Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
2 "Psychometric"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Original Article
Psychometric validation of brief scales for loneliness at work in Korea: the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3) and Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1)
Ganguk Lee, Chunhui Suh, Seongdong Lee, Norito Kawakami
Ann Occup Environ Med 2026;38:e33.   Published online July 24, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2026.38.e33
AbstractAbstract AbstractAbstract in Korean PDFSupplementary Material
Background
Workplace loneliness is an emerging psychosocial risk factor in the occupational health context, but comprehensive assessment instruments are often impractical if large workforce surveys are planned. This study evaluated the measurement properties of two brief workplace loneliness indicators: the Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-1) and the Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work (SLAW-3).
Methods
Data were obtained from a nationwide online survey of Korean employees (n = 1,000), with proportional sampling by sex, age, and occupation. A subsample (n = 200) underwent 4-week follow-up to assess test–retest reliability. Internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis were examined for SLAW-3, whereas test–retest reliability was assessed for SLAW-1. Criterion validity was tested against a single-item measure of general loneliness. Convergent validity was examined by deriving correlations with occupational stress and psychological distress, work performance, work engagement, and well-being.
Results
SLAW-3 demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.883) and was consistent with a single-factor interpretation. SLAW-1 exhibited moderate 4-week test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.603). Both scales were associated with workplace loneliness and related psychological and occupational variables, in the expected directions. SLAW-1 was more strongly related to general loneliness, whereas SLAW-3 evidenced stronger associations with workplace loneliness.
Conclusions
SLAW-1 and SLAW-3 appear to be practical brief indicators of workplace loneliness. SLAW-1 may be appropriate for rapid screening, whereas SLAW-3 offers a more context-specific assessment in terms of occupational health research and monitoring.
한국판 직장외로움 단축형 척도(SLAW-3, SLAW-1) 타당화 연구
배경
직장 외로움은 직업 의학에서 새롭게 부상하는 심리사회적 위험 요인이지만, 포괄적인 척도는 대규모 조사에 사용하기에 제한적이다. 본 연구에서는 한국어판 단축형 직장 외로움 지표의 타당성을 평가하였다.
방법
전국 단위 온라인 설문조사를 통해 자료를 수집되었으며, 성별, 연령, 직종에 따른 비례 할당 표본을 이용하여 한국인 근로자 1,000명을 모집하였다. 이 중 하위 표본(n = 200)은 검사–재검사 신뢰도를 평가하기 위해 4주 후 추적 조사를 완료하였다. 단일 문항 직장 외로움 척도(Single-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work, SLAW-1)와 3문항 직장 외로움 척도(Three-Item Scale for Loneliness at Work, SLAW-3)를 평가하였다. SLAW-3에 대해서는 내적 일관성과 확인적 요인분석을 실시하였으며, SLAW-1에 대해서는 검사-재검사 신뢰도를 평가하였다. 준거 타당도는 직장 외로움 척도의 한국어판과 일반 외로움 단일 문항과 비교하여 검증하였다. 수렴 타당도는 직무 스트레스, 심리적 고통, 직무 수행, 직무 몰입, 그리고 웰빙과의 상관관계를 통해 평가하였다.
결과
SLAW-3은 양호한 내적 일관성을 보였으며(α = 0.88), 단일 요인 구조가 확인되었다. SLAW-1은 4주 간격의 검사–재검사 신뢰도에서 수용할 만한 상관을 보였다(r = 0.60). 두 지표 모두 직장 외로움 및 관련 심리적·직업적 변수들과 예상된 방향의 연관성을 보였다. SLAW-1은 일반 외로움과 더 강한 연관성을 보였으며, SLAW-3은 다문항 직장 외로움 척도와 더 강한 연관성을 나타냈다.
결론
SLAW-1과 SLAW-3은 직장 외로움을 평가하기 위한 실용적인 단축 지표로 확인되었다. SLAW-1은 신속한 선별에 적합할 수 있으며, SLAW-3은 직업의학 연구 및 모니터링을 위해 보다 직장 맥락에 특화된 평가를 제공할 수 있다.
  • 1,032 View
  • 53 Download
Close layer
Original Article
Developing a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards: the Healthy Work Survey (HWS)
BongKyoo Choi, Youngju Seo
Ann Occup Environ Med 2023;35:e7.   Published online April 27, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e7
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Background

At present, no short standard questionnaire exists for assessing and comparing major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the United States.

Methods

We conducted a series of psychometric tests (content validity, factor analysis, differential-item functioning analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) to validate and identify core items and scales for major work organization hazards using the data from the 2002–2014 General Social Surveys (GSSs), including the Quality of Worklife (QWL) questionnaire. In addition, an extensive literature review was undertaken to find other major work organization hazards which were not addressed in the GSS.

Results

Although the overall validity of the GSS-QWL questionnaire was satisfactory in the psychometric tests, some GSS-QWL items of work-family conflict, psychological job demands, job insecurity, use of skills on the job, and safety climate scales appeared to be weak. In the end, 33 questions (31 GSS-QWL and 2 GSS) were chosen as the least, but best validated core questions and included in a new short standard questionnaire (called the Healthy Work Survey [HWS]). And their national norms were established for comparisons. Furthermore, based on the literature review, fifteen more questions for assessing other significant work organization hazards (e.g., lack of scheduling control, emotional demands, electronic surveillance, wage theft) were included in the new questionnaire. Thus, the HWS includes 48 questions in total for assessing traditional and emerging work organization hazards, which covers seven theoretical domains: work schedule/arrangement, control, support, reward, demands, safety, and justice.

Conclusions

The HWS is a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards which can be used as a first step toward the risk management of major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the US.


Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Occupational stress(KOSS®19): scale development and validation in the Korean context
    Hansoo Song, Hyoung Ryoul Kim, Inah Kim, Jin-Ha Yoon, Sang-Baek Koh, Sung-Soo Oh, Hee-Tae Kang, Da-Yee Jeung, Dae-Sung Hyun, Chunhui Suh, Sei-Jin Chang
    Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.2025; 37: e12.     CrossRef
  • Measures and Measurement Tools for Studying Total Worker Health
    Julianne Payne, Kelli DePriest, Carmen Daniel, Austin Booth, Scarlett Ruppert, Randi McArthur, Jeremy Bray, Shawn Kneipp, Laura Linnan
    Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.2025; 67(6): 404.     CrossRef
  • 9,161 View
  • 127 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
Close layer

Ann Occup Environ Med : Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Close layer
TOP