A new quantitative approach to measure perceived work-related stress in Italian employees



We propose a method for a reliable quantitative measure of subjectively perceived occupational stress applicable in any company to enhance occupational safety and psychosocial health, to enable precise prevention policies and intervention and to improve work quality and efficiency.

Materials and Methods

A suitable questionnaire was telephonically administered to a stratified sample of the whole Italian population of employees. Combined multivariate statistical methods, including principal component, cluster and discriminant analyses, were used to identify risk factors and to design a causal model for understanding work-related stress.


The model explained the causal links of stress through employee perception of imbalance between job demands and resources for responding appropriately, by supplying a reliable U-shaped nonlinear stress index, expressed in terms of values of human systolic arterial pressure. Low, intermediate and high values indicated demotivation (or inefficiency), well-being and distress, respectively. Costs for stress-dependent productivity shortcomings were estimated to about 3.7% of national income from employment.


The method identified useful structured information able to supply a simple and precise interpretation of employees’ well-being and stress risk. Results could be compared with estimated national benchmarks to enable targeted intervention strategies to protect the health and safety of workers, and to reduce unproductive costs for firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Selye H. The stress of life. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cooper CL, Marshall J. Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. J Occup Psychol 1976;49(1):11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain. Implication for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 1979;24(2):285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    French JRP, Caplan RD, Van Harrison R. The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York: Wiley; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Johnson JV, Hall EM. Job strain, work place, social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1336–1342.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Karasek RA, Theorell T. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. (Appendix I). New York: Basic Books; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cooper CL. Handbook of stress, medicine and health. New York: CRC Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cox T, Griffiths A, Barlowe C, Randall R, Rial-Gonzalez E. Organizational interventions for work stress: A risk management approach. Sudbury, United Kingdom: HSE Books; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Maslach C, Leiter MP. Burnout and engagement in the workplace: A contextual analysis. In: Urdan TC, editor. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. United Kingdom: Stratford Books; 1999. p. 275–302.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Dewe P, Leiter MP, Cox T. Stress, coping, & health in organizations. London: Taylor & Francis; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Smith A. The scale of perceived occupational stress. Occup Med (Lond) 2000;50(5):294–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Byrne DG, Espnes GA. Occupational stress and cardiovascular disease. Stress Health 2008;24:231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Eller NH, Netterstrøm B, Gyntelberg F, Kristensen TS, Nielsen F, Steptoe A, et al. Work-related psychosocial factors and the development of ischemic heart disease: A systematic review. Cardiol Rev 2009;17(2):83–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Potocka A. What do we know about psychosocial risk factors at work? Part I. Theoretical considerations. Med Pr 2010;61(3):341–352 [in Polish].

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cox T, Griffiths A, Rial-González E. Research on Work-Related Stress. Report of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of The European Communities; 2000 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/203.

  16. 16.

    Parent-Thirion A, Fernández Macías E, Hurley J, Vermeylen G. Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Report of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official publications of the European Communities; 2006 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/EWCS2005/index.htm.

  17. 17.

    Brun E, Milczarek M. Expert forecast on emerging psychosocial risks related to occupational health and safety. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. European Risk Observatory Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/7807118/view.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Milczarek M, Schneider E, Gonzalez ER. OSH in figures: stress at work - facts and figures. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. European Risk Observatory Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official publications of the European Communities; 2009 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/TE-81-08-478-EN-C_OSH_in_figures_stress_at_work.

  19. 19.

