• Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.7.1-7.14
• /
• 2023

Background: At present, no short standard questionnaire exists for assessing and comparing major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the United States. Methods: We conducted a series of psychometric tests (content validity, factor analysis, differential-item functioning analysis, reliability, and concurrent validity) to validate and identify core items and scales for major work organization hazards using the data from the 2002-2014 General Social Surveys (GSSs), including the Quality of Worklife (QWL) questionnaire. In addition, an extensive literature review was undertaken to find other major work organization hazards which were not addressed in the GSS. Results: Although the overall validity of the GSS-QWL questionnaire was satisfactory in the psychometric tests, some GSS-QWL items of work-family conflict, psychological job demands, job insecurity, use of skills on the job, and safety climate scales appeared to be weak. In the end, 33 questions (31 GSS-QWL and 2 GSS) were chosen as the least, but best validated core questions and included in a new short standard questionnaire (called the Healthy Work Survey [HWS]). And their national norms were established for comparisons. Furthermore, based on the literature review, fifteen more questions for assessing other significant work organization hazards (e.g., lack of scheduling control, emotional demands, electronic surveillance, wage theft) were included in the new questionnaire. Thus, the HWS includes 48 questions in total for assessing traditional and emerging work organization hazards, which covers seven theoretical domains: work schedule/arrangement, control, support, reward, demands, safety, and justice. Conclusions: The HWS is a short standard questionnaire for assessing work organization hazards which can be used as a first step toward the risk management of major work organization hazards in the workplaces of the US.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.189-234
• /
• 2023

The most common and prevailing system of virtue ethics is based around the idea of personality rather than external behavior and it grew out of the Aristotelian system of virtue ethics. The purpose of this study is to find out the characteristics of the virtue ethics found within Daesoon Thought through comparison to Aristotelian virtue ethics. This can serve as a basis to establish the virtue ethics of Daesoon Thought in further studies. The systems of virtue ethics posited by the two traditions are similar in that they are both teleological as the virtues they recognize are related to human nature in the context of certain metaphysical assumption and they both exhibit the characteristic tendencies of seeking to realize the highest human good. Therefore, in the Aristotelian context, virtues can be defined as "characteristics needed for the realization of eudaimonia," and for Daesoon Thought, virtues are "characteristics needed for the realization of the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence." The representative virtues examined in this comparative study will be the Aristotelian Golden Mean, and the the concepts of guarding against self-deception and great benevolence and great justice in Daesoon Thought. In comparison to Aristotelian virtues, these differ in three main ways. First, Aristotelian virtue is not an innate aspect of character the way it is assumed to be in Daesoon Thought wherein the original human heart bestowed by Heaven is already virtuous. Second, mental virtue in the Aristotelian context centers the mind upon reason whereas in Daesoon Thought, the heart-mind exhibits both reason and emotional concern for others. Third, eudaimonia is a concept limited to humans and their societies whereas the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence is a good that includes all beings including divine beings, animals, plants, and Heaven and Earth. Despite the differences, both require practical reason, continuous education, and effort to succeed in the cultivation of virtues and the proper implementation of virtuous living.