clinical definitions determining the size of bullied workers versus data driven estimation with...

Clinical definitions determining the size of bullied workers versus data driven estimation with latent cluster analysis

Guy Notelaers1, Jeroen Vermunt,2, Stale Einarsen3 & Hans De Witte1

1: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; 3: Bergen University, Norway; 2:Tilburg Univeristy, Netherlands

ConclusionBulliying measured with the NAQ is a multidimensional construct when the answers to the negative acts are not recoded into ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Nonetheless there is proof for a multidimensional approach, the latent factor solutions are inferior to the latent cluster solutions.

This latent cluster solution is multidimensional by nature. It captures six classes of respondents of which only one is to be considered as a victims cluster. Therefore we conclude that 3% of the population is victim of bullying at work. However there are other cluster who are clearly exposed to bullying but the occurence of bullying is not high enough to cause serious (z<-1) health consequences. These clusters are referred to as latent bullying and workrelated bullying. Three clusters are not really related to bullying. For riskassessment these cluster can be interesting in that two clusters can be dedected where preventive measures can avoid bullied persons to become victims.

Compared to other ways of categorizing respondents into classes i.e. operational criteria it is clear that the latent cluster approach has the most discriminatory power and captures best the self-judgement of respondents (subjective method).

Maybe the latent cluster approach suits a phase model that has been suggested troughout the years (Bjorkvist, Einarsen, Zapf, Leymann). Ph ase I : no actsPhase II : at a very low level workrelated acts emerge. Phase III : the level of workrelated acts remains constant but some personal directed acts ermerge at a very low level. Phase IV : intensification (towards now and then and sometimes between now and then and once a month). Phase V : intensification of work related acts (once a month). Phase VI : overall intensification (once a month-week)

contact : [email protected]

ReferencesEinarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen & Hellesøy, (1994). The negative acts questionnaire .Mikkelsen, E. Einarsen, S. (2001) Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and Health

correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 393 – 413.Salin, D. (2001) Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a

comparison of two different strategies of measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 425-411.

Vermunt, J.K. Magidson, J. (2002) Latent Class Cluster Analysis. In : Hagenaars, J.&McCutcheon (eds), Applied Latent Class Analysis, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 89-106.

Vermunt, J.K. Magidson, J. (2003) Latent Gold : Users GuideLatent Gold : Users Guide. Statistical Innovations.

Zapf, D. Knorz, C. Kulla, M. (1996) On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors and Job Content, Social Work Environment, and Health Outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 215-237.

Zapf, D. Einarsen, S. Hoel, H. Vartia, M. (2003) Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In: Einarsen, S. Hoel, H. Zapf, D & Cooper, C. (Eds) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. Taylor & Francis, London, 103-124.

THE 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BULLYING AND HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE (Bergen, Norway, 2004)

IntroductionResearch shows that bullying at work is a widespread phenomenem. In some research bullying at work takes the form of a desease...

-Scandinavian reserach (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1996): 4% - British studies 10% - Netherlands (Hubert & van Veldhoven, 2001) 2 tot 3% - In Belgium prevailence rates are between 10 (Notelaers & De Witte, 2003a; Notelaers & De Witte, 2003b) and 16% (Opdebeeck, et. al, 2002).

These rates differ a lot. That questions how we measure bullying and how we decide who is bullied and who is not.This is a major problem for organisations who are meeting the EC directive about riskanalysis. Following the control cycle (Cox & Gonzales, 2000) it is vital to make an inventory of the psychosocial risks and to make a link between the risks and its healh consequences in order to

- Eliminate the risk (primary prevention)- Prevent the risk (secondary secondary)- ‘Cure’ the victims (tertiary prevention)

Thus it is essential that our categorization methods can capture or discriminate between who is a victim of bullying and who is not.

Measuring bullying at workSubjective

Until now different definitions were used but nowaday in Europe many use Einarsen & Skogstad ‘s (1996) definition. But many have used different responscategories and different time – reference (e.g. 6 and 12 months)

ObjectiveBy means of questionnaire without referring directly to ‘bullying’.

LIPT (46 items)NAQ (22 items, 29 items, 32 items, 17 items) and

NAQ-r => different prevailence rates of bullying

Categorizing victims/non-victims Different decisions to attribute victims and non victims are in fact questioning the dimensionality of bullying concept. Applying the operational definition of one or two acts during the last six months is assuming a one dimensional construct.

But the literature reveals : - 5 dimensions according the effect

they cause (Leymann, 1996)

- 7 dimensions by Knorz&Zapf (1996)

- 5 dimensions by Einarsen & Raknes (1997)

- 2 dimensions by Einarsen & Hoel (2001)

- 4 dimensions in Dick & Rayner’s instrument (2004)

How to categorize victims / non – victims when dimensions are related/ non related? Which dimension? How to weight? How are dimensions related?

For riskanalysis it is a problem to decidewhether someone is bullied or not with a multidimensional concept.

Aim of this researchTo inspect wheter bullying, as it has been measured by the NAQ without dichotomizing the responscategories into yes and no, is a multidimensional measurement. And if so to to inspect whether a latent cluster approach (Vermunt&Magidson, 2002) can help to classify respondents in homogenous groups according to their exposure to bullying.

