Optimization of Perceived Work Ability Among Offi-Groen Kennisnet 366032

Master Thesis
Optimization of perceived work ability among

office employees
An exploratory study concerning
the relationship between the
office environment and the
perceived work ability
Linda Bolck, MME, Facility Management
November 2015
i
Master Thesis
Author: Linda Bolck
Registration number: 911126091070
E-mail address: linda.bolck@wur.nl
Faculty: MME, Facility Management
Course number: MST-80433
ECTS: 33 credits
Start date: 26-01-2015
Commissioning Company
Institute: Adaptics, Nijmegen
Extern advisor: L. Gerritsen
Wageningen University
1st Academic Supervisor: Dr. H. B. Kok
2nd Academic Supervisor: Dr. J.L.F. Hagelaar
ii
ABSTRACT
Thanks to the recently exposed evidence about how office environments impact the health and
wellbeing of employees, organisations are more aware of the benefits of health promoting workplaces
and therefore this concept is gathering pace. The purpose of this study is to ascertain if there is a
relationship between work-related aspects of the office environment and the perceived work ability
of office employees.
Firstly the relationship between work-related aspects in the office environment and the
perceived work ability is identified with literature. Thereafter hypotheses are formulated in order to
test them. Data from the health management agency Adaptics were used and the hypotheses are
tested with 343 perceived work ability scores of office employees. They are tested with aid of an
exploratory factor analysis, a Cronbach’s Alpha and a multiple linear regression. The final model had a
total explained variance of 23,5%, of the perceived work ability, but only one out of the seven work-
related aspects showed a significant contribution to the perceived work ability (b=0,916; P=0,00). This
is the factor concerning the possibility for seclusion at offices, it explains 2,9% of the variance in the
perceived work ability.
The final measurement model reveals the relationship between seven work-related aspects of the
office environment and the perceived work ability. This study concluded that the physical health of an
office employee has the biggest impact on the perceived work ability. In this study the physical health
is measured with coronary heart diseases and musculoskeletal symptoms. These two aspects
respectively explain 2,7 and 5,7% of the variance of the perceived work ability. So based on this study
it can be concluded that the physical health is more important than the office environment in order to
improve the perceived work ability because together they explain 8,4% of the variance which is more
than 2,9%. Therefore it is recommended for employers to focus on the health of the employees and
embed the Work Ability Index (WAI) in a broader strategic policy of an organisation. If the WAI is
measured more often in time and on structural basis, employees can detect changes in their physical
and mental health and see how well the work demands matches their individual resources.
Subsequently employers can create targeted interventions in order to improve the perceived work
ability. In addition employers can execute a work environment survey on structural bases in order to
measure the experience of the work environment among the employees. This study showed a
difference between work-related aspects and their influence on office employees during literature
study and empirical study. For instance the work-related aspects in the office environment concerning
the experience of daylight, (artificial) lighting, office accessories, ergonomics and the indoor climate
control do not significantly impact the perceived work ability of an office employee according to this
empirical study, relating to the office employee literature mentioned differently. Therefore it might be
interesting for employers to measure the experience of the office environment per employee.
Key words: office environment, perceived work ability, work environment, promoting employee’s
wellbeing
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................vi

