Rethinking the Assessment of Work Intensity
Development and Validation of a Verbal Questionnaire and Pictorial Scales
Abstract
Abstract: Digitalization and flexible work arrangements have profoundly changed workplaces and are often associated with an increasing work intensity, putting employees’ well-being at risk. To respond to increasing work intensity effectively, it is crucial to assess work intensity thoroughly and regularly. However, there are no specific measures that capture work intensity through a comprehensive and contemporary understanding. In two studies, we confirmed the factorial structure of a newly developed questionnaire and pictorial scales on work intensity, providing evidence for the verbal questionnaire’s convergent and incremental validity. The pictorial scales allow for a complementary methodological approach to the assessment of work intensity as measured by the questionnaire. Overall, the questionnaire allows for a comprehensive assessment of work intensity and the pictorial scales meet the demand for a simple and concise instrument suitable for repeated measures such as in the context of diary studies.
Zusammenfassung: Digitalisierung und flexible Arbeitsformen haben die Arbeitswelt tiefgreifend verändert und gehen häufig mit einer zunehmenden Arbeitsintensität einher, die das Wohlbefinden von Beschäftigten gefährdet. Eine wirksame Reaktion auf die zunehmende Arbeitsintensität erfordert Instrumente für eine gründliche und fortlaufende Einschätzung von Arbeitsintensität. Allerdings gibt es keine spezifischen Messinstrumente, welche die Arbeitsintensität in einem umfassenden und zeitgemäßen Verständnis erfassen. In zwei Studien wurde die faktorielle Struktur eines neu entwickelten Fragebogens und von Bilderskalen zur Arbeitsintensität bestätigt sowie die konvergente und inkrementelle Validität des verbalen Fragebogens nachgewiesen. Die Bilderskalen ermöglichen einen ergänzenden methodischen Zugang für eine Einschätzung der Arbeitsintensität, so wie sie mit dem Fragebogen erfasst wird. Zusammengefasst erlaubt der Fragebogen eine umfassende Einschätzung von Arbeitsintensität und die Bilderskalen erfüllen die Anforderungen eines einfachen und kompakten Instruments, das sich für wiederholte Messungen beispielsweise im Rahmen von Tagebuchstudien anbietet.
During the past few decades, technological advances have profoundly changed the nature and dynamics of workplaces. Employees experience a new quality of work, which is characterized by the increasing diversification of information and collaboration media. A large amount of work is fast-paced and done on computer screens. Also, digitalization and flexibility have blurred the boundaries between work and private life. Information and communication have become independent from workplaces due to the ubiquity of smartphones, tablets, etc.
These technological and organizational changes are associated with positive developments. Access to information has become easier, and collaboration is more flexible and mobile. However, these changes may also lead to a higher intensity of work (Korunka & Kubicek, 2017), which holds the potential for negative effects on mental health (Doan et al., 2021). According to an investigation by Eurofound (2019), high demands in the workplace are associated with high burnout rates. In particular, work intensity has the highest association with exhaustion (β = .18; Eurofound, 2019). Digitalization is accompanied by higher flexibility requirements, which can overwhelm employees and lead to work intensification and the blurring of boundaries between work and private life (Ahlers, 2016). Further research outlines that work intensity leads to lower life satisfaction through a diminished work–life balance (Brown, 2012) or due to emotional exhaustion (Boekhorst et al., 2017). These studies show that work intensity is a relevant threat to well-being.
To prevent the negative effects of work intensity and counteract its causes, it is crucial to continuously assess work intensity. While there are established and comprehensible instruments for measuring working conditions and health consequences, instruments for measuring work intensity vary greatly in their composition. Existing measures of work intensity vary in scope and breadth because there is a lack of an overarching concept of work intensity (cf. Burke et al., 2010). Sometimes the measurement of work intensity comprised a selection of items from other instruments and was supplemented by self-developed items (e. g., Fiksenbaum et al., 2010) or other constructs such as work overload (e. g., Fein et al., 2017). Thus, the concept of work intensity lacks a comprehensive approach.
