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

net/publication/286145961

Work stress issues in Malaysia

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

12 8,686

2 authors:

Zafir Mohd Makhbul Durrishah Idrus

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
110 PUBLICATIONS   298 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Ergonomic and Stress Among Manufacturing Operators View project

Current Malaysia Employment Relations Issues View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zafir Mohd Makhbul on 08 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:13-26, 2009

WORK STRESS ISSUES IN MALAYSIA

Zafir Mohamed Makhbul

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Durrishah Idrus
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Correspondence Author: Zafir Mohamed Makhbul, email: zafir@ukm.my

ABSTRACT

The occurrence of work stress is quite rampant in manufacturing organizations which involved blue collar
workers. The literature revealed that poor ergonomics workstation environment is among the major contributor
to the work stress problems. Thus, this study aims to examine the relationship between ergonomics workstation
factors and the work stress outcomes. Five hundred samples of production operators were derived from eleven
manufacturing electronics organizations which were registered with Malaysian International Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (MICCI) by using proportionate stratified random sampling. Questionnaires were used
for the data collections process. The major finding shows that ergonomically designed workstation is an
important strategy in minimizing the work stress outcomes in organizations. Through the multiple regression
analysis, each ergonomics workstation factor and component collectively have significant relationship with the
work stress outcomes. These findings have been supported by the Pearson correlation analysis which show that
all ergonomics workstation factors have high significant correlation with the work stress outcomes. The multiple
regression analysis shows health, work area design, shiftwork, humidity system and working hours factors have
significant relationship with work stress outcomes. Overall, the findings of this research are important to
organizations which are in need of healthy and competent human resources in line with the aspiration of a
dynamic human capital development.

Keywords: Work stress, ergonomics workstation, workplace

INTRODUCTION

Stress is a feedback of an individual towards his/her environment (Piko, 2006). An individual

could experience stress if he/she perceives negatively towards his/her work environment. A
physical workstation environment includes many aspects like humidity system, lighting, work
area design, acoustic system and etc. Research shows that workstation environment that
characterized by extreme heat, dim lighting, and congested works area can be associated to
stress at the workplace (Sutton and Rafaeli, 1987). So, in the process of designing a
workstation, several factors especially ergonomic factors must be taken into consideration
(Yeow and Nath Sen, 2003; Mohamad Khan et al., 2005). The failure to implement the
ergonomic principles at the workplaces can lead to emotional depression, physical
exhaustive, productivity and products quality declining (Shikdar and Sawaqed, 2003).

Work stress is a major issue in the occupational safety and health aspect as well as
organizational wellbeing (Williams and Cooper, 2002) since it risks the employees’ health
and organizational success (Noblet et al., 2001). When an individual experiences work stress,
it could make him/her vulnerable physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally (Beehr
and Newman, 1978; Sutton and Rafaeli, 1987). Thus, the fact that stress could lead towards
health problems like cardiovascular diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, depression and
burnout, and gastrointestinal are common to many of us (Minter, 1999; Cheng et al., 2001;
Schermerhorn et al., 2005).

13
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:13-26, 2009

Besides bringing about cardiovascular diseases, stress is also known as the source to mental
health problem, which the latter could affect the industry’s management cost (Cooper and
Marshall, 1976). These chronic health problems arise because the individual who is in a
stress condition experiencing an excessive flow of blood pressure to the artery wall. The
increment and excessive of the blood pressure will narrow the artery wall and make the blood
hard to flow through it (Matteson and Ivancevich, 1979). In a stress state, the blood pressure
of an individual will increase and decrease haphazardly. This haphazard condition could
injure the blood vessel and cause it to function abnormally (McShane and Von Glinow,
2005). So, this physiological phenomenon could endanger employees’ health as a whole
which starts with work stress. Some research found out that work stress could cause cancer
(Bammer and Newberry, 1982).