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Background of the research .......................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Adaptics ......................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Problem statement........................................................................................................................ 9
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Research objective ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Research questions...................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Research method ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.1 Literature study .................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Empirical study ..................................................................................................................... 13
3. LITERATURE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Perceived work ability ................................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Definition of perceived work ability ..................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Dimensions of work ability ................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3 The Work Ability Index (WAI) ............................................................................................... 17
3.1.4 Effects of different levels of work ability.............................................................................. 19
3.1.5 Promotion of work ability..................................................................................................... 20
3.1.6 Conclusion – Research question 1 ........................................................................................ 21
3.2 Work-related aspects in the office environment ........................................................................ 22
3.2.1 Definition of the office environment ................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 World of work trends ........................................................................................................... 23
3.2.3 Studies on work-related aspects of the office environment ................................................ 25
3.3 Control variables ......................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Impact of work on the individual ......................................................................................... 31
3.3.2 Impact of individual characteristics on perceived work ability ............................................ 32
3.4 Relationship between the office environment and the perceived work ability ......................... 35
3.4.1 Office equipment.................................................................................................................. 36
iv
3.4.2 Workplace design and experience ....................................................................................... 37
3.4.3 Indoor climate at the office .................................................................................................. 38
3.4.4 Noise at the office ................................................................................................................ 38
3.4.5 Lighting at the office ............................................................................................................. 39
4. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................................... 43
4.1 The research sample ................................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Results statistical analyses .......................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1 Factor analysis ...................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.2 Cronbach’s alpha .................................................................................................................. 46
4.2.3 Control variables................................................................................................................... 46
4.2.4 Multiple linear regression .................................................................................................... 50
4.3. Hypotheses testing ..................................................................................................................... 54
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 55
5.1 Gap between literature and empirical study .............................................................................. 55
5.2 Empirical study ............................................................................................................................ 57
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 60
6.1 Organisations............................................................................................................................... 60
6.2 Adaptics ....................................................................................................................................... 61
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix I – General survey Adaptics ............................................................................................... 62
Appendix II – Office environment survey Adaptics ........................................................................... 79
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 86
v
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Despite that the major part of the workforce is employed in an office, the occupational health among
office workers have been relatively ignored until the end of the 80’s. The reason for the ignorance was
due to the assumption that office work was safe. However, offices also have risks for the health of the
employees. Growing evidence even showed that integrated initiatives to promote and protect the
health of the employees may help minimize the economic and social burden associated with health
problems. Thanks to the growing evidence organisations are more aware of the benefits of health
promoting workplaces and therefore the concept is gathering pace. This research focuses on one of
the conditions of the health and wellbeing of the employee which is the perceived work ability.
Perceived work ability is an individual’s self-perception of their ability to continue working. Currently
there is no detailed information on how the office environment influences the perceived work ability.
Therefore the purpose of this study is to ascertain if there is a relationship between work-related
aspects of the office environment and the perceived work ability.
In order to achieve the purpose a thorough literature study is executed to identify the
relationship between the two main concepts of this study; the perceived work ability and the office
environment. Thereafter statistical analyses are executed with the existing data of Adaptics. The study
population exists of 650 respondents, whereof 343 with a perceived work ability score. The
respondents come from various organisations which are profit and non-profit. The statistical analyses
exist of an exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha and a multiple linear regression. Finally seven
factors concerning the office environment are statistically tested with the 343 scores of perceived work
ability. The seven factors were concerning the possibility for seclusion, office accessories, indoor
climate control, ergonomics, artificial lighting, adaptable office chair and an exterior view. During the
multiple linear regression the effects of the control variables; level of autonomy, mental strain, age,
educational level, weight, coronary heart diseases and musculoskeletal symptoms are held constant.
In contradiction to the literature the multiple linear regression proved that only the possibility for
seclusion at work has a significant contribution to the perceived work ability (b=0,845; P=0,00) with an
explained variance of 2,9%. Therefore, the following hypotheses are accepted:
H2: Experiences at the office environment associated with a lack of privacy, distractions and a
feeling of obstruction among office employees is negatively related to the perceived work ability.
H4: Auditory distractions in the office environment are negatively related to the perceived work
ability of office employees.
The final measurement model reveals the relationship between seven work-related aspects of the
office environment and the perceived work ability. The final model explains 23,5% of the perceived
work ability, whereby the two control variables concerning the physical health of the employee have
a big contribution. The control variable respecting the coronary heart disease has an explained
variance of 2,7% the perceived work ability, the musculoskeletal symptoms explains 5,7%. This means
that the physical health has a bigger influence on the perceived work ability than the work-related
factors in the office environment. Based on this study it is recommended for employers to focus on
the physical health of the employees. This can be done by embedding the WAI (Work Ability Index) in
a broader strategic policy. Subsequently targeted interventions can be executed in order to increase
the perceived work ability.
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
This MSc thesis serves as a final assessment for MSc Management Studies, specialization Facility
Management. This chapter is an introduction to the research subject. Paragraph 1.1 describes the
background of the research. Paragraph 1.2 gives an introduction of Adaptics, the commissioner of this
research. The problem statement can be found in paragraph 1.3.
1.1 Background of the research

