend itself well to structure coefficient analysis (see Courville &
Thompson, 2001) or structural equation modeling, with each factor as an
indicator of a latent PSC variable, thereby accounting for measurement error
(e.g., Schaufeli, et al., 2006).
Theoretically, in line with the health impairment pathways of the
JD-R model we expected PSC to be negatively related to job demands and
psychological health problem variables and in line with the motivation
pathway to be positively related to work resources, engagement, recovery,
and favorable organizational outcomes. Although pilot results were not
always significant across all four factors this was likely due to the small
sample size. However, the data still revealed important correlations, and
in the predicted direction, that was promising for implementing the scale
with a larger sample. Correlation analysis of the second study, in line with
the JD-R model did reveal the expected relationships with all PSC-12
subscales correlating with job demands, all three of the mental health
measures, and with all of the resources, worker engagement, and job
satisfaction measures.
Theoretically the implications are that PSC is a construct that exists that
can be reliably and validly assessed. Bringing the results of the three studies
together, helps affirm the theoretical perspective proposed by Dollard and
Bakker (2010) that PSC may be used to explain the origins of job demands
and resources, worker engagement and psychological health. We also found
that PSC had important group level qualities, and that PSC showed effects on
average levels of emotional exhaustion and work engagement. This is con-
sistent with Dollard and Bakker (2010) that PSC is a macrolevel factor and
is related to important factors down-stream (i.e., psychological job demands;
engagement). A second theoretical implication is that work stress theories
could benefit by identifying factors such as PSC that presage working
conditions; in other words theorizing and testing multilevel models of work
stress is a step forward. Practically the research supports the utilization of the
scale in both population- and organizational- research. Interventions targeting
PSC should be efficient because PSC appears to be precursor to both job
demands and resources (Dollard & Bakker), and consequently health and
engagement.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 377

Research Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

The study used three different data sources to test the psychometric
qualities of PSC. A limitation of all three studies is their cross-sectional
nature. This limits the potential to draw conclusions about causality, and
additionally means that test-retest metrics are still outstanding.
As noted, study one and two were limited in the sense that only
individual perceptions could be used to assess organizational climate. How-
ever given the large geographical coverage of the population, we assume that
data from one individual is a proxy for data from one organization (i.e., that
our random sample represents single units of organizational level data from
across the population). Although some nesting in the data is inevitable, for
example where participants are drawn from the same organization, the
violation of independence would be nowhere near that expected when orga-
nizational data is assessed at the individual level.
A litmus test for the PSC measure was whether PSC could account for
unique variance in psychological outcomes beyond other known safety
climate measures. As noted domain coverage of safety measures varies
considerably therefore the fairest test possible was alternating the word
physical for psychological in our measure. The effect really changed the
construct validity of the measure. In the case of emotional exhaustion, only
PSC was related to it; in the case of work engagement, PSC was related to it,
and the modified physical health and safety measure added no unique
variance. These results indicate that PSC as an organizational climate mea-
sure has incremental value beyond the facet seemingly canvassed by physical
safety climate measures. Nevertheless this area is fertile ground for additional
research exploring PSC and other related measures, safety measures (albeit
that use matching domains) as well as organizational support, team psycho-
logical safety, compared (convergent validity) and contrasted (divergent
validity). Future research could assess whether dimensions are generic and
universal and if the dimensions are valid and may be replicated across
different occupational settings, industries and countries. The readability of
the scale had a Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of 10.5. For most documents it is
recommended to aim for a score of 7.0 to 8.0 which is at the level an average
eighth-grade student could understand. The PSC-12 is a little higher however
this may be modified by improved grammar. Also consideration will be given
to providing a definition at the beginning of the scale.
A strength of this research is that we showed the group level properties
of the measure. As noted earlier despite the rhetoric many organizational
climate studies including safety climate studies actually conduct the research
at the individual level. We were able to show that PSC at a group level was
related to average levels of emotional exhaustion and engagement. The
378 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