Study also proved that the stress level at the workplace today is greater than what was
experienced by the past generation (Minter, 1999). This is due to the fact that the current
jobs’ situations require employees to stand in a longer period (Konz and Rys, 2002/2003).
This situation always occurs in the manufacturing industries where production operators have
to work in shift system where latter leads to chronic stress problem. In such situation, added
by low ergonomic awareness, studies on ergonomic would really help the sector to
understand the principles lie underneath it (Yeow and Nath Sen, 2003). Malaysia, as a
developing country that relies on manufacturing industries faces similar phenomenon. The
manufacturing sector reported the highest number of industrial accidents from 1999 to 2003
compared to other industries (Mohamad Khan et al., 2005). The blue collar workers are
exposed more to the health risk related to work as compared to the white collar and
professional workers (Cooper and Williams, 1991). The main issues of the blue collar
workers are exposure to chemical substances, dust, psychological work stress and ergonomics
problem (Liang and Xiang, 2004). Besides that, the blue collar workers also are exposed to
noise, air pollution, physical burden, unsatisfactory shiftwork, long working period, poor
social interaction at the workplace and bad relationship with the superiors (McLean, 1974).
Thus, evaluation on stress among the blue collar workers is really significant and important.

All the negative forces and health issues onto the individual as well as organizations show us
that something has to be done in order to minimize work stress. Extreme and continuous
exposure to stress would reduce an individual capacity to perform at work (Sharpley et al.,
1996). Based on this reason, this study has to be undertaken since its contributions are
significant and able to transform manpower to be more productive and competitive.
Moreover, literature reviews shown that study in this field is very few. For example,
information on ergonomic application in developing countries where the knowledge and
awareness towards the importance of ergonomic are still low is hard to be obtained even
though ergonomic is a very interesting disciplines to study (Shahnavaz, 1996).

The main objective of this research is to examine the most significant factor in the ergonomic
workstation variables that influences the stress level in organizations.

14
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

METHODOLOGY

Sample
The population of this study is 51,000 production operators from the multinational electronic
manufacturing companies that registered with Malaysian International Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (MICCI). These companies are located in the industrial areas in
Penang, Perak, Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan, Malacca and Johore. Sample size is
determined by using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table. The table suggested that, if the
population reaches 50,000, the sample size must be 381. Since the population of this study is
big, the researchers decided to use 500 samples in order to minimize sampling error. Samples
selection was started as the researchers sent out letters to the companies that registered with
MICCI seeking for their consent to use their employees as the respondents of the study. Out
of 33 companies, 11 organizations agreed to participate. To determine the number of
respondents to be derived from each company, the researchers used the proportionate
stratified random sampling technique where the total number of operators of each company
was divided by the population’s number (51,000) and multiplied with 500.
Data collection process was done via questionnaire distributions. The questionnaires were
developed by altering several questionnaires related to ergonomic and work stress used in
previous research and there were also new questions developed by the researchers specially
to achieve the objectives of this research. Every item uses 5-point Likert scales i.e. (1) strictly
disagree, (2) disagree, (3) not sure, (4) agree and (5) strictly agree. The questionnaire
combines positive and negative items but during the coding process, the researchers did
reverse coded on all positive items. Thus the new scale is read as (1) strictly agree, (2) agree,
(3) not sure, (4) disagree and (5) strictly disagree.

Part I of the questionnaire contains items related to ergonomic workstation factors in the
organizations. It consists of human variables – body posture and health; machine variables –
tools suitability and maintenance; work area variables – chair and work area design; and
environment variables – humidity, acoustic, lighting, shiftwork, and working hour. All items
are adapted from research done by House and Rizzo (1972), Brief and Aldag (1976),
Lemasters and Atterbury (1996), Tate et al. (1997), Hedge and Erickson (1997), Miles
(2000), Hildebrandt et al. (2001), Nag and Nag (2004), and Tarcan et al. (2004).

In Part II, the questionnaire lists the physiological (somatic complaints), psychological
(fatigue and job dissatisfaction), and behavioral (intention to quit) elements. Modifications on
the items are based on work done by Camman et al. (1979), Karasek (1979), Ekman and
Ehrenberg (2002) and Mearns et al. (2003). Table 3 displays the items in the questionnaire.

A pilot study was run onto 204 production operators who work in one of the participating
MNCs. Some items were dropped and changed after the pilot test to ensure the validity and
reliability of the instrument. Statistical analysis on the pilot test involved data screening
process. The data were screened earlier to ensure the validity and reliability attributes are met
as well as to fulfill the multivariate assumptions. The evaluation consists of the reliability,
validity, normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and multicollinearity aspects.

15
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)

EDA process was carried out onto the data of the actual research by checking the missing
data and outlier. This process also validated the assumptions of multivariate analysis like
linearity, homocedasticity, heterocedasticity and multicollinearity. Table 1 shows that the
multicollinearity problem did not appear in the independent variables of the research. The
tolerance value showed that all independent variables reached a value more than 0.760 and
the VIF approaching 1. The condition index and eigenvalue also supported this circumstance
where there were no independent variables’ eigenvalues approaching 0. The condition index
showed only the working hour variable has the value more than 30. However, it was still
considered acceptable because its tolerance and VIF values were 0.814 and 1.229
respectively. These two statistical approaches are sufficient to confirm that the
multicollinearity problem did not exist.

Table 1: Collinearity statistics**

Collinearity Statistics
Model
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
Body posture .770 1.299
Health .767 1.304
Tools .832 1.203
Chair .847 1.181
Work area .826 1.211
Humidity .845 1.183
Acoustic .858 1.165
Lighting .875 1.143
Shiftwork .858 1.165
Working hour .814 1.229

**Statistics shows the collinearity analysis after the factor analysis being carried out.

Once the EDA was performed and the multivariate assumptions were fulfilled, the
researchers analyzed the validity (loading factor) and reliability (cronbach alpha) of every
variable. The results are shown in Table 3. From the table, it could be concluded that the
instrument used was valid and reliable.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

Table 2 shows the detailed analysis on the respondents’ backgrounds. Majority of the
respondents were women (81.6%). This situation is normal as majority of manufacturing
operator jobholders are women.

16
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Table 2: Respondents’ Demographic Information

Frequency %
Gender
Male 92 18.4
Female 408 81.6
Age
< 25 years old 188 37.6
26 – 30 years old 132 26.4
31 – 35 years old 64 12.8
36 – 40 years old 53 10.6
41 – 45 years old 49 9.8
> 46 years old 14 2.8
Education Attainment
LCE/SRP/PMR 96 19.2
MCE/SPM 316 63.2
HSC/STPM 41 8.2
Diploma 47 9.4
Monthly gross salary
< RM1000 332 66.4
RM1000 – RM1500 146 29.2
RM1501 – RM2000 19 3.8
RM2001 – RM2500 3 0.6
Shiftwork
Yes 421 84.2
No 79 15.8
Works shift schedule
Morning and evening 31 7.4
Morning and night 123 29.2
Morning, evening and night 91 21.6
Evening and night 3 0.7
Night 173 41.1
Total of working hour per week
36 hours – 45 hours 29 5.8
46 hours – 55 hours 323 64.6
56 hours – 65 hours 130 26.0
66 hours – 75 hours 13 2.6
76 hours – 85 hours 5 1.0

Table 3 shows the item loading and reliability on independent, dependent and moderating
variables. Factor loading for construct shows that it is suitable since the value for each
loading is exceeding 0.30 (Field, 2003; Aron et al., 2005). Even though there is low loading
value (approaching 0.30), this limitation was rectified by the significance sample size
(Guadagnoli and Velicer, 1988).

