Exploring the Effects of Occupational Psychological Disorders on Construction Employees and the Construction Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Construction employees could experience occupational psychological disorders, such as workaholism and burnout due to their work, personality characteristics or lifestyle. This study sought to explore the effects of psychological disorders on construction employees and the construction industry. To achieve this aim, both the methods of focus group discussions and survey questionnaire were employed. The focus group discussions revealed 17 potential effects and 12 potential effects of psychological disorders on the construction employees and the construction industry respectively. A quantitative study was then employed to determine the key effects and to test the reliability of the findings from the focus group study. The results revealed that the highly perceived effects of psychological disorders on construction employees were accident-prone, chronic pain, insomnia or sleep disturbances, as these had the highest mean scores. The key effects also identified as perceived effects of construction employees’ psychological health conditions on the construction industry were: absenteeism/sick leave, errors in work, job dissatisfaction and increased medical costs. Exploratory factor analysis was employed, and the 17 effects on construction employees were categorized under behavioural effects and physiological effects. The 12 effects on the construction industry were also categorized under direct costs and indirect costs. The results from this study confirm the need for strategic interventions to mitigate the effects of occupational psychological disorders on construction employees and the construction industry of Ghana and to some extent globally. The exploratory nature of the study using preliminary findings from focus group discussions contributes to the literature on occupational health psychology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".