current study assessed only bivariate relationships. Further research is now

needed to comprehensively model multivariate relationships between
PSC-12 and other variables of interest.
The development of a facet specific PSC-12 with four subscales with
good reliability and validity affords it good utility for use in pathway analyses
such as structural equation modeling or hierarchical linear modeling in order
to further systematically test PSC within mediated and moderated relation-
ships. Also as much as the PSC-12 was developed within two cross sections
of the general population selected at random from within two Australian
states further testing needs to be conducted within organizations, within
teams, across cultures, and using longitudinal samples to test the stability of
the scale.
In conclusion, there is great need to develop effective instruments to
measure PSC within the general working population. Dollard and Bakker
(2010) argued for the need to expand the domain coverage (Hinkin, 1995) so
as the capture the dominant elements identified in the general safety literature
(e.g., Cox & Cheyne, 2000). Empirically this is the first paper to report on the
development of a PSC instrument designed to measure the four dominant
facet specific elements of organizational PSC among a general population
sample. At a practical level, key measures for addressing the issues of
psychosocial related problems in the workplace involve senior management
commitment, priority, participation, and communication with employees
regarding their psychosocial safety and well-being. In the development of
psychologically healthy workplaces effective measurement of PSC is a clear
starting point. PSC may be an effective intervention target to address worker
psychological health problems (i.e., reducing stress, anxiety, and depression)
and improve positive worker motivation (i.e., increase resources and work
engagement).

REFERENCES

Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC). (2006). Compendium of workers’

compensation statistics, Australia, 2002–2003.
Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO). (2008). Retrieved from http://
www.acacia-au.com
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resource model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 –328.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2001). Job control mediates change in a work reorganization
intervention for stress reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 290 –302.
Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying,
and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development Journal, 28, 37–56.
Brown, R. J., & Holmes, H. (1996). The use of a factor-analytic procedure for assessing the Validity
of an employee safety climate model. Accidental Analysis & Prevention, 18, 455– 470.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 379

Cheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., & Tomas, J. M. (1998). Modelling safety climate in the
prediction of levels of safety activity. Work and Stress, 12, 255–271.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale
development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309 –319.
Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organisational safety: Implications for the development of
safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 185–198.
Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects of work
environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents and unsafe behaviour.
Personnel Review, 35, 413– 430.
Clarke, S. (in press). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and
work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology.
Clarke, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Managing the risk of workplace stress: Health & safety
hazards. London: Routledge.
Cotton, P., & Hart, P. M. (2003). Occupational wellbeing and performance: A review of
organizational health research. Australian Psychologist, 38, 118 –127.
Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression
articles: ␤ is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 229 –248.
Cox, S. J., & Cheyne, A. J. T. (2000). Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety
Science, 34, 111–129.
Cox, T., Griffiths, A. J., Barlow, C. A., Randall, R. J., Thompson, L. E., & Rial-Gonzalez, E.
(2000). Organisational interventions for work stress. Sudbury, U.K.: HSE Books.
Cox, T., Randall, R., & Griffiths, A. (2002). Interventions to control stress at work in hospital
staff. Sudbury, U.K.: HSE Books.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Cham-
paign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Dedobbleer, N., & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal
of Safety Research, 22, 97–103.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499 –512.
Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive
work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 579 –599.
Dollard, M. F. (2007). Psychosocial safety culture and climate; definition of a new construct.
Adelaide: Work and Stress Research Group, University of South Australia.
Dollard, M. F., & Kang, S. (2007). Psychosocial safety climate measure. Adelaide: Work &
Stress Research Group, University of South Australia.
Dollard, M. F., Skinner, N., Tuckey, M. R., & Bailey, T. (2007). National surveillance of
psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: An international overview. Work & Stress, 21,
1–29.
Dollard, M. F., & Skinner, N. J. (2007). Throw-away workers or sustainable workplaces? The
Australian workplace barometer. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Conference of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia.
D’Souza, R. M., Stradzins, L., Lim, L., Broom, D., & Rodgers, B. (2003). Work and health in
a contemporary society: Demands, control and insecurity. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 57, 849 – 854.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383.
Ertel, M., Stilijanow, U., Cvitkovic, J., & Lenhardt, U. (2008). Social policies, infrastructure
and social dialogue in relation to psychosocial risk management. In S. Leka, & T. Cox
(Eds.). The European framework for psychosocial risk management, (pp. 60 –78). Not-
tingham: Institute of Work, Health, and Organisations.
380 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2002). Systems and programmes: How to
tackle psychosocial issues and reduce work-related stress. Luxembourg: Office for the
Publications of the European Communities.
Flin, R. (2007). Measuring safety culture in healthcare: A case for accurate diagnosis. Safety
Science, 45, 653– 667.
Flin, R. H., & Mearns, K. J. (1994). Risk perception and safety in the offshore oil industry.
Paper presented at the Second Inter-national Conference on Health, Safety, and the
Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration, Jakarta.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., Fleming, M., & Gordon, R. (1996). Risk perception and safety in the
offshore oil and gas industry, (Offshore Technology Report OTH 94 454). Sudbury U.K.:
HSE Books.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate: Identifying
the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177–192.
Gershon, R. R. M., Karkashian, C. D., Grosch, J. W., Murphy, L. R., Escamilla-Cejudo, A.,
Flanagan, P. A., . . . Martin, L. (2000). Hospital safety climate and its relationship with
safe work practices and the workplace exposure incidents. American Journal of Infection
Control, 28, 211–221.
Glendon, A. I., Clarke, S. G., & McKenna, E. (2006). ‘Human safety and risk management’
(2nd edition). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Goldenhar, L. M., Williams, L. J., & Swanson, N. G. (2003). Modeling relationships between
job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomes for construction laborers. Work & Stress,
17, 218 –240.
Guldenmund, F. (2000). The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Safety
Science, 34, 215–257.
Hahn, S. E., & Murphy, L. R. (2008). A short scale for measuring safety climate. Safety
Science, 46, 1047–1066.
Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.
Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Workplace bullying and stress. Historical and
Current Perspectives on Stress and Health, 2, 293–333.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe
behaviours and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339.
Jordan, J., Gurr, E., Tinline, G., Giga, S. I., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Beacons of
excellence in stress prevention. Manchester, U.K.: Robertson Cooper & UMIST.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R. A. (1985). Job Content Questionnaire and user’s guide. Lowell: University of
Massachusetts Lowell, Department of Work Environment.
Kessler, R., & Mroczek, D. (1994). Final version of our non-specific psychological distress
scale [memo dated 10/3/94]. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Centre of the Institute for
Social Research.
Kompier, M. A. J., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (1999). Preventing stress, improving productivity:
European case studies in the workplace. London: Routledge.
Kompier, M. A. J., & Kristensen, T. S. (2001). Organizational work stress interventions in a
theoretical, methodological and practical context. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the
workplace: Past, present and future (pp. 164 –190). London: Whurr.
La Montagne, A. D., Herrick, R. F., Van Dyke, M. V., Martyny, J. W., & Ruttenber, A. J.
(2002). Exposure databases and exposure surveillance: Promise and practice. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 63, 205–212.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Mathers, C. D., Vos, E. T., Stevenson, C. E., & Begg, S. J. (2001). The burden of disease and
injury in Australia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79, 1076 –1084.
Psychosocial Safety Climate 381