Furthermore, many scientific studies related work intensity to quantitative aspects such as a high workload and working to tight deadlines (e. g., Green & McIntosh, 2001). This interpretation of work intensity follows a traditional understanding, as it was relevant during the Industrial Revolution and the associated acceleration of work pace. With tertiarization and the increased dissemination of knowledge work, employees took on more and more responsibility in their jobs and gained autonomy in the workplace, increasing the complexity of work. Hünefeld et al. (2020) proposed complexity as a part of work intensity including different aspects, such as coordination of collaboration with colleagues, ambiguous work tasks, and interruptions. Also, work settings have changed due to increased flexibility both concerning work locations (e. g., working from home) and working times (e. g., working at weekends). With the ongoing digitalization, new types of work emerged, for example, crowd working (Korunka & Kubicek, 2017). Thus, before formulating a new measurement instrument on work intensity, a contemporary adaptation of the concept of work intensity is required. High workload and working to tight deadlines are still important indicators of work intensity, but they only reflect a part of today’s demands in the workplace (Piasna, 2017). Furthermore, the term “work intensification” (e. g., Franke, 2015) suggests a dynamic approach, but existing measures follow a retrospective and thus static approach concerning the assessment of work intensification. A dynamic approach to work intensification should instead comprise repeated measures of work intensity.
To address the lack of a comprehensive and contemporary approach to work intensity, Soucek and Voss (2020) proceeded as follows. Possible components and meanings of work intensity were identified through literature searches and finally discussed in workshops in different companies. The discussions in these workshops with employees and human resources professionals led to seven facets of work intensity related to new forms of work being identified. On the basis of the theoretical framework provided by Soucek and Voss (2020), we developed and validated a verbal questionnaire that assesses seven facets of work intensity. Additionally, we tested pictorial scales that assess these seven facets of work intensity. These instruments contribute to both science and practice. First, they provide a comprehensive and specific view of work intensity against the backdrop of new forms of work. Second, the pictorial scales allow for a simple and sound survey method that meets the demands of practitioners and enables a repeated assessment of work intensity.
A Comprehensive Concept of Work Intensity
In terms of a more comprehensive concept for the assessment of work intensity, we propose two approaches. First, a broad approach to work intensity that goes beyond the current conceptualization of work intensity, that is, a high workload and working to tight deadlines. Second, a dynamic approach to work intensity implies a change in work intensity over time.
A Broad Approach to Work Intensity
Piasna (2017) assumed that “work at high speed and to tight deadlines might not fully capture the complexity of work intensity in its many job‐specific forms” (p. 171). The ongoing changes in workplaces have not only increased the amount and pace of work but also led to qualitative changes (Mauno et al., 2023). For example, the flexibility of working hours and places of work increased the necessity of planning and deciding, and therefore led to an increase in work intensity (Korunka & Kubicek, 2017). Furthermore, regarding situations where individuals are being interrupted by unplanned tasks, Baethge and Rigotti (2013) argued that task switching, accomplishing the interrupting task, and resuming the interrupted task all cost additional effort and time. As a result, the number of tasks increases, and schedules become tighter. Similarly, the need to coordinate highly interdependent tasks and to clarify ambiguous tasks requires additional effort and time, thus increasing work intensity (Hünefeld et al., 2020). Also, working from home challenges the segmentation of work and private spheres.
Given this variety of aspects related to work intensity, and the intention to collect the most relevant aspects of work intensity, Soucek and Voss (2020) conducted workshops with employees and occupational experts (e. g., workplace health management). The workshops revealed that new forms of work led to a change in demands, such as having too many tasks at the same time or being constantly available for work-related issues. Overall, Soucek and Voss (2020) proposed seven facets of work intensity. In particular, work intensity can express itself in a high number of tasks that need to be completed in a certain period (amount), tasks that must be completed in parallel (concurrency), or an increased volume of tasks at certain times (work peaks). A high degree of collaboration and coordination with other employees (interdependence) can also be a characteristic of work intensity. Other facets concern hindrances, such as a high degree of interruptions, for example, by emails or phone calls (interruptions), ambiguity regarding the fulfillment of tasks and one’s role (lack of clarity), and the delimitation of boundaries between work and leisure time leading to an extended availability outside of regular working hours (extended availability). These facets described by Soucek and Voss (2020) were used as the foundation of a verbal questionnaire on work intensity that is described in Study 1.
A Dynamic Approach to Work Intensity
Franke (2015) distinguished between work intensity as a state relating to the extent of high job demands, whereas work intensification refers to a temporal increase in work intensity. Thus, the concept of work intensification indicates that employees are confronted with an increasing amount of work and time pressure. Kubicek et al. (2015) used the term “intensification of job demands.” However, existing questionnaires on work intensification do not address its dynamic nature and instead suggest operationalizations close to work intensity. For example, Ogbonnaya and Valizade (2015) used the following three items to assess work intensification: “I work under a great deal of pressure”; “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done in my work”; and “I often have to work extra time, over and above the formal hours of my job.” Other questionnaires related work intensification to a period (e. g., the last 5 years; Kubicek et al., 2015). However, relating to a rather long period with retrospective measures might not reflect the dynamic nature of work intensity. On the contrary, we assume that changes in work intensity will occur over shorter periods and may even vary within a day. According to Green (2000), work intensity is a current state that can change. To account for the dynamic nature of work intensification, we propose assessing work intensity repeatedly and using the difference as an indicator of work intensification.