Gedruckt im Rechenzentrum der Universität Leipzig

Sample6175 observations stem from two kinds of research :research to inventarise wellbeing (14 studies) and research with focus on mobbing (4 studies) (see the other poster (Notelaers, et. al, 2004). MethodSubjective methods ‘Are you being bullied at work?’ (‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ and ‘always’) ‘Are you being bullied at work during the last six months?’ (‘never’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ and ‘always’ )‘Are you being bullied at work the last six months according to our definition’(no, never’, ‘yes, seldom’, ‘yes, sometimes’, ‘yes, weekly’ and ‘yes, daily’) Objective method : Belgian NAQ 17 items

Results

cond. prob. answ. 'never'

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

information jokes under level taking job gossip exclusion priv. life Insultes quit job mistakes silence no value no opinion funny supr. misusew ork tohard

not bullied at all not bullied nor / nor

latent victim work related bullying severe victim

cond. prob. ans. 'now and then'

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

information jokes under level taking job gossip exclusion priv. life Insultes quit job mistakes silence no value no opinion funny supr. misusework tohard



cond. prob. answ. 'once a month'

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

information jokes under level taking job gossip exclusion priv. life Insultes quit job mistakes silence no value no opinion funny supr. misusework


latent victim work related bullying severe victim cond. prob. answ. 'once a week or more

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

information jokes under level taking job gossip exclusion priv. life Insultes quit job mistakes silence no value no opinion funny supr. misusework tohard



Discriminatory power in z-values

- 0,61- 0,370,11- 1,01- 0,378- 0,458- 0,110,060,29Quality of sleep

- 0,49- 0,330,09- 0,72- 0,387- 0,35706- 060,23worrying

- 0,56- 0,360,11- 0,88- 0,455- 0,4450,014- 040,31Recovery need

- 0,6- 0,40,12- 0,593- 0,563- 0,240,042- 0,0620,28Involve-ment

- 0,79- 0,530,16- 1,03- 0,62- 0,370,0710,0210,32Pleasure at work

2 acts

1 act0 actsevere victim

work related bullying

latent victim

nor / nor

not bullied

not bullied at all

z- values

operational cutt off’s

Latent Cluster ModelCluster model – operational

definitions in %

1003,227,618,715,428,936,24column total

9,282,94,081,20,250,880two acts

90,70,323,537,515,12836,24no / one act

2 acts or more

20,63,065,973,32,145,091,0251 act or more

79,40,161,645,413,223,835,21no act

1 act or more criterium

row totalsevere victimwork related bullying

latent victimnor / nor

not bullied

not bullied at all

Latent Cluster Model

Classifications methods –subjective measure bullying

,51,38,38Clustermodel

,38,28,26Mikkelsen & Einarsen

,36,26,24Leymann

Legal definition of bullying

Were you bullied at work during the last six months

Are you being bullied at work

Spearman correlation

Six clustermodel for bullying at work

Evaluation of clustermodel

Checking First Hypothesis : LCA-apprach

0.0040927,2110118689,34-Factor-correlated

0,1660,050,38837276346112464,26- cluster direct lang. effects and 3 local dependencies (see : Notelaers, et. al, 2004)

0,0144597,57104122307,84-Factor – uncorrelated(Einarsen & Rakness, 1997)

0,110,0260,3436802,441031145042-Factor correlated

0,150,010,3039361,56101117045,82-Factor uncorrelated(Einarsen & Hoel, 2001)

0,100,3437037,72102114730,62-Factor correlated

0,21010.0060,3337164,84100114840,51-Factor-5L

0,150,040,4033710,043911139018-Cluster

0,140,060,3934023,52342113790,97-Cluster

0,130,0260,3834567,42293113911,36-Cluster

0,110,0020,3735323,54244114243,95-Cluster

0056344,9481335711-Cluster-base model

Class.Err.bootstrap p-value

prop red errorL²NparBIC(LL)

0,320,1070,030,0090,0130,002

once a week or more

0,2170,1170,080,0170,0240,004

once a month

0,310,2250,580,3360,2460,067

once a week

0,1520,5510,310,6380,7180,927

never

654321order of latent clusters

0,0320,0830,090,1650,2770,353

proportion (size)

victimwork related bullying

latent bullying

nor / nor

not bullied

not bullied at all

2,41,621,71,41,271,08you work to hard

1,81,241,31,061,061,01misuse of work

2,41,311,61,241,011,01‘funny suprises’

32,692,21,681,841,09opinion does not count

3,12,512,21,591,761,07job and efforts not valued

31,821,91,251,211,01opening encounters hostile or silence

2,41,531,71,331,181,02rep. remarks about mistakes

2,31,331,41,081,031remarks that you should quit

2,61,241,61,311Insultes

31,431,91,561,061,02rep. remarks private life

2,61,491,71,211,161,01exclusion from group

3,32,042,21,921,361,15gossip

2,52,071,81,141,431,04taking job / competences

2,72,5521,511,91,29work under level

3,21,652,21,671,11,07jokes

3,12,652,21,632,11,35witholding information

severe victim

work related bullying

latent victim

nor / nor

not bullied

not bullied at all

1: never2 : now and then3: once a month4: once a week or more

Discussion : a phase model for bullying at work?