Over the last several decades, offices have been replacing factories as the centre of work activity.
Nowadays the major part of the workforce is employed in an office setting. Until the end of the 80’s
office workers have been relatively ignored in the occupational health. The reason for the ignorance
at that time was due to the assumption that office work was safe. Even though the health risks at the
offices seems less severe because they are not immediately visible, offices also bear risks for the health
of the employees (Klitzman and Stellman, 1989). A growing number of studies have been documenting
the impact of specific environmental conditions at offices on the physical health of employees. For
instance, indoor air pollution and ventilation problems in offices have been associated with a variety
of complaints. Besides the impact on the physical health evidence also shows that aspects of the
environment have an effect on psychological wellbeing of office workers (Klitzman and Stellman,
1989). The wellbeing of employees is a relevant subject because all organisations are striving to
improve or retain their organisation’s performance, productivity and outcome. In order to realize this,
organisations need their employees in optimal condition, physically and psychologically (Vänni et al.,
2012). This makes the concept of health-promoting workplaces a prerequisite for economic
development (Chu et al., 2000). The employees’ wellbeing has grown in relevance with the importance
of the green and sustainable buildings in which various systems offer improvements related to the
office environment and indirectly related to the wellbeing of the office employees (Leder et al., 2015).
Occupational health and safety services (OHS) are increasingly working with reliable and relevant data
in order to decrease work-related sickness and absence and increase the productivity. According to
Robroek et al. (2012) there is a clear correlation between a loss of productivity during work and
reduced work ability; employees with an excellent score of work ability have an average productivity
of 93%, whereby the employees with a poor score of work ability have an average of 70%.
Growing evidence shows that health management strategies that integrate initiatives to
promote and protect the health of the employees may help minimize the economic and social burden
associated with health problems (CoreNet Global and Sodexo, 2014). Thanks to the growing evidence
organisations are more aware of the benefits of health promoting workplaces and therefore the
concept is gathering pace (Chu et al., 2000). This research focuses on one of the conditions of the
health and wellbeing of the employee which is the perceived work ability.
7
1.2 Adaptics
This research is performed for Adaptics. Adaptics is a health management agency located in Nijmegen.
It is an organisation that monitors and supports health among employees by providing various kinds
of services to organisations. Adaptics’ goal is to improve organisations by improving the health and
wellbeing of the employees. They enable organisations to remain their employees employable. Their
approach to health management is characterized by the fact that health itself is no longer the goal.
They consider health as a means to achieve and increase the individual work performance; this will
eventually lead to an increase in the productivity of organisations. One of the services Adaptics offers
is the Preventive Medical Research. This research monitors the lifestyle, work capacity and health of
the employees in order to promote and improve it. If necessary, Adaptics makes use of their health
bus. This is a mobile test and measurement laboratory where Adaptics can execute health checks.
These health checks consist of a digital survey, a physical and medical check and various activities with
employees.
The physical and medical check encompasses measurements of the blood pressure, weight,
cholesterol and height and waist circumference. This health check reveals the physical health of the
employee and offers an overview of the individual assessments which make the employee aware of
their own health and wellbeing. The digital survey is focused on the employee and their work
experience. It reveals the psychological health and gives an overview of items like; satisfaction at work,
enthusiasm at work and the workload. In addition, it also gives an overview of the individual lifestyle
factors of employees like; how they deal with exercises, smoking, alcohol, diets and how they think
about their own vitality. All this information provides Adaptics insight in the lifestyle and potential
health risks of the employees. This makes them able to deploy targeted interventions to improve the
employability and work ability of the employees. Nevertheless Adaptics also acts like a consultant by
giving workshops, courses and advice concerning the employability of the employees without
executing health checks. By doing this they offer advice to organisations regarding the implementation
of long-term employability. Finally, Adaptics imparts advice about correct subsidies and the
implementation of health management.
In the past few years Adaptics executed several health checks for various companies. The
aforementioned surveys reveal the physical and psychological health of the employees. In addition,
Adaptics possess a survey about the office design and how employees experience the office
environment. Both surveys can be found in Appendix I and II.
8
1.3 Problem statement
As in most Western countries the population of the Netherlands is aging. As can been seen in figure 1
and 2 the baby boomers have already reached middle age and they are approaching the age at which
many of them would retire. The amount of 50- to 64-year-old people in the European Union will
increase and reach the level of 35% of the whole workforce during this year (Ilmarinen et al., 2005).
Because the aging population is continuing, the possibility of having a better and longer working life is
getting more important than ever in order to keep the workforce balanced and accurate. Despite the
increased life expectancy and improved health of people the period of people’s active work life has
decreased in many European countries. Nowadays only 38.5% of the 55-to 64-year-old people are
working in the European Union and the goal is to increase this rate (Ilmarinen et al., 2005). Improving
the workforce participation is one of the biggest challenges the Dutch society is facing (Robroek et al.,
2012). In order to realize improvement, changes are made in the pension schemes. These changes
impact retirement benefits and increase the age eligibility. This means that people are forced to work
longer, so the percentage of older workers in the workforce will increase in the following decades and
this makes the employability important. Employability is the degree to which employees are
motivated, healthy and willing to continue working (Taylor, 2013).
Figure 1 Dutch population pyramid 2015, CBS Figure 2 Dutch population pyramid 2025, CBS
Especially human resource departments have to deal with these issues, they are challenged to keep
employees as long as possible employable for the organisation. So there is a need to develop
interventions that will support employees to be motivated and engaged in paid employment until
pension age (van den Berg et al., 2008). The concept of employability regards work ability as the basic
prerequisite (Taylor, 2013). Sprudza et al. (2014) even stated that improvement of work ability is one
of the most effective ways to increase the work participation and lengthen and improve working life
among all employees. Improvement of work ability can enhance the ability and prevent disability and
early retirement (Sprudza et al., 2014). Therefore it is important to identify and understand factors
that can predict or influence the work ability of the employees. A research like this can benefit the
individual workers and the organisations that employ them by identifying ways to protect or improve
employee’s work ability (McGonagle et al., 2014).
9
Due to demographic changes in society, the increasing demands of work life and due to the
need to prolong the work life of employees the concept of work ability has grown in relevance
(Ilmarinen et al., 2005). Since the discovering of the fact that the possibility of having a better and
longer working life is strongly dependent on the work ability, organisations are increasingly using the
work ability score of their employees. Good work ability increases wellbeing and supports employment
but improving the work ability is a challenging and multidimensional task (Sprudza et al., 2014). In
order to improve the work ability it is essential to understand it and be aware of the role of the
different dimensions of work ability. Since the clients of Adaptics work in office environments this
research focuses on the office environment as workplace. So far not much research is done on the
influence of the office environment on the wellbeing of employees (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011), not
to mention the perceived work ability. This report fills a gap in the literature on work environment and
the office employees by focusing on the perceived work ability rather than the wellbeing of employees.
The results of this research will provide a better insight into the relationship between the work-
related aspects in the office environment and the perceived work ability. By improving the perceived
work ability of employees’ organisations can also improve their productivity and enhance their own
business (Robroek et al., 2012).
10
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This exploratory research is set up to study the work-related aspects of the office environment that
are associated with the perceived work ability. So the existence of this relationship will be established,
this makes the study a correlation study (Kumar, 2005). Eventually this research provides a
measurement model of the relationship between the two main concepts. In order to realize this, an
objective is set and research questions are formulated. Both will be described in the upcoming
sections; 2.1 and 2.2. Thereafter the research methods will be described in section 2.3.
2.1 Research objective