Verbal Questionnaire on Work Intensity
On the basis of the framework presented by Soucek and Voss (2020), we developed a questionnaire that differentiated between seven facets of work intensity to achieve a broad approach to work intensity. Although we pursued a broad approach, the wording of the items deliberatively relates neither to the causes nor to the consequences of work intensity. In this way we addressed shortcomings of existing measures that did not differentiate between causes, forms, and consequences of work intensity. For example, work intensification was associated either with causes (e. g., “Due to digital technologies at the workplace, I have more work than before”; Borle et al., 2021, p. 380) or with negative health consequences (e. g., “The time intensity of my work has become more stressful”; Neirotti, 2020, p. 1970). Thus, we took care to avoid double-barreled items in the wording and to prevent presuppositions. Likewise, the items do not contain a specific time reference (e. g., “in the last 5 years”). This follows the perception of work intensity as a construct that relates to the currently perceived workload that can change daily. That way, the questionnaire is suitable for longitudinal studies with repeated assessments such as in diary studies. This also addresses another problem: Some employees might have difficulties in relating to a period of, for example, 5 years because they held other positions or had not entered the job market yet.
Overall, we formulated 44 items and reviewed these items in terms of content and methodology. Experts provided feedback regarding the content of the items, which led to clarified wording. The items were tested with 118 students to check the comprehensibility and methodological issues such as the distribution of answers (i. e., item analysis). Finally, the verbal questionnaire on work intensity (WI-7) consists of 21 items (e. g., “I have a lot of tasks to do”) and asks participants to indicate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (fully applies). All items are listed in ESM 1, Table E1.
Pictorial Scales on Work Intensity
In a literature review on pictorial scales, Sauer et al. (2021) found that most pictorial scales deal with emotional states, followed by scales for medical diagnoses. Pictorial scales have also been developed as alternatives to existing verbal questionnaires. In the context of work, probably the most famous pictorial scale goes back to Kunin (1955), who assessed job satisfaction using a series of circular faces with different mouth curves. Recently, Weigelt et al. (2022) published a pictorial scale to capture human energy at the workplace based on the metaphor of batteries.
Following a complementary methodological approach, Soucek and Voss (2022) developed pictorial scales on work intensity that also allow for an assessment of work intensity as described by them (Soucek and Voss, 2020). The development of the pictorial scales started with discussions among scientific experts about adequate representations of the subject at hand. In the next step, drafts of the pictures were presented to employees and human resources professionals and they were asked for their interpretations of the pictures. On the basis of their feedback, Soucek and Voss (2022) revised and refined the pictures and assessed the psychometric properties of the pictorial scales (i. e., item analysis). Overall, the development of the pictorial scales followed the propositions of Sauer et al. (2021).
The pictorial scales on work intensity (WI-7P) consist of seven series of pictures that each represent one facet of work intensity as described earlier. The pictures use yellow sticky notes to symbolize work tasks. Each scale includes five pictures following the idea of a Likert scale with a linear increase in content between the pictures. Figure 1 shows an example of the series of pictures for the facet quantity. The increase in quantity is illustrated by adding two tasks to each subsequent picture starting from three tasks in the first picture on the left side; please note that the number of tasks increases linearly from left to right.
Study 1
Study 1 aimed at the verification of the factorial structure of the verbal questionnaire on work intensity. Furthermore, we checked the applicability of the pictorial scales on work intensity.
Method
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the Ethics Commission of the School of Business, Economics, and Society at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (September 28, 2020).
Sample
In total, 767 employees (45 % male) participated in a web-based study. The mean age was 42.27 years (SD = 11.42). The participants’ professional experience averaged 15.77 years (SD = 11.33); the average weekly working time was 36.37 hr (SD = 10.67). Overall, 29 % of the participants held a supervisory position; 61 % of the participants described their work as psychologically demanding rather than physically demanding.
Measures
We assessed work intensity with the WI-7 with 21 items (see ESM 1, Table E1). This questionnaire assesses seven facets of work intensity. Example items are: “I have a lot of tasks to do” and “At my workplace, I have to perform multiple tasks at the same time.” Participants indicated their answers on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (fully applies). Cronbach’s alpha for the different facets was: amount, α = .77, interruptions, α = .91, concurrency, α = .90, interdependence, α = .89, work peaks, α = .73, extended availability, α = .88, and lack of clarity, α = .84. Overall, Cronbach’s alpha was α = .93. Furthermore, work intensity was assessed with the WI-7P with seven series of five pictures each (Soucek & Voss, 2022), leading to a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .81 for the composite score. Participants were instructed to tick the picture that best represented their situation in the workplace.
