576 Occupational Health Psychology
workplace, context-unique assessments of occupational envi-
ronments have generally relied on self-report, employee-
opinion questionnaires (Grif“n, Hart, & Wilson-Evered,
2000; Kraut, 1996). Similar but more expansive methods
provide for in-depth organizational assessment procedures,
often identi“ed in the rubric of or ganizational evaluations, di-
agnosis, or audits (Cartwright, Cooper, & Murphy, 1995;
Levinson, 2002). These methodologies generally add qualita-
tive information obtained from interviews with individuals
and groups, supplemented with behavioral observations and
organizational records to add depth to the more general opin-
ion surveys.
Outcome measures are taken from all OHP component
disciplines and cover a wide array of both individual and
organizational indices. Self-report measures used in outcome
evaluations are often collected in conjunction with opinion
surveys during assessment procedures. Collection of objec-
tive measures of organizational variables, such as productiv-
ity measures, has varied in use and effectiveness. At the
organizational level, measures used to indicate organizational
health or the impact of intervention programs have included
corporate “nancial status (Casio, 1998) and production out-
put, as well as employee-related measures of work with-
drawal and job satisfaction. Experience sampling techniques,
which collect information in real time through the use of
diaries or electronic records taken at random across a period
of time, have been increasingly used to overcome the prob-
lems associated with retrospective self-report measures
(Weiss, 2001). At the individual level, illness and accident
rates, morbidity and mortality rates, unscheduled absences,
and various measures of physical, psychological, or emo-
tional distress have been widely used.
Despite the important role of a data-based foundation in
OHP growth and development, measurement and method-
ological problems have plagued the “eld of OHP as has been
the case generally in occupational stress research (Koop,
1992). Methodologies and instruments used to measure orga-
nizational health and its related processes are generally
inconsistent across studies, with new researchers using their
own favorite techniques or measures or, more likely, develop-
ing a unique measure for each new purpose. A number of stan-
dardized measurement instruments have been designed to
measure job stress, individual and organizational strain or dis-
tress, individual coping (e.g., Cooper et al., 1988; Hurrell &
McLaney, 1988; Moos, 1981; Osipow & Spokane, 1992;
Speilberger, 1994), human factors (Kohler & Kamp, 1992;
Reason, 1997), behavioral risk (Yandrick, 1996), and organi-
zational climate (James & James, 1989). Yet, the inconsistent
use of standardized instruments across studies examining
similar constructs continues to limit the ability of both
researchers and practitioners to make comparisons across oc-
cupations, across industries, across international boundaries,
and across time. In addition, the ability to generalize the
results of intervention strategies that use a wide variety of
constructs and measures is limited. Effective surveillance and
monitoring strategies are needed to determine where the or-
ganization is at any time and to control the process of move-
ment toward positive health states, as well as to evaluate the
effectiveness and outcomes of prevention and intervention
strategies. Theory-linking variables and processes are also in
need of substantive development. Theory-driven evaluation
and practice is increasingly recognized as vital to developing
meaningful explanations for the results of intervention as well
as for bolstering the probability of replication of program
results across occupations, industries, and organizations
(Adkins & Weiss, in press).
Thus, promoting organizational health requires develop-
ing effective organizational health assessment methodolo-
gies. Methods for assessing and monitoring psychosocial risk
factors, as well as for measuring and tracking outcomes from
interventions designed to eliminate the risks or to reduce
or mitigate the impact of those risk factors on individual
well-being and organizational effectiveness, provide metrics
vital to both practitioners and researchers. Assessing psy-
chosocial strengths and weaknesses associated with both
the organizational environment and the individuals in that
environment can target resources at high-risk, high-leverage
variables. By repeating the process following a period of
intervention, managers and change agents can track out-
comes and re“ne intervention tar gets as changes occur. Basic
and applied research into these processes form a foundation
for the on-going development of OHP practice guidelines.Organizational Health Centers: A Practice ModelThe scientist-practitioner model has provided a solid founda-
tion for the development of organizational health centers
(OHC). It is through practice that organizations and individ-
ual workers “nd bene“t in the developing OHP knowledge
and technology. OHCs represent the practical application of
OHP theory and principles to the workplace.
The American Psychological Association (APA) and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) proposed a national strategy for the prevention of
work-related psychological disorders (Sauter et al., 1990) and
to address workplace psychosocial risk factors and stress
contributing to occupational illness and injury rates. This
strategy included a blueprint of four objectives: (a) to im-
prove working conditions through organizational modi“ca-
tion to reduce potential psychosocial risks and produce a