The research objective is:
To conceptualize the relationship between work-related aspects of the office environment and the
perceived work ability by developing and testing a measurement model.
2.2 Research questions

In order to achieve the objective the general research question is formulated as follows:
General Research Question

Is the perceived work ability of employees influenced by work-related aspects of
the office environment and how can the relationship be conceptualized in a
measurement model?
The general research question is broken down into five specific research questions. These specific
research questions identify parts of the relationship between the office environment and the
perceived work ability. The relationship between the main concepts of this research is shown in figure
3, the theoretical framework. This model is adopted from Donabedian (1988) who classifies these kinds
of relationships in three categories: structure, process and outcome. Structure stands for the attributes
of the environment in which the measurable concept takes place. The measurable concept of this
research is the perceived work ability, which takes place among the employees in the office
environment. Therefore the structure in this research is defined as the work-related aspects of the
office environment. Process includes the activities which are actually done by the person (respondent).
In this case the person is the office employee. So the process in this research is the activities
undertaken by the employee at the office. The specific activities he/she undertakes are excluded from
this study. This makes the process a black box where the employee perceives, behaves and copes with
aspects of the office environment.
Finally, the outcome is the effect of the process on the measurable concept, which is the perceived
work ability of the office employee.
The measurable variables of these concepts will be identified during the literature study.
Whereby the aspects of the office environment are the independent variables and the perceived work
ability is the dependent variable. As can been seen in figure 3 the relationship between the two main
concepts is influenced by other variables. These control variables influence how employees experience
aspects of the office environment, these can be variables related to work-related factors or the lifestyle
of the respondent. It eventually influences the perceived work ability and that is why they will be
11
identified in order to control them during the statistical analyses. Before the relationship between the
office environment and the perceived work ability can be established it is necessary to define the
concepts and identify linkages between the concepts. These concepts and linkages will be identified
with the specific research questions. Since the activities undertaken by the office employees are a
black box this aspect of the model will not be further researched during this study.
Specific research questions

1. What is perceived work ability?
2. What are the work-related aspects of the office environment?
3. What are the most important control variables which influence the relationship between the
office environment and the perceived work ability of employees?
4. How is the relationship between the work-related aspects of the office environment and the
perceived work ability of employees conceptualised in literature?
5. To what extent are work-related aspects of the office environment influencing the perceived
work ability?
Figure 3 Theoretical framework
12
2.3 Research method
In order to achieve the purpose of this research a literature and empirical study is necessary.
2.3.1 Literature study

A thorough literature study is necessary to find out what is already known about the relationship
between the two main concepts; the perceived work ability and the work-related aspects of the office
environment. At first literature study on these main concepts will be executed (RQ 1 and 2). However,
the magnitude of the relation between these concepts can be affected, positively or negatively, by a
number of other variables that are not the focus of this study. These control variables will also be
identified during the literature study (RQ 3). Finally the relationship between the two main concepts
will be researched in literature (RQ 4). There are not many studies about the relationship between the
perceived work ability and the office environment. Therefore this study will make use of prior research
about the relationship between the office environment and the employee, for example; employee’s
health. Health is the resource of an employee which is most clearly related to perceived work ability
(Gould et al., 2008). In addition the general wellbeing of an employee is also linked to the work ability
(Sprudza et al., 2014). The literature study will form the foundation for the empirical study whereby
the office environmental aspects that influence the wellbeing of office workers will be investigated to
determine whether they also have an effect on the perceived work ability of office workers. Based on
the literature study a concept of the measurement model will be made to create an overview of the
relationship between the two concepts.
2.3.2 Empirical study