Results
Correlations of the Verbal Questionnaire and Pictorial Scales
Table 1 presents the correlations of the different facets of work intensity for the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales (cf. lower triangle, Table 1). Overall, the facets were correlated with each other, and in most facets, the correlation of the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales was highest for the respective facet of work intensity and ranged from r = .66, p < .001 to r = .33, p < .001. However, not all facets of the pictorial scales had the highest correlation with the corresponding facet of the verbal questionnaire. This was particularly the case for the facets interdependence and work peaks of the pictorial scales. For example, the pictorial subscale for interdependence was more strongly associated with concurrency of the verbal questionnaire, r = .54, p < .001, than with interdependence of the verbal questionnaire, r = .37, p < .001. Nevertheless, the composite scores of the verbal questionnaire and the pictorial scales were highly correlated, r = .72, p < .001.
The facets are interrelated by definition and the patterns of interrelations between the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales are comparable to the interrelations of the facets of the verbal questionnaire. Remarkably, the interrelations between the facets are higher for the verbal questionnaire than for the pictorial scales.
Test of the Factorial Structure
To test the factorial structure of the WI-7 questionnaire, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses and compared different models (see Table 2). Models 1 and 2 comprised verbal items only. Model 1 assumed one latent factor, whereas Model 2 assumed seven distinct yet correlated latent factors according to the seven facets of work intensity. The comparison of model fits indicated that data fitted better to the structure of Model 2. Thus, the assumption of seven distinct facets of work intensity using the verbal questionnaire was supported by the data.
Models 3 – 6 took both verbal and pictorial items into account (WI-7 and WI-7P). Model 3 assumed that all items load on one general factor. Model 4 considered differences in the methodological approaches and assumed that the verbal items should load on one factor whereas the pictorial items should load on another factor. Model 5 assumed seven latent factors representing the seven facets of work intensity with both verbal and pictorial items loading onto these facets. Finally, Model 6 extended Model 5 and additionally included two method factors with the verbal and pictorial items loading on the respective factor (multiple method factors; see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Overall, the fit indices indicated that Model 6 fitted the data best. Thus, verbal and pictorial items represent seven distinct facets of work intensity while controlling for different methodological approaches, that is, verbal and pictorial items.
Discussion
Study 1 aimed to test the factorial structure of the verbal questionnaire on work intensity. By and large, confirmatory factor analyses corroborated the assumed seven facets of work intensity. Furthermore, the pictorial scales broadly fit into these facets of work intensity and provide an additional methodological approach to work intensity. As not all facets of the pictorial scales had the highest correlation with the corresponding facet of the verbal questionnaire, we suggest using the pictorial scales as a composite measure to assess work intensity. The high correlation of the composite scores suggests that the pictorial scales reflect the content of the verbal questionnaire quite well on an aggregated level.
Study 2
Study 2 investigated the factorial structure of the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales on work intensity in a sample of employees. Additionally, Study 2 yielded a validation of the verbal questionnaire with existing measures of work intensity and related constructs. In particular, we included measures of work intensity (Richter et al., 2000) and work intensification (Kubicek et al., 2015) to address convergent validity. We also tested for incremental validity concerning two measures of psychological well-being, namely, emotional and cognitive irritation (Mohr et al., 2006). Cognitive irritation includes not being able to detach from work-related thoughts in leisure time, whereas emotional irritation describes irritability and entails reacting grumpily or being angry about work-related problems (Mohr et al., 2006). Work intensity was associated with irritation in previous studies. For example, Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) reported that psychological detachment (as the opposite of cognitive irritation) was associated with chronic time pressure, r = -.31, and with daily working hours, r = -.25. Furthermore, Höge and Hornung (2013) reported a negative influence of perceived flexibility requirements regarding working time on emotional irritation, r = .10, and cognitive irritation, r = .24.
Method
Sample
Participants were recruited among the members of an online access panel with current employment as a prerequisite for participation; participation was voluntary. In total, 335 employees (56 % male) participated. The mean age was 44.15 years (SD = 12.24). The participants’ professional experience averaged 17.81 years (SD = 12.63); the average weekly working time was 34.50 hr (SD = 11.70). The proportion of participants holding a supervisory position was 28 %. Overall, 59 % of the participants described their work as psychologically demanding rather than physically demanding.
