Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Confirmatory Factor and Rasch Analyses Support a Revised 14-Item Version of the Organizational, Policies, and Practices (OPP) Scale

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background The long version of the organizational, policies and practices (OPP) had a high burden and short versions were developed to solve this drawback. The 11-item version showed promise, but the ergonomic subscale was deficient. The OPP-14 was developed by adding three additional items to the ergonomics subscale. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factor structure using confirmatory factor and Rasch analyses in healthy firefighters. Methods A sample of 261 firefighters (Mean age 42 years, 95 % male) were sampled. A confirmatory factor and Rasch analyses were used to assess the internal consistency, factor structure and other psychometric characteristics of revised OPP-14. Results The OPP-14 demonstrates sound factor structure and internal consistency in firefighters. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the consistency of the original 4-domain structure (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, and RMSEA = 0.053). The 5 items showing misfit initially with disordered thresholds were rescored. The four subscales satisfied Rasch expectations with well target and acceptable reliability. Conclusions The OPP-14 scale shows a promising factor structure in this sample and remediated deficits found in OPP-11. This version may be preferable for musculoskeletal concerns or work applications where ergonomic indicators are relevant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

DIF:

Differential item functioning

DM:

Disability management

EP:

Ergonomic practices

ICC:

Item characteristic curves

OPP:

Organizational policies and practices

POC:

People-oriented culture

RMSEA:

Root mean square error of approximation

SP:

Safety practices

TLI:

Tucker-Lewis index

References

  1. Shannon HS, Mayr J, Haines T. Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates. Saf Sci. 1997;26(3):201–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams RM, Westmorland MG, Shannon HS, Amick BC 3rd. Disability management practices in Ontario health care workplaces. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):153–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work. 2001;17(1):11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hunt HA, Habeck RV, VanTol B, Scully SM. Disability prevention among Michigan employers, 1988–1993. 1993.

  5. Lewchuk W, Robb AL, Walters V. The effectiveness of bill 70 and joint health and safety committees in reducing injuries in the workplace: the case of Ontario. Can Public Policy/Anal de Polit. 1996; 225–43.

  6. Shannon HS, Robson LS, Sale JE. Creating safer and healthier workplaces: role of organizational factors and job characteristics*. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40(3):319–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Habeck RV, Hunt HA, VanTol B. Workplace factors associated with preventing and managing work disability. Rehabil Couns Bull. 1998;42(2):98–143.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Habeck RV, Leahy MJ, Hunt HA, Chan F. Employer factors related to workers’ compensation claims and disability management. Rehabil Couns Bull. 1991.

  9. Amick BC, Habeck RV, Hunt A, Fossel AH, Chapin A, Keller RB, et al. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehabil. 2000;10(1):21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tang K, MacDermid JC, Amick BC, Beaton DE. The 11-item workplace organizational policies and practices questionnaire (OPP-11): examination of its construct validity, factor structure, and predictive validity in injured workers with upper-limb disorders. Am J Ind Med. 2011;54(11):834–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Muggleton JM, Allen R, Chappell PH. Hand and arm injuries associated with repetitive manual work in industry: a review of disorders, risk factors and preventive measures. Ergonomics. 1999;42(5):714–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3/4):591–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. USA: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH, Berge JMF. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jöreskog KG. Testing structural equation models, vol. 154. Beverly Hills: Sage Focus Editions; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY: Guilford Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rasch G. Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. 1960.

  20. Bond T, Fox C. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wolfe E, Smith E Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part I-instrument development tools. J Appl Meas. 2007;8(1):97–123.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care Res. 2007;57(8):1358–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health. 2004;7:S22–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guttman L. The basis for scalogram analysis. Bobbs-Merrill, College Division; 1949.

  25. Smith RM. Fit analysis in latent trait measurement models. J Appl Meas. 2000;1(2):199.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tennant A, Pallant J. Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Meas Trans. 2006;20(1):1048–51.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wright B. Local dependency, correlations and principal components. Rasch Meas Trans. 1996;10(3):509–11.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Rasch Meas. 1979.

  29. Andrich D. Category ordering and their utility. Rasch Meas Trans. 1996;9(4):464–5.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Linacre J. Step disordering and Rasch thurstone thresholds. Rasch Meas Trans. 1991;5(3):171.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999;3(2):103.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Andrich D. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR-20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Res Perspect. 1982;9(1):95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright B. Reliability and separation. Rasch Meas Trans. 1996;9(4):472.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pallant JF, Tennant A. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Br J Clin Psychol. 2007;46(1):1–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tennant A, Horton M, Pallant J. Introduction to Rasch analysis: a workbook. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Leeds; 2011.

  36. Smith Jr EV. Understanding Rasch measurement: detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimenstionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002.

  37. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Steinberg L, Thissen D. Uses of item response theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tennant A, Pallant J. DIF matters: a practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Meas Trans. 2007;20(4):1082–4.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Truchon M, Fillion L, Gelinas C. Validation of a French Canadian version of the Organizational Policies and Practices (OPP) Questionnaire. Work. 2003;20:111–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stock SR. Workplace ergonomic factors and the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limbs: a meta-analysis. Am J Ind Med. 1991;19(1):87–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wahlström J. Ergonomics, musculoskeletal disorders and computer work. Occup Med. 2005;55(3):168–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reichelt PA, Conrad KM. Musculoskeletal injury: ergonomics and physical fitness in firefighters. Occup Med. 1994;10(4):735–46.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kang S-K, Kim W. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in firefighters. J Korean Med Assoc. 2008;51(12):1111–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. David G. Ergonomic methods for assessing exposure to risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Occup Med. 2005;55(3):190–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. McAtamney L, Corlett EN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon. 1993;24(2):91–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. da Costa BR, Vieira ER. Risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of recent longitudinal studies. Am J Ind Med. 2010;53(3):285–323.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lowe WA, Barnes B. An examination of the relationship between leadership practices and organizational commitment in the fire service. Nova Southeastern University; 2000.

  49. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors thanks to Dr. Benjamin C. Amick III for consultation on the revised OPP-14 and for permission to add items and test revised version. Authors also thanks to Hamilton Professional Firefighters and City of Hamilton for their support to our research.

Funding

This study was funded by Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Grant (FRN #114112).

Authors Contributions

QS and JM conceived the study. QS contributed to study design, data analysis, interpretation and drafting first manuscript. KT contributed to study design and review the manuscript. KS contributed to data collection. JM contributed to manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, Room 1014, Elborn College, 1201 Western Road, London, ON, N6G 1H1, Canada

    Qiyun Shi, Joy C. MacDermid & Dave Walton

  2. Hand and Upper Limb Centre Clinical Research Laboratory, St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 268 Grosvenor St., London, ON, N6A 3A8, Canada

    Qiyun Shi & Joy C. MacDermid

  3. The School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada

    Joy C. MacDermid & Kenneth Tang

  4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

    Joy C. MacDermid

  5. Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 0G4, Canada

    Kathryn E. Sinden

  6. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 4L6, Canada

    Ruby Grewal

Authors
  1. Qiyun Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joy C. MacDermid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn E. Sinden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dave Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ruby Grewal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiyun Shi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JC MacDermid was supported by a CIHR Chair in Gender, Work and Health. Qiyun Shi, Kenneth Tang, Kathryn Sinden, Dave Walton and Ruby Grewal declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (Institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 290 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, Q., MacDermid, J.C., Tang, K. et al. Confirmatory Factor and Rasch Analyses Support a Revised 14-Item Version of the Organizational, Policies, and Practices (OPP) Scale. J Occup Rehabil 27, 258–267 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9653-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9653-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation