BO A Brief Measure of Organizational Wellness Climate

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
J Occup Environ Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 December 01.
Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

J Occup Environ Med. 2019 December ; 61(12): 1052–1064. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001739.
A Brief Measure of Organizational Wellness Climate:

Initial Validation and Focus on Small Businesses and Substance Misuse
G. Shawn Reynolds, PhD, Joel B. Bennett, PhD

Organizational Wellness and Learning Systems, Fort Worth, Texas.
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Objective: Organizations with fewer than 100 employees comprise most businesses in the United
States. Since small businesses lack comparable resources, they may benefit from a simple valid
tool for broadly assessing positive wellness climate, especially because climate contributes to
employee wellbeing.
Methods: Using an ethnically and occupationally diverse sample of 45 businesses (n = 1512), the
current study developed and tested a brief self-report measure of organizational wellness climate.
Results: Confirmatory factor analysis shows that a 9-item measure has good model fit (RMSEA
= 0.06, CFI = 0.91), inter-item consistency of 0.74, and mean Rwg(j) of 0.87. The new measure is
significantly positively correlated with physical health and wellbeing, and negatively correlated
with substance use behavior.
Conclusions: Findings indicate that a 9-item measure has good reliability, construct, and
Author Manuscript
criterion validity. Implications for practical use of the measure are discussed.
Keywords
alcohol; binge drinking; climate; drug; employee assistance; health; measure; measurement;
multilevel; policy; scale; small business; substance; wellbeing; wellness; work; workplace;
worksite
While most health promotion efforts focus on the individual worker, broader forces in
workplace cultures and systems impact employee stress and mental health.1,2 Local
organizational climate in particular appears to play a significant role in mental wellbeing,3
employee engagement,4 and responsiveness to health promotion.5 Organizational climate is
the shared perceptions and meanings associated with the policies, practices, and social
Author Manuscript
norms in the workplace.6 Organizational climate is distinct from culture.7 Generally, culture
is defined at a more macro-level than climate, and includes the shared assumptions, values,
and beliefs that guide employee behavior in an organization.6
Most research on climate has been conducted in larger corporations,8 even though the
majority of United States businesses operate with fewer than 100 employees.9 In a recent
Requests for reprints may be sent to OWLS at 3200 Riverfront Dr., Ste. 102, Fort Worth, TX 76107
(Learn@organizationalwellness.com). Address correspondence to: G. Shawn Reynolds, PhD, 3200 Riverfront Dr., Ste. 102, Fort
Worth, TX 76107 (shawnreynolds@mail.com).
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Reynolds and Bennett Page 2
review of evidence-based elements of healthy culture,10 only two of 62 quantitative studies

were conducted with small businesses.11,12 At the same time, studies on small business
Author Manuscript
health promotion have grown in the past 10 years.13–15 This includes publications from the
current sample, where the focus has been understanding substance abuse.16–18
There are essential differences between large and small businesses in the way that the social
climate, impacts employee health and productivity.19 Several studies suggest that the more
intimate smallness of an enterprise may facilitate health behavior.20–22 For example, the
positive impact of peer-to-peer support on health may be enhanced in a denser or less diffuse
social network.23,24 The lack of health promotion has been cited as a major concern in small
business studies.20,25 Small businesses have less resources for health insurance to cover risks
and are also less likely to have dedicated staff for preventing risks. Hence, it may be
important to assess and leverage peer support when designing health promotion for small
businesses.26 In this regard, research suggests social factors may be worth targeting in
Author Manuscript
wellness climate assessments. Such factors include psychological safety,27 trust at work,28
inclusiveness,29 self-expression (cf. “Speaking up,”),30,31 and coworker interest or care for
one another.22 Each of these relate to employee health and wellbeing.
The aim of this study is to develop a brief, employee self-report questionnaire of

organizational wellness climate (OWC) that would: (1) help small business owners take the
pulse of the organization with a tool that is easy to use; (2) demonstrate sufficient
psychometric reliability and validity; (3) predict individual physical health and mental
wellbeing, including measures of alcohol or drug-related problems; and (4) capture the
myriad elements from a longer assessment of OWC with as few items as possible. Achieving
the last goal—by selecting the right type and number of items—was the primary focus of the
current study.
Author Manuscript
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FOR WELLNESS

In an often-cited paper on climate assessment, Schneider and Reichers32 argue that climate
is always “for” something specific; for example, a climate for customer service. Insight into
how climate may affect health comes from studies linking behavior-specific climates to
physical health or safety33,34 and mental health or psychological safety.35 Wellness climate
is a climate for both physical and mental health.
Our definition of wellness climate directly follows from the original by Jones and James36:
“Psychological climate is defined as the individual employee’s perception of the
psychological impact of the work environment on his or her own wellbeing.” When
employees in a particular work group share the same perceptions of their work environment,
Author Manuscript
then ratings can be aggregated to form a measure of organizational climate.36,37 Specifically,

we define organizational wellness climate (OWC) as employee perceptions of coworker
relationships, policies, and social norms that support optimizing wellness. This definition
captures organizational policy and procedures as well as aspects of the close-peer work
relationships that promote wellness in smaller organizations. We propose that a brief
measure can validly and reliably assess OWC in small organizations.
As OWC can contain the full breadth of positive elements of wellness climate, the challenge
Author Manuscript
in crafting a short measure lies in selecting the right combination of representative elements
while preserving meaning, utility, and comprehensiveness. Too many items sacrifice utility.
Too few items sacrifice meaning and comprehensiveness. To meet this challenge, we
selected items in three steps. We: (1) identified climate dimensions representing key OWC
domains, as suggested from pre-existing literature; (2) reviewed existing measures,
especially those that revealed limitations we could overcome; and (3) considered the climate
of coworker relationships or “intimate smallness” of small businesses and identified
elements from our own experience interviewing small business owners that were also
supported by the literature.
Identifying Wellness Climate Domains in Existing Studies

A literature search helped to identify: (a) measures of work climates for “health,”
Author Manuscript
“wellness,” or “psychosocial safety”33–44; as well as (b) models45 or syntheses of the

research literature10 on climates and cultures that support health. Several climate categories
were referenced repeatedly, especially pertaining to work group relationships (eg, coworker
respect, fairness, trust, interdependence, and team work), followed by reference to
workplace efforts to empower workers and create inclusiveness, and by perceived leadership
support for health and wellbeing. Other dimensions cited included supportive policies and
procedures, and a climate that supports reduced job stress and work–life balance.
For example, Flynn’s et al10 review of 95 wellness culture studies identified 24 distinct
elements, many relating to social factors (communications, peer support, employee
involvement and empowerment, social norms, relationship development, and shared values).
Over 70 of the studies considered these factors to be a key part of a culture of health. In
addition, 30 studies assessed training and investment in worker development.
Author Manuscript
Limitations of Current Measures

We did not find brief measures of general health climate for physical and mental wellbeing.
Existing measures are either long, assessing multifactorial health climate, or are brief
assessments of a specific climate feature. Most studies use fairly long assessment tools with
many subdimensions. Gershon et al41 identified 12 measurement instruments previously
used in the research literature. These measures ranged from 18 to 120 items (averaging
about 70 items) and contained a total of 116 sub-constructs. There are other examples of
long measures of organizational healthy climate.42,43 A 64-item measure used by Ribisl and
Reischl33 assesses 12 factors focused on perceived norms for health. Langford43 has
conducted several studies with a 102-item measure directed at over 30 “lower-order”
constructs. The assessments that were just referenced help in organizational development
Author Manuscript
efforts for larger organizations. Scoring and help with interpreting the role of climate
typically requires hiring consultants, which is prohibitive for small businesses. Shorter
measures take less time and fewer burdens on productivity.
Recently, Zweber et al,34 developed a 9-item measure of health climate. Items primarily
refer to “health” or “healthy behavior,” prompting the authors to discuss concern that their
measure is too focused on physical health. Hall et al,35 have also established validity for a
brief measure of “psychosocial safety climate,” but this measure is focused on climate for
Author Manuscript
psychological health. OWC includes both of these concepts.
Substance Use and Other Considerations

We expected that items tied to work group relations (eg, trust, group cohesion) would be
relevant in small businesses and promote healthy substance use, as research has shown that
positive social aspects of the work environment protect against alcohol or drug (AOD)
abuse.39,46 Conversely, workplace social norms that promote drinking (cf. drinking climate,
permissive drinking norms) has been repeatedly shown to be a risk factor for problem
drinking and other counterproductive behaviors.47–51 Both the prevalence of, and
consequences from, AOD use are more problematic in smaller businesses that typically lack
policies, drug-testing, and health insurance.52–54 This includes expectations about privacy, as
confidentiality promotes help-seeking for addiction and mental health.55
Author Manuscript
The review also suggested the importance of social support and inclusiveness. Workplace
social support has been measured extensively56,57 and respectful treatment of coworkers has
been shown to promote health and wellbeing.58 Trust and a sense of belonging fosters both
readiness to change59 and willingness to seek assistance from the employee assistance
program.60
Diversity has been shown to predict small business performance.61 Inclusiveness, or

appreciation of diversity, allows for the positive health effects derived from self-expression
of lifestyle and culture,40 and enhances the wellbeing of minorities or underserved
populations often employed in small businesses.62 Related to inclusiveness is psychological
safety or the ability to speak up without fear of reprimand. Psychosocial safety climate
extends the concept of safety to aspects of the organizational climate, including support for
Author Manuscript
stress prevention through senior managements’ involvement and commitment, prioritizing

employee wellbeing over productivity, listening to employees, and consultation with unions
and health and safety representatives.35
MULTILEVEL MEASUREMENT OF CLIMATE

Climate research often focuses on individual perceptions, which makes sense when the goal
is to motivate individual behavior. However, businesses wanting to improve their overall
work environment may benefit from an organizational-level measure, as suggested by
studies in both safety climate and ethical climate.63,64 To our knowledge, there currently is
no established method for brief assessment of an organizational-level wellness climate
especially for small businesses. Researchers posit that business-level phenomenon can be
evaluated by averaging employee responses to form an aggregate indicator.7 Aggregate
Author Manuscript
measures accurately characterize an organization to the extent there is agreement between

the employees.65 As the goal of the current study was to develop a valid measure, we
assessed agreement within businesses and conducted cross-level validity analyses between
aggregate OWC and individual-level health and substance use behaviors.
Hypotheses
Author Manuscript
Developing the OWC measure involved addressing general questions, including: what is the
shortest measure of OWC that can be derived from a long multi-dimensional measure that
has similar psychometrics as the long measure? Can the items all be combined into a single
factor? What is the within-business-agreement on perceptions of climate? Can the measure
be aggregated and used as a business-level metric?
Once a candidate short measure has been developed, we have specific questions about its
validity and how it compares with a longer measure. We evaluated validity based on
assumptions from a multi-level theoretical model of workplace risk and protective factors
that promote employee wellbeing.46 We postulated that: (1) climate is multi-dimensional
(see above references); (2) climate has positive (wellness) and negative (unhealthy) factors
that, respectively, have both positive and negative influences on health; (3) positive wellness
Author Manuscript
climate factors will be negatively correlated with unhealthy climate factors (eg,
stigmatization of help-seeking, permissive drinking norms, coworker incivility); (4) while
unhealthy factors may lead to diminished health, in contrast, wellness factors should be
associated with greater wellbeing, and fewer behavioral risks such as substance use. We
derive specific hypotheses from this reasoning to test the validity of an individual-level and
an aggregate organizational-level OWC measure. We test the same hypotheses for both
levels of measurement, because we expect that both are valid measures of OWC, one
assesses individual perceptions and one assesses the organizational quality.
This study has several goals for testing validity. First, to establish convergent validity, the
study examines the correlation between OWC and other climate measures. The OWC
measure should correlate in a positive direction with other wellbeing-related climate
measures and show inverse relationships with unhealthy climate measures. Importantly, a
Author Manuscript
brief OWC measure should perform on par with a longer measure in assessment of these
relationships. Second, to establish criterion validity, the OWC measure should predict a
variety of health and substance use behaviors. Finally, discriminant validity can be
established by showing that OWC has relatively weaker or stronger correlations with
behaviors as compared with a separate climate measure.
To test divergent validity in the current study, we selected an established measure of

workplace permissive drinking norms. We assessed whether the OWC measure is relatively
uncorrelated with the drinking norms measure using the average variance extracted (AVE)
test,66,67 and the multimethod multitrait matrix (MMTM).68,69 The logic of MMTM
suggests that a measure has discriminant validity if it does not correlate with unrelated
constructs. Following this logic, and because the current study also focuses on substance
Author Manuscript
use, we hypothesized that drinking norms should be more strongly associated with AOD
measures than physical health measures, and OWC should better predict physical health and
wellbeing than AOD measures.
In summary, we expect that OWC will be positively correlated with workgroup cohesion and
supervisor support for safety, and negatively correlated with alcohol drinking norms,
perceived stigma of getting help for alcohol problems, and coworker incivility.
Hypothesis 1a: OWC will be positively correlated with group cohesion and supervisor
Author Manuscript
support for safety.
Hypothesis 1b: OWC will be negatively correlated with domains of unhealthy climate:
alcohol drinking norms, perceived stigmatization of alcohol misuse, and coworker incivility.
To test criterion validity, we expect that OWC will predict health, wellbeing, and substance
use behavior.
Hypothesis 2: OWC will be positively correlated with physical health and mental wellbeing,
and negatively correlated with perceived stress, work-to-family/life conflict, alcohol and
drug use, and work-related alcohol problems.
To assess divergent validity, we expect that the AVE from the OWC items will be greater
than the correlation between OWC and drinking norms. Also, the OWC measure will have a
Author Manuscript
larger correlation (absolute value) with health and a smaller correlation with alcohol
problems compared with the correlations between drinking norms, health, and alcohol
problems.
Hypothesis 3a: The average variance extracted from the items that make up the OWC will be
greater than the correlation between drinking norms and OWC.
Hypothesis 3b: The correlation between OWC and physical health will be larger than the
correlation between drinking norms and physical health.
Hypothesis 3c: The correlation between OWC and work-related alcohol problems will be
smaller than the correlation between drinking norms and work-related alcohol problems.
Author Manuscript
METHODS
Data
The data were collected during a randomized controlled trial of two health promotion
programs in 2002. Participants were employees recruited from small businesses (less than
500 employees) within and surrounding a southwestern urban Metroplex in industries
identified as high risk for alcohol or drug abuse in a report of results from the National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse.70 The sampling strategy included both random and
convenience methods. At the start of the project, businesses that met criteria regarding size,
county, and industry were randomly selected from Dun and Bradstreet (D&B;
www.dnb.com) to make a list of 75 businesses. After all businesses in a list were contacted,
a new list was compiled. After the entire D&B database was exhausted, a convenience
Author Manuscript
sample was used, which included referrals obtained through phonebook listings, listings
from minority chambers of commerce, and networking at small business events. When a
business agreed to participate, we asked owners and managers to encourage worker
participation and permit us to post flyers and directly contact workers on-site during the
workday.
Questionnaires were collected from employees at their workplaces 1-to-4 weeks before
Author Manuscript
(baseline), 1-to-4 weeks after, and 6 months after attending either of two trainings or a no-
training control group. Data from the baseline assessments were used for the majority of
analyses in this study. Data from the baseline and posttest assessments for only the control
group were used to calculate test-retest reliability estimates.
Participants
A total of 45 businesses with 1512 employees agreed to participate and completed the
baseline questionnaire. Because the main purpose of this study was to study substance abuse
prevention, efforts were made to select businesses in industries known to have generally
higher risks for substance abuse: construction, food service, hospitality, and transportation/
materials moving.71 The number of employees per business ranged from 2 to 359 with an
average of about 33 employees per business. The sample was diverse in terms of ethnicity
Author Manuscript
(28% Hispanic, 16% African American, 2% Native American Indian); business type (53%
service, 29% construction, and 18% materials moving); age (18% young employees aged 18
to 30, 24% aged 31 to 40, and 58% older than 40); and sex (56% women). More than three-
fourths (78%) had completed high school: 37% completed high school, 24% some college,
and 17% college or higher.
Measures
Wellbeing Related Climate—Items from five scales were selected based on health-
promoting climate factors identified in the literature review. Eight items from a multi-
dimensional measure of organizational wellness39 served as a starting basis for a short-form
OWC. These items assessed workgroup and organizational aspects related to wellness,
including perceiving coworkers to be truthful, full of vitality, appreciative of cultural
Author Manuscript
differences, conflict avoidant, and able to easily forget about job pressures when the
workday is over. Items also asked if health and safety is a workgroup priority, if the
workplace offers health and wellness classes, and whether policies are flexible to meet
personal and family needs.
Additional items from four domains assessed other (potentially overlapping) factors
described in the climate literature: group cohesion; supervisor support for safety; privacy
regulation norms; and a manageable (vs hectic) work pace. A five-item scale measured
group cohesion40 (sample item: “When I face a difficult job, my coworkers can be counted
on to help me out”). Five items assessed supervisor support for safety72 (sample item: “My
supervisor approaches workers during work to discuss safety issues”). These items do not
represent a comprehensive measure of safety climate. We used this measure of supervisor
support, because it assesses several dimensions of OWC identified in the review, including
Author Manuscript
leadership support, communication, and physical safety. Four items assessed privacy
regulation73 (sample item: “People in my work group are able to keep secrets about an
employee’s personal concerns that they may know about”), and two items were included to
assess a manageable work pace (sample item: “Overall, time, schedules, and work flow
seem to be well managed and under control”). These two positively-worded items were
adapted from a longer measure of work pace (see below).74,75
The items assessing privacy regulation and manageable work pace were only included in the
Author Manuscript
pool of potential items for the OWC measure, and were not analyzed further as independent
variables. Independent measurements of group cohesion and supervisor support for safety
excluded items taken to form the short OWC measure. Therefore, the measure of group
cohesion was the average of four items (M = 3.41, SD = 0.80, α = 0.61) and the measure
supervisor support of for safety was the average of four items (M = 3.37, SD = 0.75, α =
0.67).
Responses to all the wellness climate items ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly
agree. As described below, iterative factor analyses led to the development of a final 9-item
short-form OWC measure (OWC-9; M = 3.29, SD = 0.63, α = 0.74). For comparison to this
short-form measure, all of the original 24 items were averaged for a long-form measure
(OWC-24; M = 3.31, SD = 0.52, α = 0.84).
Author Manuscript
Unhealthy (Risky) Climate—Based on previous studies of behavioral risk factors in the

work climate38,76 we selected five aspects of an unhealthy or health-risky climate:
workgroup (permissive) drinking norms; perceived stigma; hectic work pace; exposure to
coworker substance use; and coworker incivility. Responses to all items ranged from (1)
never to (5) almost always. Four items assessed drinking norms77: drinking together off the
job; talking at work about drinking; getting together just to get drunk; and alcohol available
at work-related parties (M = 1.88, SD = 0.82, α = 0.77). Four items assessed perceived
stigma of seeking help for substance use disorders,78 such as, “My coworkers would think
negatively of someone who had gone to a counselor to get help for a drug or alcohol
problem” (M = 2.60, SD = 0.88, α = 0.77). Four items assessed hectic work pace, which
were created for this study. This four-item scale was derived from eight items obtained from
or adapted from a number of recent studies on hectic work pace.74,75 Two of the items were
Author Manuscript
worded positively and therefore included in the item pool for the positive dimension of
wellness climate described above. Examples of the negative/risky hectic work pace items
include: “The work pace often feels rushed,” and “People here often complain about not
being able to get work done on time.” The mean response to these two items was 3.18 (SD =
0.82, α = 0.67).
Two measures assessed exposure to problems from coworkers and were derived from a
longer exposure to problem coworkers scale.79 Participants were asked, “In the past 6
months, how many times have you experienced any of the following problems below, while
at work and from coworkers or supervisors?” This question was followed by a list of nine
behaviors and a five-point response set: “0 None” to “Four or more.” A measure of exposure
to coworker AOD problems was formed by averaging responses to five problems: coworkers
Author Manuscript
drinking alcohol, being affected by alcohol, under the influence of illegal drugs, selling
drugs, and picking up the slack for a fellow employee whose drinking and drug problem was
affecting their work (M = 1.33, SD = 0.68, α = 0.75). A measure of incivility was coworker
the average of responses to the other four problems experienced at work, including (1)
verbal abuse, anger, or rudeness from coworker or supervisor; (2) coworker failed to get help
for a personal problem, resulting in productivity or safety problems, (3) sexual harassment
from a coworker either toward you or someone else, and (4) had to do extra work because
one or more coworkers failed to follow instructions or fulfill duties or called in sick. (M =
1.84, SD = .87, α = 0.63).
Author Manuscript
Health and Wellbeing—Physical health was assessed with eight items selected from
commonly used checklists of physical ailments associated with somatic stress.80–82 Each
item assessed the frequency of a specific physical symptom (fatigue, muscle tension,
nervous or irritable, headache, nausea, cold/flu, sadness, difficulty sleeping). Responses
ranged from “Not at all (1),” “Rarely (2),” “Sometimes (3),” “Often (4),” to “Almost Always
(5).” These items were reverse-scored and averaged to form a measure of physical health (M
= 3.51, SD = 1.13, α = 0.85). A 16-item measure examined perceived wellbeing on different
dimensions (spiritual, social, and emotional). Factor analysis in Adams et al83 and in the
current sample suggested the items are measuring a single factor. All the items were
averaged to create the measure of wellbeing (M = 3.47, SD = 0.42, α = 0.81). Perceived job
stress was assessed with five items (sample item: “I am constantly under heavy pressure in
Author Manuscript
my job”).73 Responses ranged from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, and averaged
together to form the measure (M = 2.73, SD = 0.90, α = 0.83).
Four items assessing the extent to which work-related stress was interfering with family life
were averaged for a measure of work-to-family/life conflict (sample item: “My work takes
up time that I’d like to spend with my family/friends”).84 Responses used the same five-
point scale as above (M = 2.71, SD 0.83, α = 0.68). Four items were also included to assess
family/life-to-work conflict.84 An example item is, “I am too tired at work because of the
things I have to do at home.” Responses used the same five-point scale as above (M = 1.96,
SD = 0.63, α = 0.62).
Diet difficulty was assessed with responses to four questions asking how often the
Author Manuscript
participant had trouble with each of aspects of four diet/eating problems, including eating
too much at meals, having difficulty controlling eating when drinking alcohol and when
feeling positive, or after a difficulty day at work. These items have been developed and used
in previous studies as “dietary self-efficacy.”85,86 Responses ranged from (1) never to (5)
almost always and were averaged together to form the measure (M = 1.99, SD =0.70, α =
0.64, test-retest r = 0.70).
A previously developed set of questions17 asked how often participants performed each of
eight unwinding behaviors: call or spend time with friends, meditate or pray, entertainment
(watch TV, read, go to movies, etc), exercise, take an over-the counter (OTC) drug, drink
alcohol, smoke cigarettes/chew tobacco, and take other drugs. Responses ranged from (1)
not at all to (5) very often. One item asked how often the behavior was used to relax, forget
worries, and cope with stress in general, and a separate item asked how often it was used to
Author Manuscript
relax after work, such that a total of two ratings were given for each behavior. Ratings were
averaged for the ratings of the four positive behaviors (8-items total; M = 3.03, SD = 0.66, α
= 0.73, test-retest r = 0.65) and ratings of the five negative behaviors (10-items total; M =
1.85, SD = 0.63, a 0.75, test-retest r = 0.69) to form two measures of unwinding, positive,
and negative.
Substance Use Behaviors—Number of days of alcohol use was used to construct a

Author Manuscript
measure of drinking frequency and was assessed with a single item from the SAMHSA’s
GPRA performance measures,87 which asked “During the past 30 days how many days have
you used any alcohol?” Responses ranged from 0 to 30 and were categorized into five
groups: 0 days, 1 to 5 days, 6 to 15 days, 16 to 21 days, and 23 to 30 days. Total scores
ranged from 0 to 4 (M = 0.73; SD = 1.03; test-retest r = 0.74).
An additional item asked how many days out of the past 30 had the participant consumed
five or more drinks on the same occasion. Responses indicated the number of days of binge
drinking in the past 30 days (15% [n = 225] reported binge drinking). Responses of 5 days
or more of binge drinking in the past month indicated recurring binge drinking, coded as 0 =
no and 1 = yes (n = 87, 5.8% indicating yes). Similar items asked how many days in the past
30 did the respondent use illicit drugs, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, hallucinogens, or
other drugs. There were relatively few positive responses to these items, so the items were
Author Manuscript
combined to form two measures indicating any substance use (40% indicating yes) and any
recurrent binge drinking or drug use (6% indicating yes). A separate item assessed whether
the employee had smoked any cigarettes in the past 30 days (61% indicating yes). These
measures of substance use have appeared in reports on the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health.88
Four items were used to create a composite measure of work-related alcohol problems
experienced in the past 6 months.89,90 These included going to work with a hangover,
missing work, or calling in sick because of a hangover, working while under the influence of
alcohol, and generally not working as well or as long (eg, taking longer-than-usual breaks or
lunches) because of alcohol use. Each item was dichotomized to represent the presence or
absence of each type of problem (1 = one or more times and 0 = never) and were compiled
Author Manuscript
to assess any work-related alcohol problems, representing indication of any problem (1)
versus no problems (0) with 13% of the sample reporting a problem (M = 0.13; SD = 0.33, α
= 0.57). The low internal consistency reliability for this measure should not be a concern,
because we do not combine the items in an additive way. Instead, we examine whether any
of the problems or no problem was experienced.
Employee Characteristics—Raw models were compared with adjusted models that

included educational background, sex, ethnicity, and age as covariates, because these
variables are independently associated with the criterion measures selected for this study.
Sex was coded 1 for male, and 2 for female. Ethnicity was assessed with five dichotomous
measures, each coded, 1 for the ethnic group (Caucasian, Hispanic or Latino, African-
American, Asian, or American Indian), and 2 for not the ethnic group. Education level was
Author Manuscript
coded for four levels corresponding to less than 12 years, 12 years (high school), 13 to 15
years (some college), and completed 16 years (obtaining a 4-year or postgraduate degree).
Age was coded for three groups, 1 = 30 and under, 2 = 31 to 40, 3 = over 40.
Analysis Plan—We applied a theory of item analysis and scale development typically
used for developing a self-report measure91 with the goal of creating a short-form measure
that would have sufficient validity as compared with the longer form. We began by selecting
items used to assess components of organizational climate (as described above), and
administered them in a questionnaire that also assessed health, stress, wellbeing, and
Author Manuscript
substance use. We assigned a number code to each business and used Microsoft Excel to
randomly select half of the codes to equally split the sample. Exploratory factor analysis was
conducted with the first subsample. Factor analysis (FA) using maximum likelihood
estimation with oblimin rotation examined the number of factors. Principal components
analysis (PCA) assessed how much each item correlated with the single underlying
construct. Factor loadings from the FA and PCA were used in conjunction with results from
reliability analyses to identify items that may be omitted, following guidelines for shortening
scales.92 Items were retained if they (1) represented a unique aspect of OWC or loaded on a
factor determined as interpretable from the FA results, (2) had the strongest factor loadings,
(3) resulted in a scale with the same factor structure as a longer measure (including all
items), and (4) resulted in a scale that had equal or greater reliability as a longer measure.
Once a candidate shorter scale was identified, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
Author Manuscript
on the second half subsample of the businesses using maximum likelihood estimation and
oblimin rotation. Subsequent validity analysis were conducted on the OWC scale that met
psychometric criteria, including, acceptable model fit statistics (Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation [RMSEA] < 0.10, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08)93;
Cronbach α above 0.70, significant factor loadings above 0.30, and the average within-
business agreement (Rwg(j); across j items) greater than 0.70.65 Rwg(j) for each business
was computed as described in LeBreton and Senter.94 Intraclass correlations (ICC(1)) are
reported as the proportion of variance between businesses divided by the total variance
between and within businesses.
Validity analyses were conducted using the whole sample of 45 businesses, and included
individual-level and cross-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis. Analyses were
Author Manuscript
conducted using random coefficient multilevel modeling with robust maximum likelihood
estimation using Mplus v.8 to account for the nonindependence of nested data within
businesses. Raw and partial coefficients were computed between individual- and business-
level climate and several health and substance use behavior variables. Cross-level
coefficients were estimated between the aggregate business-level OWC scores and
individual-level health and substance use behaviors. Associations between business-level
climate measures were estimated with Pearson correlations. Dichotomous measures were
analyzed with logistic HLM. Raw models were compared with adjusted models that
included educational background, sex, ethnicity, and age as covariates. To test the
discriminant validity, we calculated the AVE of the OWC and drinking norms measures;
compared them to the correlation between the two measures, and used a multitrait
multimethod matrix68,69 to examine correlations between the two climate measures across
Author Manuscript
different criterion measures; one (physical health) is more similar to the OWC-9 than the
other (work-related alcohol problems), which is more similar to the drinking norms measure.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for dependent measures across the demographic variables are shown in
Table 1. Women reported more frequent physical health problems and cigarette smoking
than men, whereas men reported more substance use and work-related problems from
drinking. Caucasian employees reported greater physical health problems and substance use
Author Manuscript
than Hispanic or African-Americans. All groups reported equal amounts of work-related

problems from alcohol. Not shown in Table 1, Asian Americans and American Indians
reported physical health and substance use equal to other groups. Significant negative
correlations showed that younger people were more likely to report frequent physical health
problems and substance use than older people. Education was significantly correlated (P <
0.05) with several physical health problems, days drunk alcohol in the past month (r = 0.16),
and any substance use (r = 0.20). Education was not correlated with binge drinking, drug
use, or work-related problems from drinking.
Exploratory Factor Analysis

We first conducted an exploratory factor analysis of all 24 wellbeing-related climate items in
a split-half of the sample. Results from the rotated factor analysis showed that six factors
Author Manuscript
have an Eigen score of 1 or more. The scree plot showed a leveling after the third factor, and
a steeper declination from the first to the second factor (3 points—Eigen values from 5.2 to
2.2) than from the second factor to the third (0.8 points from 2.2 to 1.4). There were only
small differences between the third (1.4), fourth (1.3), fifth (1.1), and sixth (1.1) factors. The
Eigen values and the pattern of factor loadings suggest that these items may be combined to
form a single factor, but that a three-factor model could explain the item covariation. The
factor loadings show that three factors include (1) coworker relationship aspects, (2)
organizational support for wellness, and (3) items referencing unhealthy qualities (see Table
2). In a six-factor solution, items from the first two general factors spread out onto additional
dimensions of coworker resilience, supervisor support, and group cohesion.
Results from an unrotated PCA show that 21 of the 24 items load onto the first factor with
loadings of 0.3 and greater. Two of the three items that did not load on the principle
Author Manuscript
component referenced a negative unhealthy aspect of the workplace. Offering health and
wellness classes (Item 6 in Table 2) also did not load onto the principle component; however,
this item had a significant factor loading on each of the first four factors, and loaded clearly
onto the organizational support factor of the rotated solution, indicating that it is integral to
the organizational component of OWC.
Item Selection
Next we began an iterative process of comparing measurement models constructed of fewer
items. A guiding principle for shortening the scale was to retain as many of the eight items
from the original scale40 that fit well into a comprehensive measure with acceptable
psychometrics. All items with low loadings were considered for exclusion, but we focused
on omitting items that make up the four specific climate scales: (1) group cohesion, (2)
Author Manuscript
supervisor support for safety, (3) privacy regulation, and (4) manageable work pace. Items
with the lowest loadings in each domain were excluded and psychometrics of the resulting
models were examined.
The three items with negative reference (reverse scored) were excluded, because they loaded
onto a separate factor in the rotated FA (see Table 2) and had the lowest factor loadings on
the first factor of the PCA. One item from the domains of privacy regulation (item 5),
supervisor support for safety (item 8), and work pace (item 9) clearly had stronger factor
Author Manuscript
loadings on the first factor of the principal component, and were therefore selected for the
brief measure. The group cohesion item (item 2) was included in additional tests of the brief
measure because the data fit a model with the second group cohesion item (RMSEA 0.058,
CFI 0.90) slightly better than models with either of the other cohesion items (RMSEA =
0.06, CFI 0.88).
Next, we sought to further shorten the measure by omitting items of the original
organizational wellness scale.40 Assuming the four items that assess privacy, supervisor
support, pace, and cohesion represent distinct aspects of wellness climate, they were retained
and various models (fit statistics) were compared that excluded items stepwise if they had
low factor loadings in previous analyses and if excluding the item would cause increases in
reliability. Results showed that excluding any of the other items would result in a lower
reliability except two items: ease of forgetting job pressures (item 10) and flexible family-
Author Manuscript
friendly policies (item 12). Removing both of these items resulted in reliability (0.74) equal
to a measure with them (0.75). Therefore, the shortest OWC measure includes nine items
(see Table 2). A factor analyses with varimax rotation shows that the total variance from the
various combinations of items mainly accumulates from two factors, a coworker relationship
factor and an organizational policy factor just like the two-factor structure of the 24-item
measure.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis of the second split-half subsample was used to test the one-
factor and two-factor models on the 24- and 9-item OWC scales. Table 3 presents model-fit
indices from a CFA and other psychometrics of a single-factor model. A single-factor
solution was an acceptable fit for the 9-item measure in the second sample (RMSEA = 0.07,
Author Manuscript
CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.04) and in the whole sample (RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.91, SRMR=
0.04). The two factor model also had an acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, SRMR
= 0.03) with factors measuring the same dimensions as the longer scale (see Table 3). This
confirms that we are able to shorten the long measure into a single-factor scale while
preserving covariance structure of the longer measure.
Climate Measures
Descriptive statistics for each of the climate measures are presented in Table 4. There is
substantial variation in scores across businesses, for example, drinking norms vary widely
(business-level SD = 0.64; range = 2.94), and the short OWC measure (OWC-9) has slightly
greater variability across businesses (range = 1.33) than the long version (OWC-24; range =
1). All climate measures show substantial within-business agreement except for exposure to
Author Manuscript
coworker AOD problems (0.50). Both the long and short measures of OWC have strong
within business agreement (average Rwg(j) between 0.87 and 0.92). Only one business (n =
10) had a low (less than 0.7) Rwg(j) of 0.30 on the OWC-9 measure, because of
disagreement that health and wellness classes were offered, but we still included this
business in the cross-level validity analysis. The ICC of the OWC-9 measure is 0.08
indicating substantial variance across businesses.
Construct Validity
Author Manuscript
All subsequent validity analyses were conducted with the entire sample of 45 businesses (N
= 1512). Convergent validity of the short and long versions of the OWC measures was
assessed at both the individual-level and aggregate business-level. HLM coefficients were
computed between the individual-level OWC measures and wellbeing and unhealthy climate
measures. Pearson correlations were computed between the aggregate measures. Results
show that the OWC-9 is correlated with other climate scales in a similar pattern and strength
as the longer OWC-24 (see Table 5). For example, at both individual and business level of
analysis, both measures had similar correlations with group cohesion, drinking norms, and
hectic work pace. The OWC-9 measure was positively correlated with other wellbeing
climate measures and negatively correlated with unhealthy climate measures.
Criterion Validity
Author Manuscript
Table 6 shows HLM coefficients between the OWC-9 and the health, wellbeing, and
substance use behavior measures controlling for sex, ethnicity, age, and education-level. The
individual-level (L1) OWC-9 measure was significantly positively correlated with physical
health, wellbeing, and positive unwinding, and significantly negatively correlated with
perceived job stress, work-to-family conflict, difficulty with maintaining a healthy diet,
negative unwinding, any recurrent binge drinking or drug use, any work-related drinking
problems, and any past month smoking. Results show that for every 1-point increase on the
L1 OWC-9 measure, we expect a 0.26 decrease in log-odds of reporting a job-related AOD
problem (β = −0.26, SE = 0.13, P < 0.05), or an Odds-ratio of 0.76. For a 1-point increase in
OWC, we expect a 24% reduction in the odds of experiencing an alcohol problem on the job.
Cross-level HLM coefficients were computed between the aggregate business-level (L2)
Author Manuscript
OWC-9 measure and L1 health and wellbeing measures. The L2 OWC-9 measure was
significantly positively correlated with physical health, and negatively correlated with
perceived stress, work-to-family conflict, and drinking frequency.
Discriminant Validity
To examine the OWC-9 measure’s discriminant validity, we computed the average variance
extracted from the L1 OWC-9 and the L1 drinking norms items and examined the
coefficients between two dimensions of climate: OWC and drinking norms, and two
measures: physical health and the number of work-related problems from drinking alcohol.
The AVE for both measures (OWC = 0.58, Drinking Norms = 0.73) was greater than the
correlation between the L1 measures (−0.18). This shows that the measure has good
divergent validity at level-1. To further examine validity at L1 and L2, we analyzed patterns
Author Manuscript
of associations between the two climate measures and two criterion measures. Analyses
were conducted on individual level responses and repeated for cross-level associations
between business-level (L2) climate and individual-level (L1) health and alcohol problems
(see Table 6).
We observed patterns of correlation coefficients in Table 6 as a Multimethod Multitrait

Matrix, comparing the estimates and confidence intervals. Drinking norms at L1 and L2
were more strongly correlated with substance use than with wellness measures across all
measures except diet difficulty and cigarette smoking. In contrast, the L1 and L2 OWC-9
Author Manuscript
measure was more strongly correlated with all the health and wellbeing related measures
than was the drinking norms measure at both levels. The CIs for L1 OWC and L1 Drinking
norms did not overlap for two of the health measures (perceived wellbeing and job stress)
and five of the substance use measures (all except recurrent binge drinking or drug use and
cigarette smoking), which were all in the direction predicted by hypothesis 3b and 3c.
Employee physical health was more strongly associated with the L2 OWC-9 measure (γ =
0.23, SE = 0.12, P ≤ 0.05, 95% CI [0.01, 0.45]) than the L2 drinking norms (γ = 0.03, SE =
0.05, n.s., 95% CI [−0.07, 0.13]) measure, with and without covariates (see Table 6).
Experiencing work-related alcohol problems was more strongly associated with L2 drinking
norms (γ = 1.06, SE = 0.20, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.66, 1.46]), than OWC-9(γ = −0.71, SE
=0.90, n.s., 95% CI [−2.50, 1.08]).
Author Manuscript
Physical health was also more strongly associated with the L1 OWC measure than the L1
drinking norms measure after controlling for covariates. After partitioning out the covariance
between physical health and the employee covariates, the L1 OWC-9 is a much stronger
predictor of physical health (β = 0.24, SE = 0.03, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.30]) than are
L1 drinking norms (β = −0.15, SE = 0.03, P < 0.001, 95% CI [−0.21, −0.09]). Work related
drinking problems are more strongly associated with L1 drinking norms (β = 0.90, SE =
0.10, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.70, 1.10]) than wellness climate (β = −0.26, SE 0.13, P ≤ 0.05,
95% CI [−0.51, −0.01]). Also, the L1 and L2 OWC-9 measures were not significantly
correlated with demographic covariates, except Hispanic or Latino employees reported
higher L1 OWC-9 (M = 3.39, SD = 0.69) than other non-Hispanic or Latino employees (M =
3.25, SD = 0.59; t [1173] = 3.57, P < 0.001).
Author Manuscript
DISCUSSION
The current study focused on the significantly overlooked population of small business
employees with this sample of ethnically and occupationally diverse workers. Much
previous work climate research has been conducted with less diverse samples, and in
particular occupations or in corporate settings. Results show that the nine-item wellness
climate measure has adequate reliability and validity as a single-factor measure at L1 and
L2. The long-form measure—including the nine base items, a four-item group cohesion
scale, an extra work pace item, three privacy regulation items, and a 4-item supervisor
support scale—has reliability, but does not fit well as a single-factor model.
Factor analytic results support a model that consists of nine independent dimensions that
average into a single coherent general construct. At the same time, the items fit a two-factor
Author Manuscript
model, including a coworker relationship factor (Items 1 through 5 in Table 2) and an

organizational-level policy and procedures factor (Items 6 through 9). The work-group items
ask about social norms and coworker behavior; perceptions of a lower level of interaction
with peers in the workgroups. Health and safety items asked about supervisor actions and
organizational policies and programs, which are higher-level organizational characteristics.
This distinction—between organizational and workgroup climate—has been found in earlier
studies.34,43 However, the two-factor model may obscure important details, considering the
breadth of the concepts assessed with all nine items. Hence a one-factor model seems to be a
Author Manuscript
better way to interpret these items, because it is more parsimonious and still fits the data
well.
The pattern of results shown in Table 6 supports discriminant validity. The correlation
between OWC and drinking norms was not large, and the OWC-9 was a stronger predictor
of physical health than drinking norms, but worse at predicting drinking problems than
drinking norms. As seen in business-level findings in Table 5, OWC-9 was not significantly
correlated with supervisor support for safety. This supports previous results showing the
relative independence of these constructs.44 While it appears that the OWC-9 assesses social
and health climate well, it is not a measure of safety climate. While supervisor support for
safety is one component of OWC, safety climate is very complex, and includes policy
regulations of physical environment and top management involvement, as well as supervisor
support.72 Future research on the etiology of employee safety and health should
Author Manuscript
independently assess safety climate, wellness climate, and drinking norms.
Results indicate that wellness climate may be a protective factor of organizational health.
Similar to findings from previous research, OWC is correlated with less stress and greater
cohesion among coworkers.95 Wellness climate is predictive, at both the individual and
group-level, of improved physical health, reduced stress and work-family conflict, and fewer
substance use problems. At the business-level, higher OWC-9 scores predicted less drinking
and, to a smaller extent, any substance use. At the individual level, higher OWC-9 scores
predicted less binge drinking, drug use, work-related alcohol problems, and cigarette
smoking, which is consistent with the negative relationship found between OWC and
unhealthy climate.
Author Manuscript
Negative correlations between OWC-9 and drinking point to wellness climate as a protective
factor. A recent global study of 195 locations from 1990 to 2016 found alcohol use to be a
leading risk factor for disease burden worldwide, accounting for nearly 10% of global deaths
among the primary working age (15–49 years).96 Any drinking was a significant disease
risk. Organizations that focus on creating healthy cultures that foster group trust, provide
programs, and value of safety and health may be one way to ultimately not only improve the
physical health, mental wellbeing, and productivity of employees,97 but also reduce risks for
alcohol and drug misuse.
Small businesses are distinct from large ones in ways that may be particularly relevant to the
effects of organizational climate. When the number of employees remains low and the space
in which everyone works stays small, all the employees across the organization grow to
know and trust each other at a deeper level. Stronger norms and consistent perceptions of the
Author Manuscript
work environment emerge from the smallness of work organizations. Most businesses are
small, the majority of employees work in small businesses, and these same businesses often
lack resources for individualized wellness or AOD programs. Accordingly, within small
businesses, programs that focus on improving wellness climate may have greater utility,
efficiency, and wider public health impact than standard programs that solely focus on
controlling individual-level health risks.
A practical aim of this study was to help managers monitor work climate factors to
Author Manuscript
accomplish three broad goals: (1) assess what needs to be improved, (2) monitor needs over
time, and (3) evaluate any policy change or intervention used to attempt to improve the
climate. Ways to use and interpret results from various uses of the measures are discussed
below. The OWC may be used in conjunction with other tools to promote multiple wellbeing
strategies.98 Because existing measures often focus on single dimensions (eg, physical
health, safety) or are lengthy, the OWC-9 is unique in that it is sensitive to social factors and
perceptions of organizational-level efforts.
How to Use the Measures

The use of employee surveys to help with management decisions has fast become standard
practice.99 Both wellness and employee assistance (EAP) professionals have adopted
interventions by (1) screening employees for a variety of health risks (ie, HRA, or health risk
Author Manuscript
assessments; SBIRT, or Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment) and then
(2) conducting a brief intervention or referring employees to professionals, as needed.
Climate assessment can also use this screening-to-referral logic. We offer three suggestions
below.
Benchmarking and Estimation

One could compare a firm’s scores to observed averages in the current sample (Table 4). For
example, businesses can gain a rough estimate of the decreased or increased risk of AOD
problems in their businesses based on current association found between OWC and AOD
problems. The average OWC-9 score was 3.29 (SD = 0.63). Results showed that a 1-point
increase in the OWC-9 score is associated with a 24% decrease in the odds of reporting an
AOD-related problem at work. Managers or EAP professionals can have employees
Author Manuscript
confidentially complete the OWC-9, calculate average scores across the items for the
employee score, and then average employee scores. Assuming a linear relationship, if the
business score is 0.4 points less than 3.29 (the assumed population average risk based on this
study), or 2.89, then the business has a 10% increased risk of AOD problems relative to the
population average risk. In this study, 13% of employees reported work-related AOD
problems. Hence, a business with just 0.4 points less than the average of these participants
could expect 1.3% more employees to report a work related AOD problem than did so in this
study. These estimates help prioritize interventions.
Check-list and Needs Assessment

An accurate picture of needs would emerge via anonymous and confidential administration
of the measure to all employees. A manager could then review employee responses as a
Author Manuscript
needs assessment and on an item-by-item basis. Disagreement (low rating) with an item,
suggests an area of need, especially when multiple workers share the same perception.
Organizations also change over time and create employee stress due to turnover,
restructuring, new personnel, change in workspace, etc. The OWC-9 could be assessed prior
to, during, and after such changes.
Assessing Program Effectiveness

Author Manuscript
The OWC could also be used to evaluate wellness strategies. For example, managers may try
a low-cost tactic such as one-on-one or team talks about wellness or policy reminders to
supervisors. The short measure can be administered before and after the intervention and
analyzed for change. Alternately, the specific target of an intervention (eg, teamwork, work-
life balance, fatigue management) may not match perfectly with items from the shorter
OWC-9. Here, items from the longer (OWC-24) measure can be incorporated to match
intervention targets. For example, if an organization wishes to change its policy to make it
more family friendly, then the item that assesses family-friendly policies (in the OWC-24)
would be warranted. If an intervention is intended to improve general wellbeing, then the 9-
item assessment may suffice. If perceived access to wellness programs is a key target of an
intervention, then only the single item assessing wellness programs may suffice.
Author Manuscript
Limitations
The validity of the OWC scales gain strength from the number and types of businesses, the
large number of employees, their diversity, and the use of previous measures and models to
guide development of the wellness climate concept. Nonetheless, current conclusions may
only apply to this measure or small businesses. As our literature review revealed, previous
climate measures include perception of senior leadership support, or distinguish health,
safety, and stress-prevention climate.44 In the current study, the OWC-9 included only one
item referencing leadership (supervisory) support. As more small businesses adapt health
promotion, the OWC-9 might need amendment to more-broadly assess sentiment toward
leadership and safety culture.
While three businesses in the sample had more than 100 employees and one of them had
Author Manuscript
359, research is still needed to either cross-validate these measures in larger businesses or to
establish that the OWC-9 may only be relevant for small businesses. Larger businesses may
be advised to assess smaller divisions or work-groups within their businesses. More research
is needed to examine if assessing smaller units (ie, workgroups) increases the predictive
validity of the L2 OWC measure.
In general, the business-level OWC-9 was not as consistent with predicting individual-level
health and substance use behaviors as was the individual-level OWC-9 measure. Neither L1
nor L2 OWC-9 measures were good predictors of binge drinking, but the business-level
measure was also not a good predictor of diet, unwinding behavior, alcohol problems, or
smoking. These behaviors may be driven more by individual rather than organizational
factors.
Author Manuscript
CONCLUSION
A short measure of wellness climate in small businesses was found to have good inter-item
and inter-business reliability and fairly strong construct and criterion validity. The short
measure has greater reliability and construct validity than the longer version. The current
study is unique from studies of existing measures of health or safety climate in that the new
measure is short, includes elements of coworker relationships as well as policies and
procedures, and adds to our understanding of protective factors for employee substance
Author Manuscript
misuse.
The current study reinforces previous research suggesting that positive changes in
organizational climate might influence individual wellness,5,100 and builds on the seminal
work of Allen and Allen on positive culture as an integral component of workplace health
promotion.101 As a next research step with the current measures, it would help to see if an
intervention can improve climate and, either simultaneously or subsequently, also reduce
health and substance use risks. Finally, as research instrumentation can be expensive, this
short questionnaire has utility for monitoring climate as part of an overall wellness strategy.
Acknowledgments
Research supported by grant R03DA042241 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse to the first author. The
Author Manuscript
contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIDA. The
data for this project were collected with support from grant U1SP11129AB from the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration to the second author, the Recovery Resource Council in Fort Worth and the North
Texas Small Business Development Center in Dallas. A portion of this research was presented at the 2018 NIOSH
Symposium on Total Worker Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
REFERENCES
1. LaMontagne AD, Keegel T, Louie AM, Ostry A, Landsbergis PA. A systematic review of the job-
stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990–2005. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2007;13:268–
280.
2. LaMontagne AD, Martin A, Page KM, et al. Workplace mental health: developing an integrated
intervention approach. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:131–141. [PubMed: 24884425]
3. Bronkhorst B, Tummers L, Steijn B, Vijverberg D. Organizational climate and employee mental
health outcomes: a systematic review of studies in health care organizations. Health Care Manage
Rev. 2015;40:254–271. [PubMed: 24901297]
Author Manuscript
4. Idris MA, Dollard MF, Tuckey MR. Psychosocial safety climate as a management tool for employee
engagement and performance: a multilevel analysis. Int J Stress Manag. 2015;22:183–206.
5. Lin YW, Lin YY. A multilevel model of organizational health culture and the effectiveness of health
promotion. Am J Health Promot. 2014;29:e53–e63. [PubMed: 24200255]
6. Ehrhart MG, Schneider B, Macey WH. Organizational Climate and Culture: An Introduction to
Theory, Research, and Practice. Routledge; 2013.
7. Schneider B, González-Romá V, Ostroff C, West MA. Organizational climate and culture:
reflections on the history of the constructs. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102:468–482. [PubMed:
28125256]
8. Cunningham TR, Sinclair R, Schulte P. Better understanding the small business construct to advance
research on delivering workplace health and safety. Small Enterprise Res. 2014;21:148–160.
9. Small Business Profile [Small Business Administration website]; 2017 Available at: https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/All_States.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2019.
10. Flynn JP, Gascon G, Doyle S, et al. Supporting a culture of health in the workplace: a review of
Author Manuscript
evidence-based elements. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32:1755–1788. [PubMed: 29806469]

11. Edmunds S, Stephenson D, Clow A. The effects of a physical activity intervention on employees in
small and medium enterprises: a mixed methods study. Work. 2013;46:39–49. [PubMed:
23241703]
12. Parker D, Brosseau L, Samant Y, Pan W, Xi M, Haugan D. A comparison of the perceptions and
beliefs of workers and owners with regard to workplace safety in small metal fabrication
businesses. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:999–1009. [PubMed: 17918223]
13. Newman LS, Stinson KE, Metcalf D, Fang H. Implementation of a worksite wellness program
targeting small businesses: the Pinnacol Assurance health risk management study. J Occup Environ
Author Manuscript
Med. 2015;57:14–21. [PubMed: 25563536]

14. McLellan DL, Williams JA, Katz JN, et al. Key organizational characteristics for integrated
approaches to protect and promote worker health in smaller enterprises. J Occup Environ Med.
2017;59:289–294. [PubMed: 28267100]
15. McCoy MK, Stinson MK, Scott MK, Tenney ML, Newman LS. Health promotion in small
business: a systematic review of factors influencing adoption and effectiveness of worksite
wellness programs. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56:579–587. [PubMed: 24905421]
16. Bennett JB, Patterson CR, Wiitala WL, Woo A. Social risks for at-risk drinking in young workers:
application of work-life border theory. J Drug Issues. 2006;36:485–513.
17. Patterson CR, Bennett JB, Wiitala WL. Healthy and unhealthy stress unwinding: promoting health
in small businesses. J Bus Psychol. 2005;20:221–247.
18. Reynolds GS, Bennett JB. A cluster-randomized trial of alcohol prevention in small businesses: a
cascade model of help-seeking and risk reduction. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29:182–191.
[PubMed: 24460000]
Author Manuscript
19. Schwatka NV, Smith D, Weitzenkamp D, et al. The impact of worksite wellness programs by size
of business: A 3-year longitudinal study of participation, health benefits, absenteeism, and
presenteeism. Ann Work Expo Health. 2018;62(Suppl_1):S42–S54. [PubMed: 30212884]
20. Harris JR, Hannon PA, Beresford SAA, Linnan LA, McLellan DL. Health promotion in smaller
workplaces in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:327–342. [PubMed: 24387086]
21. Hunt MK, Barbeau EM, Lederman R, et al. Process evaluation results from the Healthy
Directions–Small Business study. Health Educ Behav. 2007;34:90–107. [PubMed: 16740502]
22. Payne J, Cluff L, Lang J, Matson-Koffman D, Morgan-Lopez A. Elements of a workplace culture
of health, perceived organizational support for health, and lifestyle risk. Am J Health Promot.
2018;32:1555–1567. [PubMed: 29529865]
23. Martino J, Pegg J, Frates EP. The connection prescription: using the power of social interactions
and the deep desire for connectedness to empower health and wellness. Am J Lifestyle Med.
2017;11:466–475. [PubMed: 30202372]
24. Mastroianni K, Storberg-Walker J. Do work relationships matter? Characteristics of workplace
Author Manuscript
interactions that enhance or detract from employee perceptions of wellbeing and health behaviors.
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2014;2:798–819. [PubMed: 25750820]
25. Ryan M, Erck L, McGovern L, et al. Working on Wellness:” Protocol for a worksite health
promotion capacity-building program for employers. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:111–119.
[PubMed: 30683102]
26. Kurtessis JN, Eisenberger R, Ford MT, Buffardi LC, Stewart KA, Adis CS. Perceived
organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J Manag.
2017;43:1854–1884.
27. Frazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V. Psychological safety: a meta-
analytic review and extension. Pers Psychol. 2017;70:113–165.
28. Helliwell JF, Huang H. Wellbeing and trust in the workplace. J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:747–767.
29. Mor Barak ME, Lizano EL, Kim A, et al. The promise of diversity management for climate of
inclusion: a state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. Hum Serv Organ Manag Leadersh Gov.
2016;40:305–333.
30. Ng TW, Feldman DC. Employee voice behavior: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of
Author Manuscript
resources framework. J Organ Behav. 2012;33:216–234.

31. Mirowsky J, Ross CE. Creative work and health. J Health Soc Behav. 2007;48:385–403. [PubMed:
18198686]
32. Schneider B, Reichers AE. On the etiology of climates. Pers Psychol. 1983;36:19–39.
33. Ribisl KM, Reischl TM. Measuring the climate for health at organizations. Development of the
worksite health climate scales. J Occup Med. 1993;35:812–824. [PubMed: 8229333]
34. Zweber ZM, Henning RA, Magley VJ. A practical scale for multi-faceted organizational health
climate assessment. J Occup Health Psychol. 2016;21:250–259. [PubMed: 26569133]
35. Hall GB, Dollard MF, Coward J. Psychosocial safety climate: development of the PSC-12. Int J
Stress Manag. 2010;17:353–383.
Author Manuscript
36. Jones AP, James LR. Psychological climate: dimensions and relationships of individual and
aggregated work environment perceptions. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1979;23:201–250.
37. Joyce WF, Slocum JW Jr. Collective climate: agreement as a basis for defining aggregate climates
in organizations. Acad Manag J. 1984;27:721–742.
38. Bennett JB, Lehman WEK. Alcohol, antagonism, and witnessing violence in the workplace:
drinking climates and social alienation–integration In: VandenBos GR, editor. Violence on the Job:
Identifying Risks, Developing, Solutions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
1996 p. 105–152.
39. Bennett JB, Lehman WEK. Employee views of organizational wellness and the EAP: Influence on
substance use, drinking climates, and policy attitudes. Employee Assist Quart. 1997;13:55–71.
40. Diamante T, Natale SM, London M. Organizational wellness. Health Promotion in Practice.
2006;460–493.
41. Gershon RRM, Stone PW, Bakken S, Larson E. Measurement of organizational culture and climate
in healthcare. J Nurs Adm. 2004;34:33–40. [PubMed: 14737033]
Author Manuscript
42. Golaszewski T, Hoebbel C, Crossley J, Foley G, Dorn J. The reliability and validity of an
organizational health culture audit. Am J Health Stud. 2008;23:116–142.
43. Langford PH. Measuring organizational climate and employee engagement: evidence for a 7 Ps
model of work practices and outcomes. Aust J Psychol. 2009;61:185–198.
44. Sawhney G, Sinclair RR, Cox AR, Munc AH, Sliter MT. One climate or many: examining the
structural distinctiveness of safety, health, and stress prevention climate measures. J Occup
Environ Med. 2018;60:1015–1025. [PubMed: 30059359]
45. Kelloway EK, Day AL. Building healthy workplaces: what we know so far. Can J Behav Sci.
2005;37:223–235.
46. Bennett JB, Lehman WEK, Reynolds GS. Team awareness for workplace substance abuse
prevention: the empirical and conceptual development of a training program. Prev Sci.
2000;1:157–172. [PubMed: 11525346]
47. Ahern J, Galea S, Hubbard A, Midanik L, Syme SL. “Culture of drinking” and individual problems
with alcohol use. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167:1041–1049. [PubMed: 18310621]
Author Manuscript
48. Bacharach SB, Bamberger PA, Sonnenstuhl WJ. Driven to drink: managerial control, work-related
risk factors, and employee problem drinking. Acad Manag J. 2002;45:637–658.
49. Bacharach SB, Bamberger PA, McKinney VM. Harassing under the influence: the prevalence of
male heavy drinking, the embeddedness of permissive workplace drinking norms, and the gender
harassment of female coworkers. J Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12:232–250. [PubMed: 17638490]
50. Nesvåg S, Duckert F. Work-related drinking and processes of social integration and
marginalization in two Norwegian workplaces. Cult Organiz. 2017;23:157–176.
51. Wang M, Liu S, Zhan Y, Shi J. Daily work–family conflict and alcohol use: testing the cross-level
moderation effects of peer drinking norms and social support. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:377–386.
[PubMed: 20230077]
52. Atkinson W. Employee substance abuse cripples small businesses. Benefits Pro Magazine; 2015.
53. Shahandeh B. Alcohol and Drug Problems at Work: The Shift to Prevention. International Labour
Organization; 2003.
54. Waehrer GM, Zaloshnja E, Miller T, Galvin D. Substance-use problems: are uninsured workers at
Author Manuscript
greater risk? J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69: 915–923. [PubMed: 18925350]

55. Bamberger P Employee help-seeking: antecedents, consequences and new insights for future
research In: Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited; 2009:49–98.
56. Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC. Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers Psychol. 1993;46:823–850.
57. Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F, Vandenberghe C, Sucharski IL, Rhoades L. Perceived supervisor
support: contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J Appl Psychol.
2002;87:565–573. [PubMed: 12090614]
58. Walsh BM, Magley VJ, Reeves DW, Davies-Schrils KA, Marmet MD, Gallus JA. Assessing
workgroup norms for civility: the development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire-Brief. J Bus
Author Manuscript
Psychol. 2012;27:407–420.
59. Lehman WE, Greener JM, Simpson DD. Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst
Abuse Treat. 2002;22:197–209. [PubMed: 12072164]
60. Reynolds GS, Lehman WE. Levels of substance use and willingness to use the Employee
Assistance Program. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2003;30:238–248. [PubMed: 12710376]
61. Hartenian LS, Gudmundson DE. Cultural diversity in small business: implications for firm
performance. J Dev Entrep. 2000;5:209–219.
62. Yancey AK, Lewis LB, Guinyard JJ, et al. Putting promotion into practice: the African Americans
building a legacy of health organizational wellness program. Health Promot Pract.
2006;7(3_suppl):233S–246S. [PubMed: 16760245]
63. Mearns K, Hope L, Ford MT, Tetrick LE. Investment in workforce health: exploring the
implications for workforce safety climate and commitment. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:1445–1454.
[PubMed: 20538100]
64. Mayer DM, Kuenzi M, Greenbaum RL. Examining the link between ethical leadership and
Author Manuscript
employee misconduct: the mediating role of ethical climate. J Bus Ethics. 2010;95:7–16.
65. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations:
Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
66. Fornell CG, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. J Market Res. 1981; 18:39–50.
67. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-
based structural equation modeling. J Academ Marketing Sci. 2015;43:115–135.
68. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychol bull. 1959;56:81–105. [PubMed: 13634291]
69. Schmitt NW, Klimoski RJ. Research Methods in Human Resources Management. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western Publishing; 1991.
70. Zhang Z, Brittingham A, Huang LX. Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs:
Results from the 1994 and 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD:
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Author Manuscript
Administration; 1999.
71. Frone MR. Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 2013.
72. Zohar D A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on micro-
accidents in manufacturing job. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:587–596. [PubMed: 10948803]
73. Lehman WEK, Reynolds GS, Bennett JB. Team-awareness and informational trainings for
workplace substance abuse prevention In: Bennett JB, Lehman WEK, editors. Preventing
Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association; 2003.
74. Ala-Mursala L, Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Kevin MV, Pentti J. Employee control over working times:
associations with subjective health and sickness absences. J Epidemiol Community Health.
2002;56:272–278. [PubMed: 11896134]
75. Kristensen TS, Bjorner JB, Christensen KB, Borg V. The distinction between work pace and
working hours in the measurement of quantitative demands at work. Work Stress. 2004;18:305–
322.
Author Manuscript
76. Yandrick RM. Behavioral Risk Management: How to Avoid Preventable Losses from Mental
Health Problems in the Workplace. New York: Jossey-Bass; 1996.
77. Bennett JB, Lehman WE. Workplace drinking climate, stress, and problem indicators: assessing the
influence of teamwork (group cohesion). J Stud Alcohol. 1998;59:608–618. [PubMed: 9718114]
78. Reynolds GS, Lehman WE, Bennett JB. Psychosocial correlates of perceived stigma on problem
drinking in the workplace. J Prim Prev. 2008;29:341–356. [PubMed: 18584326]
79. Petree RD, Broome KM, Bennett JB. Exploring and reducing stress in young restaurant workers:
results of a randomized field trial. Am J Health Promot. 2012;26:217–224. [PubMed: 22375571]
80. Hays RD, Stewart AL. The structure of self-reported health in chronic disease patients. Psychol
Assess. 1990;2:22–30.
Author Manuscript
81. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the
severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:258–266. [PubMed: 11914441]
82. Derogatis LR. The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Assessments; 1992.
83. Adams T, Bezner J, Steinhardt M. The conceptualization of perceived wellness: integrating balance
across and within dimensions. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:208–218. [PubMed: 10165100]
84. Frone MR. Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: the national comorbidity
survey. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:888–895. [PubMed: 11155895]
85. Cook RF, Back AS, Trudeau JV, McPherson TL. Integrating substance abuse prevention into health
promotion programs in the workplace In: Bennett J, Lehman W, editors. Preventing Workplace
Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association; 2002.
86. Cook RF, Billings DW, Hersch RK, Back AS, Hendrickson A. A field test of a web-based
workplace health promotion program to improve dietary practices, reduce stress, and increase
physical activity: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9:e17. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript
17581811]
87. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) GPRA Client Outcome Measures for Discretionary
Programs. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2017,
Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/gpra-measurement-tools/csat-gpra. Accessed on April
23, 2019.
88. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Office of Applied Studies). Results
from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (NSDUH Series H-36,
HHS Publication No. SMA 09–4434) Rockville, MD; 2009.
89. Lehman WEK, Simpson DD. Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors. J Appl Psychol.
1992;77:309–321. [PubMed: 1601823]
90. Bennett JB, Patterson CR, Reynolds GS, Wiitala WL, Lehman WEK. Team awareness, problem
drinking, and drinking climate: Workplace social health promotion in a policy context. Am J
Health Promot. 2004;19:103–113. [PubMed: 15559710]
91. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 4th ed Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Author Manuscript
Publications; 2016.
92. Stanton JM, Sinar EF, Balzer WK, Smith PC. Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-
report scales. Pers Psychol. 2002;55:167–194.
93. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.
94. LeBreton JM, Senter JL. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater
agreement. Organ Res Methods. 2008;11:815–852.
95. Wilson MG, Dejoy DM, Vandenberg RJ, Richardson HA, Mcgrath AL. Work characteristics and
employee health and well-being: test of a model of healthy work organization. J Occup Organ
Psychol. 2004;77:565–588.
96. Griswold MG, Fullman N, Hawley C, et al. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and
territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet.
2018;392:1015–1035. [PubMed: 30146330]
97. Kent K, Goetzl RZ, Roemer EC, Prasad A, Freundlich N. Promoting healthy workplaces by
building cultures of health and applying strategic communications. J Occup Environ Med.
Author Manuscript
2016;58:114–122. [PubMed: 26849254]

98. Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Workplaces. Finding FIT: Implementing wellness programs
successfully; 2018 Available at: https://healthy-workplaces.berkeley.edu/resources-and-
publications/ichw-publications/finding-fit-implementing-wellness-programs-successfully.
Accessed on April 23, 2019.
99. Morell-Samuels P Getting the truth into workplace surveys. Harv Bus Rev. 2002;80:111–118.
[PubMed: 11894677]
100. Dollard MF, Bakker AB. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work
environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J Occup Organ
Author Manuscript
Psychol. 2010;83:579–599.
101. Allen J, Allen R. A sense of community, a shared vision, and a positive culture: Key enabling
factors in successful culture change. Am J Health Promot. 1987;1:40–47. [PubMed: 10282525]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Clinical Significance:
Author Manuscript
Small businesses carry most of the burden caused by substance use, yet managers lack
resources to manage employee health. The brief questionnaire validated in this study
enables managers to identify areas of wellness climate that could benefit from change.
Improving climate in relatively free and easy-to-do ways will reduce risky and unhealthy
employee behavior.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
TABLE 1.
Health and Substance Use Measures: Full Sample and by Sex and Ethnicity
Sex Ethnicity
All (n = 1340) Male (n = 732) Female (n = 578) Caucasian (n = 733) Hispanic (n = 354) African American (n = 211)
Physical health (symptoms)
(% “Often” or “Very Often”)
Reynolds and Bennett
Sick with cold or flu 3.6 2.9 4.7* 2.9** 4.3* 5.7**
Nervous, irritable, or tense 15.4 10.3 22.6** 19.7** 8.3** 11.0*
Muscle tension 20.8 13.3 31.2* 24.5** 16.7** 17.7*
Upset stomach, nausea 9.0 7.1 11.6* 9.6* 6.9** 10.6
Feeling sad, depressed, or moody 13.0 8.0 20.0* 14.4* 9.9** 12.4
Headaches 16.7 10.2 25.2* 20.0** 11.6** 13.4
Difficulty sleeping 19.3 14.8 25.4* 22.8** 14.2** 14.8*
Tired most of the day 17.4 12.1 24.9* 20.3** 13.0** 14.7
Substance use behaviors
No. of days past month alcohol drinking (M [SD]) 3.53 (6.76) 4.55 (7.61) 2.29 (5.27)* 4.35 (7.35)** 2.09 (4.61)** 2.91 (6.65)
No. of days past month binge drinking (M [SD]) 0.93 (3.21) 1.28 (3.88) 0.45 (1.85)* 1.16 (3.56)** 0.61 (2.01)* 0.66 (2.94)
% Any substance use 48.1 54.8 39.8** 55.5** 36.8** 41.1*
% Any recurrent binge drinking or drug use 13.0 14.8 10.5* 16.8** 6.9** 9.8
% Any work-related alcohol problems 12.9 16.3 8.7** 14.0 13.5 9.0
% Any past month cigarette smoking 72.0 67.5 78.0** 68.1** 80.4** 73.1
Statistical tests were computed using ANOVA for physical health, drinking frequency and binge drinking (continuous measures), and chi-square test of independence was used to test differences in
dichotomous measures across the subgroups. Ethnicity differences were tested against all other ethnic groups (eg, Caucasian vs Not Caucasian). Ns vary slightly due to missing data.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.001
Page 26
TABLE 2.
Factor Loadings From Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Wellness Climate Across Subsamples
Sample 1 (n = 561, k = 22) Sample 2 (n = 951, k = 23)

OWC-24 OWC-24 OWC-9
PC EF1 EF2 EF3 PC CF1 CF2 PC CF1 CF2
1. Even when they differ, people at work are truthful about their personal viewpoints or feelings 0.45 0.07 0.39 −0.01 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.48
2. People in my work group have a lot of vitality and a healthy outlook on life. 0.56 0.15 0.40 0.08 0.59 0.56 0.63 0.57
3. In my work group, differences in lifestyle and culture are appreciated (including minorities, those with disabilities, 0.34 −0.01 0.38 −0.04 0.50 0.47 0.58 0.52
and elderly employees).
4. When I face a difficult job, coworkers can be counted on to help me. 0.57 0.47 0.07 −0.18 0.65 0.65 0.68 0.63
5. People in my work group are able to keep secrets about an employee’s personal concerns that they may know about. 0.47 0.06 0.12 0.46 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.52
6. My workplace offers health and wellness classes that we can attend (such as smoking cessation clinics, exercise 0.26 0.37 −0.16 0.06 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.28
programs, or stress reduction workshops).
7. Health and safety is a top priority in my work group. 0.65 0.69 −0.01 0.05 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.55
8. My supervisor says a good word whenever he sees a job done according to the safety rules. 0.56 −0.04 0.27 0.39 0.64 0.70 0.68 0.69
9. Overall, time, schedules, and work flow seem to be well managed and under control. 0.58 0.56 −0.02 0.12 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.60
10. It is easy for my coworkers and I to forget about job pressures once the workday is over. 0.32 0.37 −0.09 0.06 0.39 0.31
11. In my work group, it is better to keep your ideas to yourself than to cause conflict with supervisors or coworkers (r). 0.26 −0.09 0.21 0.37 0.25
12. Policies are flexible to meet the personal and family needs of different employees (maternity leave, sick days, flex 0.37 0.39 −0.01 −0.03 0.43 0.42
time, flexible vacation time).
13. People in my work group work together as a team for group objectives and goals. 0.63 0.59 0.04 −0.23 0.62 0.65
14. The people in my work group trust each other and cooperate to get the job done. 0.64 0.56 0.04 −0.01 0.69 0.71
15. There is often too much friction among my work group. (r) 0.48 0.43 0.00 −0.31 0.51 0.50
16. In my work group, there are individuals who do not do their fair share of the work. (r) 0.37 0.64 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.33
17. My supervisor approaches workers during work to discuss safety. 0.50 0.07 0.29 0.08 0.45 0.50
18. My supervisor watches more often when a worker has violated some safety rule. 0.43 0.01 0.28 0.05 0.35 0.36
19. My supervisor gets annoyed with any worker ignoring safety rules, even minor rules. 0.28 0.08 0.25 0.31 0.24
20. My supervisor seriously considers any worker’s suggestions for improving safety. 0.61 0.00 0.77 −0.07 0.58 0.63
21. Employees respect each other’s privacy of personal problems. 0.40 0.12 0.52 0.00 0.52 0.53
22. I feel confident telling my problems to at least one of my coworkers without having to fear the information will leak 0.32 0.00 0.68 0.11 0.38 0.36
into the grapevine.
23. I would not trust most coworkers in my work group with any private information about problems I was having with 0.37 0.01 0.29 0.53 0.28
other coworkers or with a supervisor. (r)
24. We are encouraged to take short breaks during the workday. 0.39 0.51 −0.09 −0.06 0.45 0.49
Page 27
CF, confirmatory factor; EF, exploratory factor; OWC, organizational wellness climate; PC, principal component; (r), item was reverse scored. EF and CF analysis used oblimin rotation. Reynolds and Bennett
Page 28
TABLE 3.
Reliability and Model Fit Indices from Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Single-Factor Wellness Climate Measures
Sample 2 (k = 23; n = 961) Whole Sample (k = 45; n = 1512)

OWC-24 OWC-9 OWC-24 OWC-9
Reliability
Cronbach α at pretest 0.85 0.74 0.84 0.74

Pretest to posttest r (Control Group n) 0.71 (158) 0.62 (158) 0.64 (264) 0.56 (264)
Pretest to follow-up r (Control Group n) 0.70 (127) 0.54 (127) 0.61 (195) 0.54 (195)
Model fit
Chi-square (df) 1529.10 (254) 131.59 (27) 2299.62 (254) 179.69 (27)
Root mean square error of approximation 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06
Comparative fit index 0.69 0.91 0.67 0.91
Standardized root mean square residual 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.04
Multi-level analysis indicators
Intraclass correlation 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.07
Rwg(j) 0.91 0.87 0.92 0.87
OWC, organizational wellness climate.
Page 29
TABLE 4.
Descriptive Statistics of the Climate Measures
Individual-Level Mean (SD) N = Business-Level Mean (SD) K = 6-Months Test–

1373 45 Business Range (min–max) Rwg(j) Cronbach α Retest
Wellbeing-related climate measures (n of items)
Group cohesion (4) 3.41 (.80) 3.43 (.31) 1.24 (2.80–4.04) 0.73 0.72 0.61
Supervisor support for safety (4) 3.37 (.75) 3.36 (.37) 1.89 (2.25–4.14) 0.74 0.66 0.57
Unhealthy climate measures (n of items)
Drinking norms (4) 1.88 (.82) 2.00 (.64) 2.94 (1.06–4.00) 0.82 0.77 0.62
Perceived stigma (4) 2.60 (.88) 2.51 (.30) 1.22 (1.94–3.16) 0.84 0.77 0.60
Hectic work pace (4) 3.14 (.82) 3.18 (.38) 1.62 (2.44–4.06) 0.71 0.67 0.63
Exposure to coworker AOD problems (4) 1.33 (.68) 1.40 (.44) 2.21 (1.00–3.21) 0.50 0.75 0.66
Coworker incivility (4) 1.84 (.87) 1.88 (.39) 1.67 (1.28–2.96) 0.81 0.63 0.53
OWC
24-item version 3.31 (.53) 3.33 (.22) 1.00 (2.71–3.71) 0.92 0.84 0.66
9-item version 3.29 (.63) 3.29 (.25) 1.33 (2.50–3.83) 0.87 0.74 0.55
AOD, alcohol or drug; OWC, organizational wellness climate.
Page 30
TABLE 5.
Correlations Between the OWC Measures (24 and 9 Item Versions) and Other Climate Measures
Individual-Level Business-Level
OWC-9 OWC-24 OWC-9 OWC-24
Wellbeing-related climate measures
Group cohesion 0.73 (0.03)*** 1.12 (0.03)*** 0.63*** 0.70***
Supervisor support for safety 0.58 (0.03) *** 0.89 (0.03)*** 0.48 0.69***
Unhealthy climate measures
Drinking norms −0.18 (0.03)*** −0.21 (0.04)*** −0.43** −0.26*
Perceived stigma −0.27 (0.04)*** −0.44 (0.04)*** −0.11 −0.24
Hectic work pace −0.24 (0.03)*** −0.34 (0.04)*** −0.44** −0.42**
Exposure to coworker AOD problems −0.17 (0.03)*** −0.22 (0.03)*** −0.01 0.05
Coworker incivility −0.44 (0.04)*** −0.58 (0.04)*** −0.24 −0.27*
Individual-level estimates in the first two columns are bivariate β coefficients and Standard Errors from separate hierarchical linear models for each climate measure (N = 1512). Business-level estimates in
last two columns are Pearson correlations from separate ordinary least squares estimations for each aggregate climate measure (k = 45). AOD, alcohol or drug; OWC, organizational wellness climate.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.01.
***
P < 0.001.
Page 31
TABLE 6.
Model Coefficients Between Criterion Measures With Wellness Climate or Drinking Norms
Wellness Climate (OWC-9) Alcohol Drinking Norms

Individual Level β (CI) Cross Level γ (CI) Individual Level β (CI) Cross Level γ (CI)
Individual wellbeing
Physical health 0.24 (0.18, 0.30)*** 0.23 (0.01, 0.45)* −0.15 (−0.21, −0.09)*** 0.03 (−0.07, 0.13)
Perceived wellbeing 0.21 (0.15, 0.27)*** 0.12 (−0.09, 0.34) 0.01 (−0.03, 0.05) 0.02 (−0.06, 0.10)
Perceived job stress −0.38 (−0.48, −0.28)*** −0.69 (−1.17, −0.21)** 0.18 (0.12, 0.24)*** 0.22 (0.03, 0.40)*
Work-to-family conflict −0.28 (−0.36, −0.20)*** −0.67 (−1.13, −0.21)** 0.18 (0.12, 0.24)*** 0.17 (0.01, 0.33)*
Family-to-work conflict −0.05 (−0.13, 0.03) 0.11 (−0.07, 0.29) 0.03 (−0.01, 0.07) −0.04 (−0.12, 0.04)
Diet difficulty −0.10 (−0.16, −0.04)** −0.11 (−0.34, 0.12) 0.15 (0.09, 0.21)*** −0.05 (−0.15, 0.05)
Positive unwinding 0.14 (0.08, 0.20) 0.13 (−0.09, 0.35) 0.04 (0.00, 0.08) −0.02 (−0.10, 0.06)
Negative unwinding −0.06 (−0.12, 0.00) −0.02 (−0.32, 0.28) 0.17 (0.13, 0.21)*** 0.24 (0.14, 0.34)***
Substance use
Drinking frequency 0.02 (−0.08, 0.12) −0.42(−0.89, 0.05) 0.29 (0.21, 0.37)*** 0.53 (0.37, 0.69)***
No. of days past month binge drinking −0.11 (−0.41, 0.19) −0.65 (−2.00, 0.70) 0.73 (0.51, 0.95)*** 1.00 (0.56, 1.44)***
Any substance use −0.04 (−0.24, 0.16) −0.78 (−1.76, 0.20)**** 0.57 (0.41, 0.73)*** 0.72 (0.38, 1.06)***
Any recurrent binge drinking or drug use −0.63 (−1.11, −0.15)** −0.54 (−2.40, 1.32) 0.59 (0.39, 0.79)*** 0.67 (0.25, 1.09)***
Any work-related alcohol problems −0.26 (−0.51, −0.01)* −0.71 (−2.50, 1.08) 0.90 (0.70, 1.10)*** 1.06 (0.66, 1.46)***
Any past month cigarette smoking −0.20 (−0.39, −0.01)* −0.67 (−1.68, 0.34) −0.34 (−0.52, −0.16)*** −0.55 (−0.99, −0.11)*
Parameter estimates (β, γ) are from models of the wellness and substance use measures regressed separately onto wellness climate or drinking norms, covariates: sex, age, ethnicity, and education, and the
intercept.
CI, 95% confidence interval around the estimate; OWC, organizational wellness climate.
****
P = 0.06.
***
P ≤ 0.001.
**
P ≤ 0.01.
*
P ≤ 0.05.
Page 32

BO A Brief Measure of Organizational Wellness Climate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BO A Brief Measure of Organizational Wellness Climate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HHS Public Access

Published in final edited form as:

A Brief Measure of Organizational Wellness Climate:

G. Shawn Reynolds, PhD, Joel B. Bennett, PhD

review of evidence-based elements of healthy culture,10 only two of 62 quantitative studies

The aim of this study is to develop a brief, employee self-report questionnaire of

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE FOR WELLNESS

then ratings can be aggregated to form a measure of organizational climate.36,37 Specifically,

Identifying Wellness Climate Domains in Existing Studies

“wellness,” or “psychosocial safety”33–44; as well as (b) models45 or syntheses of the

Limitations of Current Measures

psychological health. OWC includes both of these concepts.

Substance Use and Other Considerations

Diversity has been shown to predict small business performance.61 Inclusiveness, or

stress prevention through senior managements’ involvement and commitment, prioritizing

MULTILEVEL MEASUREMENT OF CLIMATE

measures accurately characterize an organization to the extent there is agreement between

To test divergent validity in the current study, we selected an established measure of

support for safety.

Unhealthy (Risky) Climate—Based on previous studies of behavioral risk factors in the

Substance Use Behaviors—Number of days of alcohol use was used to construct a

Employee Characteristics—Raw models were compared with adjusted models that

than Hispanic or African-Americans. All groups reported equal amounts of work-related

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We observed patterns of correlation coefficients in Table 6 as a Multimethod Multitrait

model, including a coworker relationship factor (Items 1 through 5 in Table 2) and an

independently assess safety climate, wellness climate, and drinking norms.

How to Use the Measures

Benchmarking and Estimation

Check-list and Needs Assessment

Assessing Program Effectiveness

evidence-based elements. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32:1755–1788. [PubMed: 29806469]

Med. 2015;57:14–21. [PubMed: 25563536]

resources framework. J Organ Behav. 2012;33:216–234.

greater risk? J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2008;69: 915–923. [PubMed: 18925350]

2016;58:114–122. [PubMed: 26849254]

Nervous, irritable, or tense 15.4 10.3 22.6** 19.7** 8.3** 11.0*

Muscle tension 20.8 13.3 31.2* 24.5** 16.7** 17.7*

Upset stomach, nausea 9.0 7.1 11.6* 9.6* 6.9** 10.6

Headaches 16.7 10.2 25.2* 20.0** 11.6** 13.4

Difficulty sleeping 19.3 14.8 25.4* 22.8** 14.2** 14.8*

Substance use behaviors

% Any substance use 48.1 54.8 39.8** 55.5** 36.8** 41.1*

Sample 1 (n = 561, k = 22) Sample 2 (n = 951, k = 23)

Sample 2 (k = 23; n = 961) Whole Sample (k = 45; n = 1512)

Cronbach α at pretest 0.85 0.74 0.84 0.74

OWC, organizational wellness climate.

Descriptive Statistics of the Climate Measures

Individual-Level Mean (SD) N = Business-Level Mean (SD) K = 6-Months Test–

AOD, alcohol or drug; OWC, organizational wellness climate.

Group cohesion 0.73 (0.03)*** 1.12 (0.03)*** 0.63*** 0.70***

Drinking norms −0.18 (0.03)*** −0.21 (0.04)*** −0.43** −0.26*

Perceived stigma −0.27 (0.04)*** −0.44 (0.04)*** −0.11 −0.24

Hectic work pace −0.24 (0.03)*** −0.34 (0.04)*** −0.44** −0.42**

Coworker incivility −0.44 (0.04)*** −0.58 (0.04)*** −0.24 −0.27*

Wellness Climate (OWC-9) Alcohol Drinking Norms

You might also like

Nervous, irritable, or tense 15.4 10.3 22.6 19.7 8.3** 11.0*

Muscle tension 20.8 13.3 31.2* 24.5 16.7 17.7*

Headaches 16.7 10.2 25.2* 20.0 11.6 13.4

Difficulty sleeping 19.3 14.8 25.4* 22.8 14.2 14.8*

% Any substance use 48.1 54.8 39.8 55.5 36.8** 41.1*

Group cohesion 0.73 (0.03)* 1.12 (0.03)* 0.63* 0.70*

Drinking norms −0.18 (0.03)* −0.21 (0.04)* −0.43** −0.26*

Perceived stigma −0.27 (0.04)* −0.44 (0.04)* −0.11 −0.24

Hectic work pace −0.24 (0.03)* −0.34 (0.04)* −0.44 −0.42

Coworker incivility −0.44 (0.04)* −0.58 (0.04)* −0.24 −0.27*