Measures
The seven facets of work intensity were assessed using the WI-7 with 21 items (see ESM 1 Table E1). Participants indicated their answers on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (fully applies). Cronbach’s alpha for the different facets was: amount, α = .73, interruptions, α = .87, concurrency, α = .89, interdependence, α = .83, work peaks, α = .65, extended availability, α = .85, and lack of clarity, α = .80. Overall, Cronbach’s alpha was α = .91. Furthermore, work intensity was assessed with the WI-7P, leading to Cronbach’s alpha of α = .77 for the seven pictorial items (see Figure 1). Participants were instructed to tick the picture that best represented their situation in the workplace.
We also assessed work intensity with an existing instrument consisting of six items from the questionnaire of Richter et al. (2000). A sample item is: “The speed of work required of me is very high.” Participants indicated their answers on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply) to 4 (applies). Cronbach’s alpha was α = .77.
Work intensification was assessed with five items from the questionnaire on intensification of work demands (Kubicek et al., 2015). A sample item is: “In the last 5 years, it is increasingly rare to have enough time for work tasks.” The response format was a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). Cronbach’s alpha was α = .88.
We assessed emotional and cognitive irritation with eight items from Mohr et al. (2005, 2006). Example items are: “Even at home I often think of my problems at work” (cognitive irritation) and “I get irritated easily, although I don’t want this to happen” (emotional irritation). The assessment was made on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 7 (fully applies). Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) were α = .89 (cognitive irritation) and α = .87 (emotional irritation).
Results
Correlations of the Verbal Questionnaire and Pictorial Scales
Table 1 presents the correlations of the different facets of work intensity for the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales (see upper triangle, Table 1). The correlations of the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales ranged from r = .61, p < .001 to r = .30, p < .001. The correlation between the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales was highest for the respective facet of work intensity only in three out of seven cases. This was not the case for the facets of amount, interdependence, work peaks, and extended availability. For example, interdependence (WI-7P) was more strongly correlated with concurrency (WI-7), r = .50, p < .001, than with interdependence (WI-7), r = .34, p < .001. Again, the interrelations between the facets were higher for the verbal questionnaire than for the pictorial scales. The composite scores of the verbal questionnaire and the pictorial scales were highly correlated, r = .65, p < .001. Overall, the results confirmed the results of Study 1.
Test of the Factorial Structure
To test the factorial structure of the questionnaire, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses and compared different models (see Table 3). Models 1 and 2 comprised the verbal items only, and the results indicated that Model 2 fits better to the data than Model 1, which verified the assumed structure of seven facets of work intensity as measured with the WI-7. Models 3 – 6 included verbal and pictorial items. Model 3 assumed that all items should load on one general factor, which receives little support regarding the fit indices. Model 4 assigned the items to either a latent factor for verbal items or to a latent factor for pictorial items but also had a poor fit. Model 5 ordered verbal and pictorial items according to the seven facets of work intensity resulting in a mediocre fit. Finally, Model 6 assumed the seven facets of work intensity and the two methodological factors for the verbal and pictorial items (multiple method factors; see Podsakoff et al., 2003) and had a good fit. Models 2 and 6 together corroborated the distinction between the seven facets of work intensity, and Model 6 additionally provided evidence that these facets could be assessed through verbal and pictorial items.
Convergent and Incremental Validity
To assess the convergent validity of the verbal questionnaire on work intensity, we considered the correlations with existing measures of work intensity (Richter et al., 2000) and work intensification (Kubicek et al., 2015). Concerning both measures, the composite score of the WI-7 was correlated with work intensity, r = .68, p < .001, as well as with work intensification, r = .70, p < .001 (see ESM 1, Table E2). Also, the composite score of the WI-7P was correlated both with work intensity, r = .49, p < .001, as well as with work intensification, r = .55, p < .001 (see ESM 1, Table E3). Although the level of correlation was not as high as with the WI-7, we can attest an acceptable level of convergent validity of the WI-7P. Finally, the composite scores of the WI-7 and WI-7P were correlated with each other, r = .65, p < .001. Overall, the results indicate that the composite scores of the WI-7 and WI-7P are valid measures of work intensity.
