The Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS): A useful tool in workplace health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present validity data for the Work Experience Measurement Scale (WEMS), an instrument measuring multifaceted work experience from a salutogenic health resource perspective as a contrast to the more common pathogenic risk perspective, by exploring WEMS relationship to established measurements that are positively related to health and work. A salutogenic perspective focuses on finding conditions and resources in life, for example at work, that can enhance the individual's health and strength, instead of those causing illness and weakness. METHOD: This study was carried out in 2009 at a Swedish hospital with a web-based survey (WEMS) to 770 employees. Different occupational groups at the hospital participated. Additional questionnaires used at the same time were the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9), the Salutogenic Health Indicator Scale (SHIS), the General Self-Efficacy scale (GSE), and three questions about self-rated health, general well-being, and quality of life. RESULTS: Cronbach's Alpha of WEMS sub-indices were in the interval of 0.85-0.96. Convergent validity and discriminant validity of WEMS and its sub-indices were shown to be satisfying by correlations. In addition, WEMS demonstrated the ability to discriminate between groups. WEMS sub-indices discriminated even better between groups than the total index. CONCLUSION: The WEMS proved to be a workplace health promotion questionnaire that was able to measure experiences of work from a salutogenic perspective. The WEMS has a potential of being a useful tool in workplace health promotion to enhance positive human capabilities and resources to improve work performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".