職業壓力指標之探討——以臺灣國營企業員工為例

A Study on Occupational Stress Index-- Employees in Public Corporations in Taiwan as a Sample Cohort

在人力資源管理中，有效地分析和處理工作壓力十分重要，因它關係到能否充份發揮每一個員工的潛能，以達到最大的組織效率，同時也增進個人的工作滿意和身心健康。本研究所引進的「職業壓力指標」（OSI）就在此領域邁出了重要的一步。OSI量表主要是從心理學的角度切入，以個人為焦點，從「工作中的壓力源」開始評估，以「個人特質」為調節，如人格特徵、因應行為，進而測量工作壓力對個體造成的身心影響，包括身體健康、心理健康及工作滿意。本研究以高雄地區四家大型國營企業的員工為母群，以隨機取樣方式，完成問卷1,054份，進行了OSI量表的中文修訂及標準化的心理計量過程，研究結果發現中文版OSI經初步題目刪選和專家內容效度檢視後，其信度（以內在一致性係數α為指標）較好，效度檢定採同時效度（以員工出勤及工傷事故為指標），輻合與區辨效度（以已經修訂且有良好信效度的相對應中文量表為參照）亦可接受。唯一例外的是有關「控制傾向」的分量表之信效度較差，但此部份可用另一已修訂之中文量表來取代。另外，OSI中文版經因素分析所得到的結構與英文原版不同，而中英員工在題本相同的「身體症狀」和「心理症狀」的測量上亦出現顯著差異，這似乎都提醒我們個人對工作環境的評估和反應可能會受到文化因素的影響。在日後的推廣應用中，經過更多實證資料的累積和理論的精煉，我們期望OSI中文版能發揮下列四大功能，即：（1）描述的功能－描述工作壓力的「結構」；（2）分析診斷的功能－剖析及評估工作壓力，找出關鍵點；（3）集中注意的功能－引導日後的管理工作，指出重點；（4）誘發的功能－問題或許已非一日之寒，但直接了當地指出問題，會促使每個人積極地採取行動，是以「催化劑」的功能。

The effective analysis and treatment of stress is an important aspect of human resource management if those resources are to be employed to their full potential. The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) developed initially in Britain offers the ideal first step in this process. The OSI defines occupational stress as a negatively perceived quality which as a result of inadequate coping with sources of stress, has negative mental and physical ill health consequences. The design of OSI underlies the complex nature of interaction between its four key elements: (1) the sources of stress; (2) the individual characteristics of the person who may be experiencing stress; (3) the individual's coping strategies; and (4) the effects of stress on the individual and the organization. Through translation, back translation, expert consultations and field pilot study, we finally compiled the Chinese version of OSI, and surveyed 1,054 workers randomly selected from four large state-owned oragizations located in Kaohsiung. In the psychometric analysis, we adopted item-total-correlation coefficients exceeding 0.30 as a criterion to select scale items. Cronbach alpha coefficients for scales of 'Sources of stress', 'Coping strategies', 'Job satisfaction', 'Mental health' and 'Physical health' were all high, between 0.86~0.95; whereas those for scales of 'Type A' and 'Control' were relatively low, 0.70 and 0.59 respectively. Using principle components ananysis with varimax rotation, we factor analized scales of 'Job satisfaction', 'Sources of stress', and 'Coping Strategies'. The dimensions were different in our Taiwanese sample as compared to the western samples. Nonetheless, internal consistency reliability for each subscale was still high. Finally, some interesting group differences also emerged, such as gender difference in stress; white-vs blue-collar differences in health, job satisfaction and stress; and organizational differences in job satisfaction and health.