We claimed a broad approach to our measure of work intensity. Therefore, our measure of work intensity should contribute to the prediction of psychological well-being over and above existing measures of work intensity or work intensification. To test for the incremental validity of the WI-7, we computed hierarchical regression analyses predicting aspects of psychological well-being, namely, emotional and cognitive irritation. Concerning emotional irritation (see Table 4), Model 1a included the existing measures of work intensity (Richter et al., 2000) and work intensification (Kubicek et al., 2015). In Model 1b, we additionally included the WI-7 (composite score) that exerted a positive effect on emotional irritation, b = 0.44, p = .009, while statistically controlling for the existing measures of work intensity and work intensification, respectively. Although the content of the WI-7 is very close to the existing measures, it additionally contributed to the explained variance, ΔR2 = 0.02, p = .009. In Model 1c we included the seven facets of the WI-7 instead of the composite score of the WI-7, indicating an incremental validity compared to Model 1a, ΔR2 = 0.20, p < .001. However, the individual regression coefficients should be interpreted with caution due to the intercorrelations between the facets of work intensity (Cohen et al., 2003). We proceeded in the same way regarding cognitive irritation (see Table 4). Model 2a included the existing measures of work intensity and work intensification, and Model 2b additionally considered the WI-7 (composite score) that had a positive effect on cognitive irritation, b = 1.08, p < .001; WI-7 additionally contributed to explained variance in cognitive irritation, ΔR2 = 0.08, p < .001. Again, Model 2c included the seven facets of the WI-7, indicating incremental validity compared to Model 2a, ΔR2 = 0.14, p < .001.
Concerning the WI-7P, we proceeded accordingly (see ESM 1, Table E4). Model 1d additionally included the composite score of the WI-7P, which did not affect emotional irritation, b = −0.01, p = .903, and therefore, did not contribute to incremental validity compared to Model 1a, ΔR2 < 0.01, p = .903. Finally, Model 1e included the seven facets of the WI-7P, with no additional variance explained in emotional irritation, ΔR2 = 0.03, p = .096. Regarding cognitive irritation, Model 2d included the composite score of the pictorial scales, indicating no effect on cognitive irritation, b = 0.19, p = .120, and did not contribute to incremental validity, ΔR2 = 0.01, p = .120. Finally, Model 2e included the seven facets of the WI-7P, which also had no additional effect in predicting cognitive irritation, ΔR2 = 0.03, p = .084.
Discussion
Study 2 aimed to test the factorial structure of the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales on work intensity. As in Study 1, the confirmatory factor analyses indicated the distinction of seven facets of work intensity as assessed by the WI-7 and provided evidence for the assessment of these facets by different item formats, namely, a verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales. The pattern of correlations between the facets of the verbal questionnaire and the pictorial scales were broadly comparable. However, four facets of the pictorial scales were more strongly correlated with other facets of the verbal questionnaire than with the respective facet. In addition, the results demonstrated the convergent and incremental validity of the WI-7 and supported our notion of work intensity being conceptualized more broadly compared to existing measures of work intensity. For the WI-7P, at least the composite score achieved an acceptable level of convergent validity.
General Discussion
The increasing digitalization and flexibility of work arrangements gave rise to additional demands at work and blurred the boundaries between work and private life. Therefore, we followed a comprehensive approach to work intensity and validated a verbal questionnaire accompanied by pictorial scales as a complementary methodological tool. These instruments contribute to previous research in two ways. First, they represent work intensity with a breadth that meets the changing demands in the workplace. Second, they consider the dynamic nature of work intensity by providing an instrument that easily allows for repeated assessment of work intensity.
The results of two studies corroborated the factorial structure of the verbal questionnaire on work intensity across two independent samples. The verbal questionnaire assesses seven distinct factors of work intensity, providing a broader approach to the construct of work intensity beyond the focus on the number of tasks and working to tight deadlines. Study 2 provided evidence supporting the convergent and incremental validity of the verbal questionnaire in measuring work intensity. The questionnaire assesses work intensity independently of other factors, specifically its antecedents (such as digitalization and flexibility) and consequences (such as well-being and health). Additionally, we intentionally omitted any reference to periods or retrospective assessments of changes in work intensity. Our conceptualization of work intensity refers to a momentary state that can vary over time. Therefore, an increase in work intensity over time indicates work intensification.
A verbal questionnaire allows for a sound assessment of work intensity. However, motivating employees to participate in frequent surveys can be challenging. Additionally, language barriers may exist for foreign employees. To address these issues, we took an innovative approach by using pictorial scales on work intensity. This was an exploratory attempt to represent an abstract construct such as work intensity and its various aspects. Inspired by discussions with human resources professionals and employees, the primary intention of the pictorial scales was to encourage dialogue. Overall, the results provided some hints that the pictorial scales are significantly interrelated for the facets of work intensity as measured by the verbal questionnaire (convergent validity) and are not blurred by the respective methodological approach (discriminant validity). The pictorial scales therefore aim to provide a complementary approach to assessing work intensity from a broader perspective. However, not all facets of the pictorial scales had the strongest correlation with the corresponding facet of the verbal questionnaire. This was particularly true for the pictorial subscales of interdependence and work peaks, which should be revised to provide a sound assessment of these specific facets of work intensity. In addition, most of the pictorial subscales did not reach the desired correlation of r = .50 with the corresponding subscale of the verbal questionnaire. For a full validation, the pictorial scales should be revised to reflect the individual subconstructs more specifically, which is a challenging task due to the intercorrelation between the subconstructs. In addition, the pictorial scales did not contribute to incremental validity in terms of emotional and cognitive irritation. A revision of the pictorial scales should also address validation or consider the use of additional measures for validation. Nevertheless, the composite scores of the pictorial scales and the verbal questionnaire were strongly correlated. Thus, the pictorial scales represent the overall construct of work intensity quite well. Therefore, the pictorial scales are better suited for giving an overall impression of work intensity rather than assessing specific subconstructs.