This study draws upon an existing database containing detailed survey data gathered by Adaptics
during the previous three years among the clients and their office environments. The study population
exists of 650 clients from various companies. From all the respondents 261 are women and 389 are
men. The age of the respondents is between 22 and 66 years old. 343 respondents indicated a score
for the perceived work ability. By considering the results of the surveys from Adaptics, relationships
that are stable may be extracted. During the statistical analyses the additional effect of the control
variables will be held constant to determine the relation between the two main concepts. Adaptis
possess data concerning the physical and psychological health of employees and their lifestyle. These
variables possibly influence the relationship. Adaptics measures the perceived work ability using a
concise scale which consists of 24 questions. These questions are presented in the table 3. These 24
questions will finally lead to the perceived work ability. This score will be used for the statistical
analyses. As can been seen in Appendix II the variables of the office environment are almost all
dichotomous variables.
The empirical study will be executed based on the measurement model derived from
literature. Hypotheses will be formulated in order to test them. At first the dataset of Adaptics will be
manipulated to combine items of the survey into factors. Therefore an exploratory factor analysis will
be used because it identifies the structure of the underlying variables. The factor analysis looks for
intercorrelations of a set of variables. By doing this the variables concerning the office environment
can be combined into groups which have a similar response to the score of the perceived work ability.
After the factor analysis the reliability of the factors can be checked. Each factor can be checked on
reliability with the Cronbach’s alpha. This figure shows the variance within a particular item. For this
research a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0,7 is a preferable value because the higher the score the better
the internal consistency in the factor (Field, 2009). Finally the results of this research are derived from
13
a multiple linear regression of the data. The linear regression is used to explore the relationship
between the dependent variable and a number of independent variables. It can reveal how much each
factor is associated with the perceived work ability. So it also shows how well a certain variable can
predict a particular outcome and this information is necessary in order to answer the general research
question. During this analysis the control variables will be held constant.
After the statistical analyses the results will be verified with Adaptics to share opinions and
experiences. This is of great value because the employees of Adaptics have knowledge about the Dutch
workforce and the developments in practice. In this way new perspectives can be discovered.
14
3. LITERATURE STUDY
In order to ascertain the relationship between the perceived work ability and the work-related aspects
of the office environment it is necessary to investigate how this relationship is conceptualised in
literature. This thorough literature study answers research question 1, 2, 3 and 4 and will eventually
form the foundation for the empirical study. At first the two main concepts will be explained, secondly
the relevant control variables will be identified and finally the total relationship between the perceived
work ability and the work-related aspects at the office environment, identified by Adaptics, will be
described and conceptualised in a measurement model.
3.1 Perceived work ability

The aim of this section is to create a better understanding of work ability and define perceived work
ability, which is the focus of this research. In addition, the different dimensions of work ability will be
identified in order to gain more knowledge about how to maintain and improve it.
3.1.1 Definition of perceived work ability