17
 ___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Table 3: Items loading and reliability on independent, dependent and moderating variables
Items and Scales Loading α
Body postures .79
My jobs need me to frequently stand up from my working chair. .38
My jobs need me to frequently carry heavy objects. .65
My jobs need me to stand in a long period. .58
I do the same movement in a long period. .51
I work in a discomfort body posture condition. .48
I do repetitive tasks and frequently use arm, hand, or fingers in a minute. .54
My jobs make me physically exhausted at the end of the day. .51
I always hunch to do my tasks at my workstation. .58
The arrangement at my work area and the seat at my workstation are congested.
.41
Health
I have problems to sleep. .73
Problems related to work make me always awake at night. .42
I feel tense my current job. .68
I always awake from sleep due to stiffness/ aching at my muscles or joints. .53
I have unsatisfactorily health level. .60
.48
Tools
Tools/ machine used for work are situated at a location.** .86
Tools used in operations are in good and satisfactorily condition.** .53
Organization provides highly technology tools/ machine.** .67
I feel satisfied with the tools/ machine used in the organization.** .65
I feel comfortable while using/ operating the tools/ machine in my organization.** .53
All tools/ machine breakdown would be repaired immediately by the
organization.** .52
Organization takes employees’ safety and health into considerations in choosing
suitable tools/ machines.** .62
Tools/ machines in the organization are safed to be used.**
Organization from time to time checks and maintains the tools/ machines to ensure .65
that they are in good conditions.** .67
Organization provides training on how to use/ operate the tools/ machines.**
.64
Working chair .41
I can adjust my working chair easily.**
My working chair is adjustable into various positions.** .84
My working chair is adjustable.** .70
.72
Work area design .81
My workstation provides me a comfortable working area.**
My work area’s environment is satisfactorily.** .70
.57
Humidity .48
Organizational’s internal temperature is too hot.
There is too little air movement in this organization. .78
The organization’s air is too dry. .60
There is unpleasant odour in the organization. .63
The organization’s air is stale. .67
.39
Acoustics .31
The noise level in my work area is satisfactorily.**
The workstation environment does not face any noise problem.** .71
Organization strives to minimize the noise level in my workstation area.** .48
.57

18
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Items and Scales Loading α

Lighting .48
The illumination at my work area is satisfactorily.**
Organization provides flexible lighting system.** .75
The bright lighting increases my job performance.** .64
Organization always ensures that I get enough lighting while performing my .74
tasks.** .48

Shiftwork .53
I like to work in shift system.**
My shiftwork schedule provides me sufficient rest.** .75
I feel satisfied with the organization’s shiftwork management.** .59
My social and personal life are not affected due to shiftwork.** .66
.72
Working hours .58
I feel satisfied with the working hours fixed by the organization.**
I am given sufficient rest in a working hour period.** .77
The fixed working hour does not affect my personal life.** .71
.56
*Notes: KMO = 0.856; Bartlett test of sphericity = 8314.8; p = 0.000 .61

Somatic complaints
Sometimes I feel burnout.
I easily feel annoy/ irritate with my workstation environment. .85
Work problems make me experience stomach upset. .43
Work problems make my heart beat goes faster than usual. .68
I lost my appetite due to work problems. .60
I easily get tired at work. .67
I do not have strengths to complete things I wish to do. .51
I feel burnout. .63
Tiredness due to work makes me depress and feel lazy to work. .56
.64
Job dissatisfaction .68
When thinking about work, I feel tired and temper.
I feel dissatisfied with my current jobs. .84
Generally, I dislike my current jobs. .50
I feel frustrated with my current jobs. .55
My jobs are repetitive and boring. .70
.83
Intention to quit .46
Generally, I like to work for this organization.**
I will strive for this organization’s development.** .84
I am proud to work in this organization.** .71
I will tell my friends that this organization is a good place to work with.** .78
I care so much about this organization’s fate.** .78
I have never thought about quitting form this organization and join other .63
companies.** .68

*Notes: KMO = 0.903; Bartlett test of sphericity = 4084.4; p = 0.000 .50

Loading based on varimax rotation. Total variance explained 63.7%.

