Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to compare factor analysis (FA) with an alternative approach known as impact analysis (LA) in determining items for a questionnaire to measure employee wellbeing. Design/methodology/approach - FA and IA were conducted on a raw data set drawn from an earlier study to develop an assessment that measures the impact of work on employee wellbeing. IA is an accepted clinical methodology used to verify items in the development of health-related quality of life instruments that evaluate patient wellbeing in clinical trials. Findings - FA and IA gave rise to considerably different assessments. IA resulted in a 51-item scale spread across ten different domains. FA generated an eight-factor scale with 46 items. In total, 31 variables were common to each version. The additional 20 items using IA included a number of variables that were identified by employees as being important to their wellbeing. The 15 extra items yielded by FA included six variables that were perceived by staff to be relatively unimportant. Five factors were fairly consistent with five of the domains. Both scales showed adequate internal consistency reliability. Research limitations/implications - The present study suggests an alternative methodology for measuring employee wellbeing. The small number of subjects who participated in the earlier research is a limitation. Originality/value - The study offers exploratory research into an alternative way to measure wellbeing in the workplace that draws on an accepted clinical methodology already used to assess and evaluate patient wellbeing.
展开▼