Work ability is constructed and defined in 1981 in Finland and was later on adopted in different
European and Asian countries (Sprudza et al., 2014). The background of work ability is based on the
stress-strain concept and balance model, where the human resources are matching with the work
demands in a healthy and safety way. Work ability is related with a lot of factors of work life. This
includes factors related to the individuals, the workplace and the social environment. Because of all
these versatile elements a definition of work ability is challenging (Gould et al., 2008). The Finnish
researcher Juhani Ilmarinen did a lot of studies about the work ability and defined it as follows: “How
good is the worker at present, in the near future, and how able is he or she to do his or her work with
respect to the work demands, health and mental resources?” (Ilmarinen et al., 2005). This report is
focused on the subjectively estimated work ability, also called the perceived work ability. This concept
is defined as:
An individual’s self-perception or evaluation of his or her ability to continue working in his or her job
(McGonagle et al., 2014)
It is the degree to which the employee thinks he or she is physically and mentally able to perform the
job (McGonagle et al., 2014). The subjective measure of work ability has proved to be a good predictor
of the objective measure of work ability (Tuomi et al., 1997). Several factors influence the perceived
work ability and many of them are changeable. This means they are adaptable to the needs of the
employees. When investments for maintaining or improving the perceived work ability are accurately
targeted they will also show results concerning the employability because perceived work ability is a
precondition of the employability (Blik op werk, 2009). Consequently, work ability is a dynamic process
which results from the interaction of working conditions, individual characteristics and society
(Ilmarinen and Costa, 1999).
15
3.1.2 Dimensions of work ability
Various models have been used to examine work ability. Overall there seems to be a consensus that
work ability is based on the balance between a person’s resources and work demands (Martinez and
Latorre, 2006; MCGonagle et al., 2014; Ilmarinen et al., 2005, Gould et al., 2008). The Finnish Institute
of Occupational Health has developed a holistic work ability model which encompasses the resources
of the individual, factors related to work and the work environment. This model is in a shape of a house
and is presented in figure 4. The first three flours represent the individual resources which are health
and functional capacity, knowledge, skills and values and attitudes and motivation (Ilmarinen, 2006).
The fourth floor represents the work-related factors which consist of the work conditions, work
content and demands, work community and organisation and the supervisory work and management
(Ilmarinen, 2006). The house is surrounded by factors that influence the work ability in a positive or
negative way. These are family and the close community, but also the society because of the
occupational policies and services from the macro environment (Gould et al., 2008). The idea of the
house is that the stronger the foundation, the stronger the work ability will be throughout a person’s
work life. The values and attitudes are positioned closed to the work life because good or bad
experiences from work first have an impact on the attitude and motivation of the employee. The fourth
floor, which is the work life, is the biggest floor because it sets the standard. If the employees’
resources are not in balance with the work life, then work ability will decrease. However, organisations
have the power to adapt the fourth floor to the individual resources in order to enhance the business.
This means they have to support the employees’ resources. Though this is harder than it seems
because the resources of the individual also changes throughout life due to ageing, new technologies
and influences of globalization (Gould et al., 2008)
Figure 4 Dimensions of work ability (Ilmarinen, 2006)
16
3.1.3 The Work Ability Index (WAI)
The work ability can be measured with the Work Ability Index (WAI). WAI is by far the most used, and
well-accepted instrument to measure work ability. It is developed in the early 80’s by the Finnish
Institute of Occupational Health. The WAI is applicable for different professions, for individuals and
groups of workers. The WAI is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the ability of a worker to
perform his or her job, taking into account the work-related factors, mental and physical capabilities
and health (Sprudza et al., 2014). The results of the WAI have been used for different purposes. They
are used in practice by the occupational health as well as for scientific purposes (Robroek et al., 2012).
It is important to know that the WAI does not show what the causes are of a poor level of work ability
and what actions need to be taken. If a poor level of work ability is detected, then a variety of causes
is possible. To discover the causes it is necessary to involve the employee concerned and talk with him
before taking actions.
The WAI entails a questionnaire on physical and mental demands of an individual in relation
to their work, diagnosed diseases and limitations in work due to diseases, sick leave, work ability
prognosis and psychological resources. These features are allocated to the seven items of the WAI. The
seven items are presented in table 1. For each item a single item score can be obtained (Ilmarinen,
2007).
Items Range
1. Current work ability compared with the lifetime best 0-10
2. Work ability in relation to the demands of the job 2-10
3. Number of current diseases diagnosed by physician 1-7
4. Estimated work impairment due to diseases 1-6
5. Sick leave during the past year (12 months) 1-5
6. Own prognosis of work ability 2 years from now 1-7
7. Mental resources 1-4
Table 1 The seven items of the WAI (Ilmarinen, 2007)
The WAI is calculated by summing the points of the seven items. The score ranges from 7 to 49 points
and indicates the productivity of the individual employee and the chance on absence in the future. It
is a good predictor for the employability of the employees in the future (Blik op werk, 2009). The
results of the index can be divided into the four categories shown in table 2. As can been seen the
higher the score the better the work ability. Concerning the poor work ability score it is essential to do
further research to prevent absenteeism of this employee. So the restore of the work ability is the
most important issue. Concerning the moderate score the employee experiences several bottlenecks
that give the employee the idea that he or she works less well. These elements can cause absenteeism
on the long term. So it is important to explore what has led to this result and consider how it can be
improved. Regarding a good level of work ability there are no problems faced by the employee. There
is no reason to take actions and interventions immediately. However, supporting the work ability can
sustain or even improve the score. Excellent work ability is the best score. The employee does not
experience any problems so actions are not required (Blik op werk, 2009).
17
Points Work ability Objective of measures
7-27 Poor Restore work ability
28-36 Moderate Improve work ability
37-43 Good Support work ability
44-49 Excellent Maintain work ability
Table 2 WAI distribution, (Sprudza et al., 2014)
Psychometric research on the WAI has shown two perceptions of work ability; the objective and the
subjective dimension (Martus et al., 2010). The subjective perceptions of work ability are more
practical to measure than objective work ability because they can be assessed without asking
participants to report diagnosed chronic health conditions. It can be measured using a concise scale
instead of the entire WAI (McGonagle et al., 2014). Adaptics uses this concise scale in order to measure
the perceived work ability of employees. The questions presented in table 3 will finally lead to the
score of the perceived work ability. This score will be used for the statistical analyses.
Question
1. What kind of tasks do you perform at work?
2. Assume that your work ability at its best has a value of 10 points. How many points would you
give your current work ability?
3. How do you rate your current work ability with respect to the physical demands of your work?
4. How do you rate your current work ability with respect to the mental demands of your work?
5. Injury due to an accident?
6. Musculoskeletal diseases at parts of the body? (e.g. repeated pain in joint or muscle, sciatica,
rheumatism, arthritis)
7. Cardiovascular diseases ?(e.g. hypertension, coronary heart disease)
8. Respiratory diseases? (e.g. repeated infections of the respiratory tract, bronchial asthma,
emphysema)
9. Mental disorder ?(e.g. depression, “burn-out”, anxiety or insomnia)
10. Neurological or sensory diseases?(e.g. hearing or visual disease, migraine, epilepsy)
11. Digestive diseases / condition? (e.g. gastritis, gall stones, liver or pancreatic disease, repeated
constipation)
12. Genitourinary diseases? (e.g. infection in urinary tract, gynaecological disease or prostate)
13. Skin diseases ?(e.g. allergic or other rash, varicose veins)
14. Tumour or cancer?
15. Endocrine or metabolic diseases? (e.g. diabetes, severe obesity or gout)
16. Blood diseases? (e.g. anemia, other blood disorder or defect)
17. Birth defects or diseases?
18. Other disorders or diseases
19. Is your illness or injury a hindrance to your current job?
20. During the last 12 months: how many whole days have you been off work because of health
issues?
21. Do you believe, according to your present state of health, that you will be able to do your
current job two years from now?
22. Have you been active and alert lately?
23. Have you been able to enjoy your regular daily activities lately?
24. Have you felt yourself to be full of hope about the future?
Table 3 Overview questions of perceived work ability
18
3.1.4 Effects of different levels of work ability
In the Netherlands the WAI has predictive value for disability and long-term absence of employees. A
low level of perceived work ability has impacts on different outcomes of the employees. Decreased
work ability does not directly means that an employee is a bad performer for the organisation; it
reveals how much a company might lose compared to the full capacity of the employee (Vänni et al.,
2012). A low level of work ability is associated with the poor and moderate score. According to Robroek
et al. (2012) most of the consequences of a low level of work ability are correlated with absenteeism,
loss of productivity at work and medical consumption. In addition Van den Berg (2010) confirmed that
poor work ability is associated with sickness absence and a loss of productivity. Loss of productivity
means the productivity losses at work due to reduced health (Van den Berg, 2010). Table 4 shows the
detailed productivity loss per work ability score. These figures are based on the perceived productivity
loss compared to other colleagues. Hence it is a subjective figure. However it still can be concluded
that an employee with a low level of work ability is relatively more expensive for an organisation than
an employee with a good level of work ability because their productivity is lower. In addition the
research of Robroek et al. (2012) proved that employees with a lower level of work ability often have
the intention to change jobs. This might be interesting for employers because if a certain employee is
valuable for them, aforementioned evidence will motivate them to improve the engagement between
the organisations and the employee and improve the perceived work ability.
Work ability score Productivity loss