**reverse coded item

19
 ___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Mean and standard deviation analysis

Lighting factor was perceived as the best as compared to the other factors. Its mean and
standard deviation was 2.19 and 0.43 respectively. The second best factor was tools (mean
2.22, standard deviation 0.33) and lastly, working hour (mean 2.32, standard deviation 0.58).
These three factors showed data distribution around the most minimum mean. Other factors
like shiftwork, work area design, humidity, and chair were considered as good with mean
value 2.40, 2.46, 2.56 and 2.71 respectively. Data distribution around the mean was between
0.64 and 0.98. Anthropometry factor was perceived as the poorest (mean 3.18, standard
deviation 0.69). Other factors that perceived as satisfactorily were health and acoustic with
the means and standard deviations of 2.99 (0.76) and 2.79 (0.73) respectively. As the
perception towards the ergonomic workstation factors were satisfactorily, the perception
towards the overall factors of ergonomic workstation was satisfactorily too (mean 2.63) with
data distribution around the mean 0.38. The minimum standard deviation enabled mean
analyzed be interpreted effectively. This condition also contributed to average perception
onto stress outcomes with mean 2.69 and standard deviation 0.53. The dependent variables
i.e. stress outcomes, which consist of somatic complaints, job dissatisfaction and intention to
quit, were perceived as satisfactorily. Majority of the respondents disagree that they have the
intention to quit (mean 2.27), experiencing job dissatisfaction (mean 2.66) and made somatic
complaints (mean 2.94).

Correlations analysis on ergonomics workstation factors and work stress

Table 4 exhibits that every ergonomics workstation factor had a significant relationship with
the stress outcomes (p<0.01). Among the factors, the health factor had the strongest
relationship with the stress outcomes at the workplace (r = 0.710). It was followed by
humidity (r = 0.365), working hour (r = 0.314), body postures aspect (r = 0.306), work area
design (r = 0.258), shiftwork (r = 0.217), lighting (r = 0.211), tools (r = 0.208), chair (r =
0.188) and acoustic system (r = 0.165).

Table 4: Correlations between independent variables and dependent variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Stress 1
2. Body postures .306** 1
3. Health .710** .375** 1
4. Tools .208** .230** .172** 1
5. Chair .188** .293** .154** .209** 1
6. Work area .258** .111* .108* .243** .160** 1
7. Humidity .365** .231** .299** .162** .127** .247** 1
8. Acoustics .165** .132** .144** .196** .241** .289** .119** 1
9. Lighting .211** .055 .181** .219** .148** .188** .102* .150** 1
10.Shiftwork .217** .017 .099* .166** .113* .111* .103* .098* .220** 1
11.Working hours .314** .102* .235** .228** .138** .191** .164** .151** .183** .325** 1
n = 500
* p < 0.05 (2-tailed)
** p < 0.01 (2-tailed)

20
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Multiple regression analysis

Table 5 demonstrates that 57.4 percent of changes in the stress outcomes at the workplace
were due to its relationship with health, work area design, shiftwork, humidity, and working
hour factors.

Table 5: Multiple correlation coefficients R and other statistics

Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-
Model R R Square
Square the Estimate Watson
1 .758(e) .574 .570 .34560 2.033

Table 6 displays the regression equation for every significant factor with the stress outcome
at the workplace.

Table 6: Regression equation and related statistics

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .513 .100 5.115 .000
Health .438 .022 .629 20.038 .000
Work area .109 .025 .133 4.322 .000
Shiftwork .073 .023 .098 3.140 .002
Humidity .092 .024 .120 3.778 .000
Working hour .082 .029 .089 2.777 .006

