Abstract

This study examines the measurement of well-being at work. Two different methodological strategies with the same theoretical background - Sociotechnical Systems Theory - are empirically compared and submitted to a validity and reliability test. In the first methodological strategy, the WEBA-method, the assessment of well being at work is done by researchers/experts. In the second methodological strategy, the NOVA-WEBA method, the assessment is done by the research-subjects themselves. Both methods pretend to identify risks with respect to well-being at work and should generate identical results. The analysis of original data obtained from the same research population by means of the different two research-strategies shows no significant correlation between the scores of WEBA and NOVA-WEBA. As a result, the functional equivalence of both instruments is called into question.

How to Cite:

Delarue, A., (2003) “Het meten van stress: de stress van het meten: de beoordeling van kwaliteit van de arbeid: een confrontatie van methodologische strategieën”, Tijdschrift voor Sociologie 24(4), 363–388. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/sociologos.86588