Excellent -
Good -4,9%
Moderate -12,0%
Poor -26,6%
Table 4 The WAI score compared to perceived productivity loss (Van den Berg, 2010)
A high level of work ability is related with an excellent and good score of the work ability. A high level
of work ability is significantly related with a higher productivity and a higher quality of work compared
to the moderate and poor scores (Tuomi et al., 2001). A higher level of work ability allows an employee
to maintain their health and functional capacity longer; this has a positive impact on the quality of life
and wellbeing of the employee. This directly leads to a better employment (Gould et al., 2008). In
addition research has shown that people with high work ability have a lower risk for early retirement
(Ilmarinen, 2007).
19
3.1.5 Promotion of work ability
The work ability score can change over time, location or population that surrounds the employee.
Work ability is the basis for the employability of employees and it can be supported by a number of
interventions and social attitudes. The overall promotion of work ability can contribute to longer
careers, employment growth and wellbeing of the employees. In order to improve work ability,
targeted interventions need to be set. Therefore knowledge on the different factors which explain the
work ability, described in section 3.1.2, is essential (Sprudza et al., 2014). Because by influencing one
of the factors of work ability the final score can change. The elements which can restore, maintain or
promote work ability depend on the current work status, the needs of the target group and it must
concentrate on work content, physical work environment and the work community (Gould et al, 2008).
Ilmarinen (2006) developed a model for the promotion of work ability. He developed four
groups which are: 1) the work and work condition, 2) the employee, 3) the work community and 4) the
professional skills. These four groups correspond to the factors which explain the work ability. Figure
5 shows what these groups comprise; these are the factors on which one has to focus in order to
improve the work ability. The interventions can improve the work ability when correctly target (Tuomi
et al., 2001). If this is the case it will also lead to a better health. This can even lead to an improved
quality of life at work, wellbeing and increased productivity (Ilmarinen and Costa, 1999; Ilmarinen,
2006). Finally this will all lead to a better retirement (Ilmarinen, 2006). Studies have even shown that
it is possible to sustainably improve work ability, even for employees at older age (Ilmarinen, 2007). A
research in Finland proved that promotion of work ability was also economically beneficial for
organisations, this made the promotion of work ability in Finland more popular (Tuomi et al., 2001).
Tuomi et al. (2001) did a research whereby he tested the four groups of the promotion model
of Ilmarinen among 1101 Finnish ageing workers. The average age was 58, 4 years. Every group of the
promotion model is tested by the underlying factors. The research confirmed that the factors
concerning the work and work conditions had the best explanation rate of the work ability score, which
was 28% of the work ability.
During the promotion of work ability the
mental capacity of employees need support
because of the fast and continuing changes in
content, tools and intercourses at work as a result
of the digitalisation and globalisation (Tuomi et al.,
2001).
Figure 5 Model for promoting work ability (Ilmarinen, 2006)
20
3.1.6 Conclusion – Research question 1
This paragraph will use the aforementioned information in order to answer the first specific research
question:
Specific research question 1