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The result of multiple regression analysis shows that 57.4 percent of the changes in stress
outcomes at the workplace were due to its relationship with health, work area design,
shiftwork, humidity and working hour factors. The remaining (42.6 percent) was caused by
other factors. Among the ergonomic workstation factors, the health factor has noticeable
effect onto stress outcomes at the workplace. It is followed by work area design, shiftwork,
humidity and working hour factors. The result is consistent with the outcome of Pearson
correlation analysis. The Pearson correlation analysis shows that the health factor has the
strongest relationship with the stress outcomes at the workplace. This finding supports
Shirom (1982), Tarcan et al. (2004), and Nag and Nag (2004) who stated that ergonomic
workstation could minimize the stress problem at the workplace. In addition to this
statement, Clark (2002) and Leaman (1995) also view that the extreme organizational
temperature could cause mental depression and disturb the work performance. Shiftwork also
must be given attention as several literatures pointed out that it relates closely to work stress
at the workplace (Tasto et al., 1978; Costa, 2003; Kundi, 2003). The finding also supports
Savery and Luks (2000), Cheng et al. (2001), Ahasan (2002), Clark (2002), Tucker (2003),
and Iacovides et al. (2003). They made a point that long working hour without proper rest
would increase depression and lead to stress.

21
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

This research findings affect all the theoretical, methodological and practical aspects. From
the theoretical perspective, it is claimed that ergonomic factors and components have impact
onto the human resources. This research which focusing on work stress proved that
ergonomic workstation influences the stress outcomes at the workplace. The researchers
found out that when the workstation is perceived as causing stress, it would bring about
somatic complaints, job dissatisfaction, and intention to quit. This research findings also give
implications onto the organizational management. Among all, the management must evaluate
every factor of the workstation in the research because it could minimize the negative effect
of work stress. Detail assessment should be done onto human resources’ health factors, work
area design, humidity, shiftwork, and the working hour as all these factors are significantly
related with the stress outcomes at the workplace (p<0.01). Multiple regression analysis
strengthens this finding by indicating that 57.4 percent of the stress outcomes changes are due
to the ergonomic workstation factors. All problems related to human resources like somatic
complaints, fatigue, job dissatisfaction, and intention to quit could be reduced once the
organizations improved their workstations ergonomically. To ensure the success of this
strategy, the management must assure that the work environment match the employees. This
match could be accomplished when the organizations identify the human resources
anthropometry characteristics and demands.

Future research
Researchers suggested few new aspects for consideration in future research related to
ergonomic and stress. The suggestions are:

(i) Future research should look into gender as a variable in describing the relationship
between ergonomic workstation and work stress.
(ii) Future researchers could incorporate the corporate culture elements and occupational
safety and health policies in describing the relationship between ergonomic
workstation and work stress.
(iii) Future researchers could administer detailed surveys on ergonomic practices in
Malaysian organizations and the information gathered could be used to form
databases related to ergonomic practices.

22
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

REFERENCES

Ahasan, R. & Imbeau, D. (2003). Who belongs to ergonomics? An examination of the human
factor community. Work Study, 52(3), 123-128.

Ahasan, R. 2002. Human Adaptation to Shift Work in Improving Health, Safety and
Productivity – Some Recommendations. Work Study. 51(1): 9-16.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Coups, E. J. 2005. Statistical for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bammer, K. & Newberry, B. H. (1982). Stress and Cancer. Toronto: Hogrefe.

Beckett, R. 1995. Are you Sitting Comfortably? Facilities. 13(12): 26-27.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. 1978. Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational
Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review. Personnel
Psychology. 31: 665-699.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. 1976. Correlates of Role Indices. Journal of Applied Psychology.
61(4): 468-472.

Cakir, A. (1995). Acceptance of the Adjustable Keyboard. Ergonomics. 38: 1728-1744.

Cheng, Y., Guo, Y-L. & Yeh, W-Y. (2001). A National Survey of Psychosocial Job Stressors
and their Implications for Health among Working People in Taiwan. International
Archives of Occupational Environmental Health. 74: 495-504.

Clark, J. 2002. Stress - A Management Guide, United States: Spiro Business Guides.

Cook, C., Burgess-Limerick, R., & Papalia, S. 2004. The Effect of Wrist Rests and Forearm
Support During Keyboard and Mouse Use. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics. 33: 463-472.