Following Sauer et al. (2021), conditions that favor the use of pictorial scales may be a limited language competence of the respondents or the need to measure a construct several times, whereby a picture can enable better and faster processing of information. Overall, these properties of the pictorial scales meet the demands of practitioners by providing a simple and inviting format. However, we do not claim that the pictorial scales meet the same objectives as the verbal questionnaire. We still perceive the latter as a preferred instrument regarding the specification of contents and the methodological rigor that meets the requirements of a sound psychometric measure. The pictorial scales are instead a complementary methodological approach to work intensity as assessed with the verbal questionnaire. The purpose of our studies was to demonstrate two different methodological approaches to the construct of work intensity. For scientific research, the verbal questionnaire is the method of choice, whereas the pictorial scales are more suitable for practical use. To sum up, the results demonstrate that both approaches provide legitimate access to the common theme of work intensity at least on the level of the composite scores.
Limitations
All of the measures in our studies were self-reports, which raises concerns about the respondents’ desire to answer in a socially desirable way and about common method variance. However, self-reports are an appropriate means of measurement, particularly for assessing someone’s perception of a situation. In terms of reliability, the subscale for work peaks was slightly below the expected threshold of .70 for Cronbach’s alpha in Study 2. Furthermore, we found evidence of convergent validity for the facets of work intensity that were not confounded by the use of different assessment formats, namely, the verbal questionnaire and the pictorial scales. Second, the two studies were based on German samples. Future research should apply the verbal questionnaire in different countries and confirm its reliability and validity. Third, it is necessary to conduct further research to evaluate the invariance of the scale’s dimensionality, which is a crucial issue in the field of measurement (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Fourth, the interrelations between the seven facets assessed by the verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales ranged from r = .30 to r = .61 for the sample in Study 2. Although we would assume higher correlations between two measures assessing the same construct, these correlations are a starting point for the pictorial scales being a complementary methodological approach rather than a substitute measure of work intensity. We would also like to point out that in the context of our web-based studies, the pictorial scales were presented to the participants without further explanation, which could have led to different interpretations of the pictures and thus limited the validity. When using the pictorial scales, we recommend a detailed explanation of these scales, which should contribute to a consistent interpretation. For example, Weigelt et al. (2022) provided a fairly detailed explanation of their pictorial scale. Finally, the pictorial scales measured each facet with only one item and may therefore be less comprehensive in content than the verbal questionnaire. However, the purpose of the pictorial scales is not primarily to provide a psychometrically sound measure of work intensity, but rather to provide a simple and inviting means for discussions, as in the context of workshops or interviews.
Implications
One of the strengths of the instruments is the fact that the facets of work intensity have emerged from practice, and thus, these facets reflect the employees’ current understanding and interpretation of work intensity in the context of new forms of work. However, because the content of the instruments is general, they can be used in different industries and workplaces. For example, they can be used in the context of psychosocial risk assessments to determine the impact of changes in organizational processes on work intensity. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between working conditions and work intensity as assessed by the WI-7.
The present work follows the call of Sauer et al. (2021), who stated that pictorial scales are underrepresented in the field of work psychology and that especially the assessment of workload could benefit from pictorial scales. Empirical studies comparing verbal questionnaires and pictorial scales are very rare, and future research should compare the particular strengths and weaknesses of both assessment formats (Sauer et al., 2021). Our verbal questionnaire and pictorial scales on work intensity provide a starting point to follow this claim. We are confident that the pictorial scales can be further optimized to provide a methodologically sound, innovative, and inviting complement to verbal questionnaires.
Conclusion
The verbal questionnaire on work intensity is a reliable and validated instrument that allows for a differentiated assessment of several facets of work intensity and could therefore contribute to the field of occupational health. Furthermore, at least the composite score of the pictorial scales on work intensity is a starting point for a complementary methodological approach to the assessment of work intensity. These instruments contribute to both science and practice. First, they provide a comprehensive view of work intensity against the backdrop of new forms of work. Second, the pictorial scales provide an innovative approach and meet the demand for a simple and concise instrument that allows for repeated measures, such as in the context of diary studies.