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (2001). Human and organisational factors in
offshore safety. Work and Stress, 15, 144 –160.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate,
safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946 –953.
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety
climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34, 99 –109.
Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Altmann, R. A., Roberts, J. E., Lacost, H. A., &
Roberts, J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work
outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389 – 416.
Pronovost, P. J., Weast, B., Holzmueller, C. G., Rosebstein, B. J., Kidwell, R. P., & Haller,
K. B. (2003). Evaluation of the culture of safety: Survey of clinicians and managers in an
academic medical center. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12, 405– 410.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In
Schneider B. (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Rugulies, R., Bultmann, U., Aust, B., & Burr, H. (2006). Psychosocial work environment and
incidence of severe depressive symptoms: Prospective findings from a 5-year follow-up of the
Danish work environment cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163, 877– 887.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational & Psychological Mea-
surement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout
Inventory-General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The
Maslach Burnout Inventory: Test manual (3rd ed., pp. 22–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods
of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.
Schneider, B. (2000). The psychological life of organizations. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M.
Widerom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal Oc-
cupational Health Psychology, 1, 27– 41.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. (1999). Patient Health Questionnaire primary
care study group validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ
primary care study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1737–1744.
Taris, T. W., Bok, I. A., & Meijer, Z. Y. (1998). Assessing stability and change of psychometric
properties of multi-item concepts across different situations: A general approach. Journal
of Psychology, 132, 301.
van Veldhoven, M., de Jonge, J., Broersen, S., Kompier, M., & Meijman, T. (2002). Specific
relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: A three-level
analytic approach. Work and Stress, 16, 207–228.
Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and
aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129 –148.
Whiteford, H. A., Sheridan, J., Cleary, C. M., & Hilton, M. F. (2005). The work outcomes
research cost-benefit (WORC) project: The return on investment for facilitating help
seeking behaviour. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 30 –36.
Wilson, D., H., Starr, G. J., Taylor, A. W., & Dal Grande, E. (1999). Random digit dialing and
electronic white pp. samples compared: Demographic profiles and health estimates.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23, 627– 633.
382 Hall, Dollard, and Coward

Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A. L. (2004).
Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a model of healthy work
organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 565–588.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implica-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96 –102.

Appendix
The Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC-12) Scale

The Following Statements Concern the Psychological Health and Safety in Your Workplace.
Please Answer With the Best Option Provided

1. In my workplace senior Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

management acts quickly to Disagree agree or Agree
correct problems/issues that affect disagree
employees’ psychological health 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
2. Senior management acts Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
decisively when a concern of an Disagree agree or Agree
employees’ psychological status disagree
is raised 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
3. Senior management show support Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
for stress prevention through Disagree agree or Agree
involvement and commitment disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
4. Psychological well-being of staff Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
is a priority for this organization Disagree agree or Agree
disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
5. Senior management clearly Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
considers the psychological Disagree agree or Agree
health of employees to be of disagree
great importance 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
6. Senior management considers Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
employee psychological health to Disagree agree or Agree
be as important as productivity disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
7. There is good communication Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
here about psychological safety Disagree agree or Agree
issues which effect me disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺

(Appendix continues)
 Psychosocial Safety Climate 383

Appendix (Continued)
8. Information about workplace Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
psychological well-being is Disagree agreeor Agree
always brought to my attention disagree
by my manager/supervisor 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
9. My contributions to resolving Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
occupational health and safety Disagree agreeor Agree
concerns in the organization are disagree
listened to 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
10. Participation and consultation in Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
psychological health and safety Disagree agreeor Agree
occurs with employees’, unions disagree
and health and safety
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
representatives in my workplace
11. Employees are encouraged to Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
become involved in psychological Disagree agreeor Agree
safety and health matters disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺
12. In my organization, the Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
prevention of stress involves all Disagree agreeor Agree
levels of the organization disagree
䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺 䡺

New Editor Appointed for International Perspectives in

Psychology, 2012–2016
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological
Association, along with Division 52 (International Psychology) of the APA are
pleased to announce the appointment of an editor for International Perspectives
in Psychology for a 5-year term beginning in 2012. As of January 1, 2011, all
manuscripts should be directed to:
Judith L. Gibbons, PhD
Professor of Psychology and International Studies, Saint Louis University
Department of Psychology
221 North Grand Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63103
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2011, manuscripts
should be submitted electronically via the journal’s Manuscript Submission
Portal: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/ipp, under the Instructions to Authors.
International Perspectives in Psychology will begin publication in spring
2012.

View publication stats