    Sahler B, Dubois A, Journoud S, Pelletier J. Work in Tune with Life: A guide to the business case for mental health. Essen: BKK Bundesverband / ENWHP Secretariat; 2009 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://www.enwhp.org/fileadmin/downloads/8th_Initiative/MentalHealth_Broschuere_businesscase.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lelliott P, Tulloch S. Mental health and work. Report for the National Director for Work and Health. London: RCP; 2008 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/documents/mental-health-and-work.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cooper CL, Sloan SJ, Williams S. Occupational Stress Indicator. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Williams S, Cooper CL. Measuring Occupational Stress: Development of the Pressure Management Indicator. J Occup Health Psychol 1998;3(4):306–321.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, et al. The measurement of Effort-Reward Imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 2004;58(8):1483–1499.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Murphy RL, Harrell JJ. Stress measurement and management in organizations: Development and current status. In: Riley A, Zaccaro S, editors. Occupational Stress and Organizational Effectiveness. New York: Prager Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rijk A de, Le Blanc PM, Schaufeli WB, de Jonge J. Active coping and need for control as moderator of the job demand-control model: Effect on burnout. J Occup Organ Psychol 1998;71:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Barbini E, Cevenini G, Scolletta S, Biagioli B, Giomarelli P, Barbini P. A Comparative Analysis of Predictive Models of Morbidity in Intensive Care Unit after Cardiac Surgery — Part I: Model Planning. BMC Med Informat Dec Making 2007;7(35) [cited 2007 Nov 22]. Available from URL: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/7/35.

  27. 27.

    Van der Klink JJ, Blonk RW, Schene AH, van Dijk FJ. The benefits of interventions for work-related stress. Am J Public Health 2001;91:270–276.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    DiCiccio TJ, Efron B. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci 1996;11(3):189–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hacker W. Objective work environment: analysis and evaluation of objective work characteristics. In: Levi L, Petters JL, editors. A Healthier Work Environment: Basic Concept and Methods of Measurement. Stockholm: Hogberga, Lidingo; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Avallone F, Bonaretti M. Organizational well-being. Rome: Rubbettino Editore, Soveria Mannelli; 2003 [in Italian].

  31. 31.

    Pelizzoni B. Administrations in search of organizational well-being. Rome: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane; 2005 [in Italian].

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, Massachusets: Adison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Afifi AA, Clark V. Computer-aided multivariate analysis. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Velicer WF, Jackson DN. Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behav Res 1990;25(1):1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Krzanowski WJ. Principles of Multivariate Analysis: A User’s Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ. My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures. Educ Psychol Meas 2004;64(3):391–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Xu W, Zhao Y, Guo L, Guo Y, Gao W. Job stress and coronary heart disease: A case-control study using a Chinese population. J Occup Health 2009;1(2):107–113.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Barbini P, Cevenini G. Design of scoring models for trustworthy risk prediction in critical patients. In: Śmigórski K, editor. Health Management - Different Approaches and Solutions. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Web Org; 2011:337–360.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Fan X. Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An empirical comparison of their item/person statistic. Educ Psychol Meas 1998;58(3):357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Singh J. Tackling measurement problems with Item Response Theory: Principles, characteristics, and assessment, with an illustrative example. J Business Res 2004;57:184–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Fischer GH. Some neglected problems in IRT. Psychometrika 1995;60(4):459–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Srivastava AK, Krishna A. A test of inverted “U”-hypothesis of stress/performance relationship in the industrial context. Psychol Stud 1991;36:34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Koob GF. Arousal, stress, and inverted U-shaped curves: Implications for cognitive function. In: Lister RG, Weingartne HJ, editors. Perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. London: Oxford University Press; 1991. p. 300–313.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    European Commission. Eurostat, GDP 2007 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics.

  45. 45.

    Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT). National economic account 2010 [cited 2011 Dec 15]. Available from URL: http://en.istat.it/dati/dataset/20110808_00.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Cevenini.

About this article

Cite this article

Cevenini, G., Fratini, I. & Gambassi, R. A new quantitative approach to measure perceived work-related stress in Italian employees. IJOMEH 25, 426–445 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/S13382-012-0050-6

Download citation

Key words

  • Multivariate statistics
  • Non productivity costs
  • Occupational safety
  • Prevention
  • Risk assessment
  • Work-related stress