Internet-delivered Strengths Use Intervention
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
The aim of the study will be to test the feasibility and acceptability of a novel online-delivered gamification-based intervention for the identification, development, and use of strengths in the organization. The program will be addressed to employees at the beginning of their careers and will have the aim of boosting their well-being and performance.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Intervention group The experimental arm will receive the online strengths use intervention program over a period of 6 weeks, through an LMS software solution. |
Behavioral: Internet-delivered strengths use intervention
The online strengths use intervention program, will be based on Miglianico et al.'s (2020) general framework, following the theorized five stages: (1) preparation and commitment, (2) identification, (3) integration, (4) action, and (5) evaluation.
As to increase participant engagement and motivation, gamification components will be embedded in several of these stages.
The entire intervention will be delivered online via an LMS software solution.
|
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Work engagement [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Work engagement will be measured with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). It has 9 items that form three dimensions, each with 3 items: vigor (e.g., "At my work, I feel bursting with energy"), dedication (e.g., "I am enthusiastic about my job"), and absorption (e.g., "I am immersed in my work"). This measure uses a 7-point agreement scale (0 = never, 6 = always).
- Psychological capital (PsyCap) [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Psychological capital will be measured with the 12-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans et al., 2007). It has four subscales: hope ("At the moment, I feel quite fulfilled at work."), self-efficacy ("I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues."), resilience ("Usually, at work, I easily get over the stressful aspects."), and optimism ("I am optimistic about what will happen to me in the future regarding my job."). All 12-item are reported on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).
- Strengths use [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Strengths use will be measured with a set of nine items, from the scale proposed by Van Woerkom et al. (2016), rated on a 0 (almost never) to 6 (almost always) Likert scale. A sample item is "I seek opportunities to do my work in a manner that best suits my strong points".
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Burnout [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Burnout will be assessed with the 12-item Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT; Schaufeli, De Witte, & Desart, 2020). This questionnaire has four subscales: exhaustion (3 items; "At work, I feel mentally exhausted."), emotional impairment (3 items; "At work, I feel unable to control my emotions."), cognitive impairment (3 items; "At work, I have trouble staying focused.") and mental distance (3 items; "I struggle to find any enthusiasm for my work."). Also, these scales are completed with two supplementary scales: psychological complaints (5 items; "I feel tense and stressed.") and psychosomatic complaints (5 items; "I suffer from headaches."). All items will be scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
- Job satisfaction [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Job satisfaction will be measured with the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Camman et al., 1979). The scale has three items with a response on a 7-point scale (1 = total disagreement, 7 = total agreement). A sample item reads: "In general, I like working here.".
- Job performance [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Job performance will be assessed with a 7-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Response options range on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is "I adequately complete my assigned duties.".
- Positive affect [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Positive Affect (PA) will be measured with the 10 items of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988; Crawford & Henry, 2004), representing different types of positive emotions (e.g., "excited", "inspired", and "enthusiastic"). Respondents will be asked to indicate to what extent they experienced these in the time frame of the intervention on a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all; 5 = very much).
- Life satisfaction [Change from baseline to post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks).]
Life satisfaction will be measured with the five items of the Satisfaction with Life Scale developed by Diener et al. (1985). All answers are reported on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 7 = totally agree); one item example being, "I am satisfied with my life".
Other Outcome Measures
- Satisfaction with the intervention [At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.]
Satisfaction with the intervention will be measured using 22 items. We will use 6 items aiming at the program's content retrieved from a questionnaire used for measuring the alliance between trainers and trainees. The minimum score is 6 and the highest is 42. A higher score means a better outcome (increased satisfaction with the intervention). Also, we will use 16 items retrieved from a scale previously used for measuring the satisfaction with an online intervention (Tulbure et al., 2018). Nine of the items are measured on a Likert scale. The minimum score is 7 and the maximum is 42. A higher score means greater satisfaction. 7 items are open-ended questions.
- System usability [At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.]
We will use a 10-item questionnaire (Bangor et al., 2009) designed to measure participants' satisfaction with the online platform used for the program delivery. The total score of the System Usability Scale ranges between 0 and 100. A higher score means a better outcome.
- Treatment adherence [At study completion (post-intervention), an average of 6 weeks.]
The number of completed assignments; Quality of completed assignment (qualitative rating of the degree of completeness and depth of the answer for each assignment, conducted by two independent experts based on apriori established coding grids).
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
-
the eligible participants should have a maximum work experience of 3 years;
-
participants should score 4 or lower than 4 (on a scale from 0 to 6) on work engagement;
-
participants' job autonomy should permit bottom-up changes to their work routines (based on a filter Yes/No question);
Exclusion Criteria:
-
workload which will impede following the intervention program (based on a filter Yes/No question);
-
lack of internet access during the period of the implementation of the program (based on a filter Yes/No question).
Contacts and Locations
Locations
No locations specified.Sponsors and Collaborators
- West University of Timisoara
Investigators
None specified.Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Publications
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P. & Miller, J.A. (2009). Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114-123.
- Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan).
- Crawford JR, Henry JD. The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004 Sep;43(Pt 3):245-65.
- Luthans, F. L., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. A. (2007). Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PsyCap) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06483-000
- Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A. B., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: a literature review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 737-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w
- Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)-Development, Validity, and Reliability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 18;17(24). pii: E9495. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249495.
- Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
- Tulbure BT, Rusu A, Sava FA, Sălăgean N, Farchione TJ. A Web-Based Transdiagnostic Intervention for Affective and Mood Disorders: Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2018 May 24;5(2):e36. doi: 10.2196/mental.8901.
- Van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., De Beer, L., & Rothmann Jr, S. (2016). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010
- Watson D, Clark LA. Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychol Bull. 1984 Nov;96(3):465-90. Review.
- Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
- MEGSIS S3 Pilot