Electronic Supplementary Material
The electronic supplementary material is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000433
Literatur
(2016). Flexible and remote work in the context of digitization and occupational health. International Journal of Labour Research, 8(1 – 2), 85 – 99. Bureau for Workers’ Activities of the ILO.
(2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work and Stress, 27 (1), 43 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.761783
(2017). Work intensity, emotional exhaustion and life satisfaction. Personnel Review, 46 (5), 891 – 907. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-05-2015-0130
(2021). The social and health implications of digital work intensification. Associations between exposure to information and communication technologies, health and work ability in different socio-economic strata. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 94 (3), 377 – 390.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-020-01588-5
(2012). Responses to work intensification: Does generation matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23 (17), 3578 – 3595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.654348
(2010). Work intensity: Potential antecedents and consequences. Personnel Review, 39 (3),, 347 – 360. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011030539
(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2021). Mental health: who is more vulnerable to high work intensity? Evidence from Australian longitudinal data. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 94 (7), 1591 – 1604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-021-01732-9
(2019). Working conditions and workers’ health. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2019/working-conditions-and-workers-health
(2017). Work intensification, work–life interference, stress, and well-being in Australian workers. International Studies of Management and Organization, 47 (4), 360 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1382271
(2010). Work hours, work intensity, satisfactions and psychological well‐being among hotel managers in China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17 (1), 79 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601011016925
(2015). Is work intensification extra stress? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14 (1), 17 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000120
(2000). Why has work effort become more intense? Conjectures and evidence about effort-biased technical change and other stories. Industrial Relations, 43 (4), 709 – 774.
(2001). The intensification of work in Europe. Labour Economics, 8 (2),, 291 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(01)00027-6
(2013). Perceived flexibility requirements: Exploring mediating mechanisms in positive and negative effects on worker well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36 (3), 407 – 430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x13511274
(2020). Arbeitsintensität als Gegenstand empirischer Erhebungen. Das Potenzial repräsentativer Erwerbstätigenbefragungen für die Forschung [Work intensity as the subject of empirical surveys. The potential of representative employment surveys for research]. WSI-Mitteilungen, 73 (1), 19 – 28. https://doi.org/10.5771/0342-300x-2020-1-19
(2017). Job demands in a changing world of work. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54678-0
(2015). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing job demands arising from accelerated change: The intensification of job demands scale (IDS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24 (6), 898 – 913. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2014.979160
(1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8 (1), 65 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1955.tb01189.x
(2023). Is work intensification bad for employees? A review of outcomes for employees over the last two decades. Work and Stress, 37 (1), 100 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080778
(2005). Irritation – ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychischer Beanspruchung im Arbeitskontext. Skalen- und Itemparameter aus 15 Studien [Irritation – an instrument assessing mental strain in working contexts. Scale and item parameters from 15 studies]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 49 (1), 44 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.49.1.44
(2006). The assessment of psychological strain in work contexts. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22 (3), 198 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.198
(2020). Work intensification and employee involvement in lean production: new light on a classic dilemma. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31 (15), 1958 – 1983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1424016
(2015). Participatory workplace activities, employee-level outcomes and the mediating role of work intensification. Management Research Review, 38 (5), 540 – 558. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-01-2014-0007
(2017). Scheduled to work hard: The relationship between non-standard working hours and work intensity among European workers (2005 – 2015). Human Resource Management Journal, 28 (1), 167 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12171
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
(2000). Das Erleben von Arbeitsintensität und Tätigkeitsspielraum – Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur orientierenden Analyse (FIT) [Perceived work intensity and activity latitude: Development and validation of a questionnaire (FIT)]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 44 (3), 129 – 139.
(2021). Pictorial scales in research and practice – A review. European Psychologist, 26 (2), 112 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000405
(2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10 (4), 393 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393
(2020). Arbeitsverdichtung: Ursachen, Formen und Folgen [Work intensity: Antecedents, forms, and consequences]. Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin Umweltmedizin, 55(9), 543 – 546. https://doi.org/10.17147/asu-2009-8158
(2021). Pictorial scales on work intensity. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/93KTQ
(2022). A picture is worth a thousand words: Pictorial scales for the assessment of work intensity. EWOP in Practice, 16 (1), 45 – 59. https://doi.org/10.21825/ewopinpractice.87161
(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3 (1), 4 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
(2022). Time to recharge batteries – development and validation of a pictorial scale of human energy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31 (5), 781 – 798. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2022.2050218