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall. J. 1976. Occupational Sources of Stress: A Review of the
Literature Relating To Coronary Heart Disease and Mental Ill Health. Journal of
Occupational Psychology. 49: 11-28.

Cooper, C. L., & Williams, J. 1991. A Validation Study of the OSI on a Blue-Collar Sample.
Stress Medicine. 7: 109-112.

Costa, G. 2003. Factors Influencing Health of Workers and Tolerance to Shift Work.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 4(3-4): 263-288.

Ekman, I., & Ehrenberg, A. 2002. Fatigue in Chronic Heart Failure – Does Gender Make a
Difference ? European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 1: 77-82.

Field, A. 2003. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for the
Beginner. Great Britain: Sage Publications Inc.

23
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. 1988. Relation of Sample Size to the Stability of Component
Patterns. Psychological Bulletin. 103: 265-275.

Hedge, A., & Erickson, W. A. 1997. A Study of Indoor Environment and Sick Building
Syndrome Complaints in Air Conditioned Offices: Benchmarks for Facility
Performance. International Journal of Facilities Management. 1(4): 185-192.

Hildebrandt, V. H., Bongers, P. M., & van Dijk, F. J. 2001. Dutch Musculoskeletal
Questionnaire: Description and Basic Qualities. Ergonomics. 44: 1038-1055.

House, R. J., & Rizzo. 1972. Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Critical Variables in a Model of
Organizational Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 7: 467-
505.

Iacovides, A., Fountoulakis, K. N., Kaprinis, St., & Kaprinis, G. 2003. The Relationship
Between Job Stress, Burnout and Clinical Depression. Journal of Affective Disorders.
75: 209-221.

Jamieson, D. W., & Graves, R. J. 1998. Determining Ergonomic Factors in Stress from Work
Demands of Nurses. In: Hanson, M. A. ed. Contemporary Ergonomics. London:
Taylor & Francis. 162-166.

Joseph, B. S. (2003). Corporate Ergonomics Program at Ford Motor Company. Applied

Ergonomics. 34(1): 23-28.

Karasek, R. 1979. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude and Mental Strain: Implications for
Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24: 285-308.

Karsh, B., Moro, F. B. P. dan Smith, M. J. (2001). The Efficacy of Workplace Ergonomic
Interventions to Control Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Critical Analysis of the Peer-
Reviewed Literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 2(1): 23-96.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 1979. Organizational Stress: A Call for Management Action. Sloan
Management Review. 21(1): 3-14.

Konz, S. A., & Rys, M. J. 2002/2003. An Ergonomics Approach to Standing Aids.

Occupational Ergonomics. 3: 165-172.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30: 607-610.

Kundi, M. 2003. Ergonomic Criteria for the Evaluation of Shift Schedules. Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science. 4(3-4): 302-318.

Leaman, A. 1995. Dissatisfaction and Office Productivity. Facilities. 13(2): 13-19.

Lemasters, G. K., & Atterbury, M. R. 1996. The Design and Evaluation of a Musculoskeletal
and Work History Questionnaire. In Amit Bhattacharya and James D. McGlothlin
(Eds), Occupational Ergonomics: Theory and Applications, New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc., 431-461.

24
___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Liang, Y., & Xiang, Q. 2004. Occupational Health Services in PR China. Toxicology. 198:
45-54.

Matteson, M. T. dan Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). Organizational Stressors and Heart Disease: A

Research Model. The Academy of Management Review. 4(3): 347-357.

McGrath, A., Reid, N. & Boore, J. (2003). Occupational Stress in Nursing. International
Journal of Nursing Studies. 40: 555-565.

McLean, A. A. (Ed.). (1974). Occupational Stress. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.

McShane, S. L. dan Von Glinow, M. A. (2005). Organizational Behavior. 3rd ed. United
States of America: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. 2003. Safety Climate, Safety Management Practice
and Safety Performance in Offshore Environments. Safety Science. 41: 641-680.

