Adapting the Management Standards approach in the Republic of Ireland: Validation of the Irish version of the Management Standards Indicator Tool

Introduction: Work Positive is the Republic of Ireland’s national policy initiative to control work-related stress. Since the advent of the UK Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards (MS) in 2004, a number of government-sponsored studies have been undertaken to assess the potential adaptation of the MS framework within an Irish context. The aim of the current study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Irish version of the MS Indicator Tool (ROI-MSIT), known in Ireland as the Work Positive Profile. This paper reports the study’s findings, examining the factor structure of the ROI-MSIT in comparison with the UK instrument and the recently developed Italian MSIT. The criterion-related validity and reliability of the ROI-MSIT are also discussed.Method: Between February 2011 and June 2012 we collected data from a wide range of public and private sector organisations that used the ROI-MSIT (N = 4794). In addition to the ROI-MSIT, respondents completed demographic questions and a brief mental health measure, the WHO-Five Well-being Index (WHO-5). Factor analysis was used to determine if the ROI-MSIT maintained the 7-factor structure of the UK instrument. The internal consistency of the ROI-MSIT was also assessed to determine reliability, and its criterion-related validity explored through correlation analysis with the WHO-5.Results: Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the factor structure of the ROI-MSIT is practically identical to that of the Italian version, consisting of 6 factors; the ‘demands’, ‘control’, ‘peer support’, ‘relationships’, and ‘role’ factors are equivalent to the original UK factors. As with the Italian version, a principal factor emerged which combined the ‘manager support’ and ‘change’ domains. Both the 6-factor measurement model and the original UK 7-factor model were tested using confirmatory factor analysis; both models provided a good fit, although the latter provided a better fit than the former. A higher order model was also constructed following Edwards et al. (2008); this model provided a satisfactory fit. Reliability analysis of the sub-scales revealed Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .80 to .88. Finally, the ROI-MSIT and WHO-5 were found to be positively correlated (r=.55).Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the ROI-MSIT is reliable and valid, with a factor structure similar to the original UK instrument and the Italian MSIT. Further psychometric evaluation of the ROI-MSIT is recommended.