Melamed, S., Luz, J., & Green, M. S. 1992. Noise Exposure, Noise Annoyance and their
Relation to Psychological Distress, Accident and Sickness Absence among Blue-
Collar Workers – The Cordis Study. Israel Journal Medical Science. 28(8): 629-635.

Miles, A. K. 2000. The Ergonomics and Organizational Stress Relationship. The Florida
State University: Ph.D. Thesis.

Minter, S. G. 1999. Too Much Stress? Occupational Hazards. 61(5): 49-52.

Mirka, G. A., Monroe, M., Nay, T., Lipscomb, H. & Kelaher, D. (2003). Ergonomics
Interventions for the Reduction of Low Back Stress in Framing Carpenters in the
Home Building Industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 31: 397-
409.

Mohamad Khan Jamal Khan, Nor Azimah Chew Abdullah, & Ab. Aziz Yusof. 2005.
Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan dalam Organisasi. Selangor: Prentice Hall.

Nag, A., & Nag, P. K. 2004. Do the Work Stress Factors of Women Telephone Operators
Change with the Shift Schedules? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 33:
449-461.

Noblet, A., Rodwell, J., & McWilliams, J. 2001. The Job Strain Model is Enough for
Managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 16(8): 635-649.
Piko, B. F. 2006. Burnout, Role Conflict, Job Satisfaction and Psychosocial Health Among
Hungarian Health Care Staff: A Questionnaire Survey. International Journal of
Nursing Studies. 43: 311-318.

Savery, L. K., & Luks, J. A. 2000. Long Hours at Work: Are They Dangerous and do People
Consent to them? Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 21(6): 307-310.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. 2005. Organizational Behavior. 9th ed.
United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

25
 ___________________________________________________________ Malaysia Labour Review vol. 3, no. 2:12-26, 2009

Selye, H. (1956). The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.

Shahnavaz, H. 1996. Making Ergonomics a World-Wide Concept. Ergonomics. 39(12):

1391-1402.

Sharpley, C. F., Reynolds, R., Acosta, A., & Dua, J. K. 1996. The Presence, Nature and
Effects of Job Stress on Physical and Psychological Health at a Large Australian
University. Journal of Educational Administration. 34(4): 73-86.

Shikdar, A. A., & Sawaqed, N. M. 2003. Worker Productivity, and Occupational Health and
Safety Issues in Selected Industries. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 45(4):
563-572.

Smith, A., Thomas, M., & Whitney, H. 2000. After-Effects of the Common Cold on Mood
and Performance. Ergonomics. 43(9): 1342-1349.

Sutton, R. I. and Rafaeli, A. 1987. Characteristics of Work Stations As Potential

Occupational Stressors. Academy of Management Journal. 30(2): 260-276.

Tarcan, E., Varol, E. S., & Ates, M. 2004. A Qualitative Study of Facilities and their
Environmental Performance. Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal. 15(2): 154-173.

Tasto, D. L., Colligan, M. J., Skjei, E. W., & Polly, S. J. 1978. Health Consequences of
Shiftwork. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Tate, U., Whatley, A., & Clugston, M. 1997. Sources and Outcomes of Job Tension: A
Three-Nation Study. International Journal of Management. 3: 350-358.

Tucker, P. 2003. The Impact of Rest Breaks Upon Accident Risk, Fatigue and Performance:
A Review. Work & Stress. 17(2): 123-137.

Warr, P. dan Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee Characteristics and the Outcomes of Open Learning.
Learning Psychology. 48: 347-375.

Williams, S., & Cooper, L. 2002. Managing Workplace Stress. Great Britain: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

Yeow, P. H. P., & Nath Sen, R. 2003. Quality, Productivity, Occupational Health and Safety
and Cost Effectiveness of Ergonomic Improvements in the Test Workstations of an
Electronic Factory. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 32(3): 147-163.

26

View publication stats