What is perceived work ability?
Perceived work ability is slightly different than work ability, but it both is focused on the balance
between the work life and the individual resources. The work ability is an objective measure and the
perceived work ability is a subjective measure. This means the perceived work ability is the individuals
own perception of their resources, health and competences. In this report perceived work ability is
defined as:
An individual’s self-perception or evaluation of his or her ability to continue working in his or her job
(McGonagle et al., 2014)
It is the degree to which the employee thinks he or she is physically and mentally able to perform the
job (McGonagle et al., 2014). The subjective measure of work ability has proved to be good predictors
of the objective measure of work ability.
The work ability score can be measured with the Work Ability Index (WAI). A low level of work
ability leads to absenteeism, loss of productivity at work, medical consumption and a higher intention
to change jobs. A high level of work ability is related with a higher productivity and a higher quality of
work. This directly leads to a better employment. In addition research has shown that people with high
work ability have a lower risk for early retirement. However the WAI does not show what the causes
are of a poor level of work ability. So it is still unclear which interventions need to be taken in order to
improve it. The same goes for the subjective measure of the perceived work ability. That is why the
employee concerned need to be involved when his or her work ability need to be improved. This makes
improvement of work ability harder than it seems. In addition, resources of the individual also changes
throughout life due to ageing, new technologies and influences of globalization. So the work ability of
individuals also changes, this makes the improvement of work ability a dynamic and ongoing process.
However when investments for maintaining or improving work ability are accurately targeted they will
also show results concerning the employability of the employees because work ability is the
precondition for the employability.
In order to promote work ability Ilmarinen (2006) developed a promotion model which consists
of four focus areas; 1)the work and work condition, 2)the employee, 3)the work community and 4)the
professional skills. Tuomi (2001) stated that the work and work conditions had the best explanation
rate for work ability among ageing workers. So, it can be concluded that improvement of the factors
related directly to the work and the work environment will be more effective than improvement of the
other areas. Overall interventions can improve the work ability when correctly targeted. In addition it
is important that the mental capacity of the individual needs support because of the fast and
continuing changes in content, tools and intercourses at work as a result of the digitalisation and
globalisation.
21
3.2 Work-related aspects in the office environment
During the past few decades the forms and conditions of work have changed. Physical work has shifted
more towards mental work that increasingly involves working in offices (Lee and Brand, 2005).
Worldwide the amount of people who are employed in offices has increased. According to the EIB the
amount of office workers will increase even more because the service sector is getting more and more
important (Zuidema et al., 2012). Especially office employees spend a lot of time inside a building
whereby the office environment influences their wellbeing (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011). It is even
stated that 90% of our waking hours, people live and work in manufactured worlds with artificial air,
light, temperatures, sounds and materials. Most of the people spend more of their waking lives at the
workplace with colleagues than at home with their family (CoreNet Global and Sodexo, 2014). An
increasing number of people are exploring the consequences of this evolutionary lifestyle for human
health and wellbeing. This makes the office environment an important place to improve the wellbeing
of people (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011). The awareness of the impacts of the buildings on the human
beings created the rise of the sustainable buildings and workplaces (Leder et al., 2015). In addition, the
concept of health promoting workplaces is getting more important to organisations because they
increasingly recognize that success can only be realized with healthy and motivated employees (Chu
et al., 2000).
Most of the previous studies are focused on a single factor in the environment that could have
an effect on employees’ performance or wellbeing. Just a few studies investigated the relations
between more than one factor of the office environment and the employee (Kamarulzaman et al.,
2011). The purpose of this chapter is to identify the most important factors in the office environment
that are work-related. During reviewing different literature, the aspects that belong to the work-
related aspects will be collected to create a complete overview. In addition several trends around the
world impact the office environment nowadays. To gain insight in this process this section starts with
the trends in the work environment. Thereafter it will focus on prior workplace research to identify
the work-related aspects at the office environment.
3.2.1 Definition of the office environment

The office environment entails a lot of factors; therefore it is essential to define and delimited it. The
focus of this study is the physical indoor white collar office environment. This definition includes all
the facilities which are present at the office and influence the experience of the office environment.
This can be offices in profit and non-profit organisations. The overall design of the office which
influences the experience of the office environment is also included but the services provided at the
office environment are not included, because the services influence the experience of the office
environment among the office employees differently than the physical environment. Therefore it is
out of the scope for this study. This means that public rooms like canteens, restrooms or meeting
rooms will not be taken into account.
This indoor environment consists of various work-related aspects. The aim of this chapter is to
identify the relevant work-related aspects of the office environment for this study and answer specific
research question 2:
What are the work-related aspects of the office environment?
During this research work-related aspects are the aspects at the indoor office environment that are
semi-fixed or flexible and influence the way of working.
22
3.2.2 World of work trends
The world is changing in a rapid pace and the digital revolution has boosted the speed of change to a
remarkable level. This revolution influences most aspects of life; the private life and work life. The
effects of the digital revolution are becoming more visible in environments all over the world; for
example, the office environment (Lee and Brand, 2005). The office is one of the most dynamic human
environments in existence today. It is a space where technology, architecture, human desires and
ambitions need to match to each other and to the organisation in order to enhance the productivity
and wellbeing of the office workers. The office environment is not capable of changing the primary
processes of an organisation but it is able to facilitate or hamper the organisation and their employees.
Therefore the combination of architecture and organisation determine an important part of the health,
mood and behaviour of employees. Healthy and satisfied employees will enhance the organisation
(Mobach, 2009).
The changes at the office environment are due to trends and developments (Brill and
Weidemann, 2001). In this section three levels of trends and developments that affect the office
environment will be described; society, the office environment and the office employees. Diverse
research results supply some useful insights and an understanding of the different ways in which
several factors influence the working environment.
Society
Society entails the long-term structural changes and concerns all aspects of our lives. Nowadays the
society is characterised by fast upheavals caused by several demographic changes as well as by
globalisation and the digitalisation. One important thing that characterises our lives at this time is the
challenge of how to deal with the elements like the ‘always on’ workplace, being connected to each
other and being asked to produce, share and consume digital content on a global scale (CoreNet Global
and Sodexo, 2014). ICT solutions create the possibility to communicate with each other and have
access to information and knowledge on every desired place and at any time (Lee and Brand, 2005).
Employees have more freedom concerning place of work and time of work. As a consequence lifestyles
are becoming more flexible to change than ever before and people try to balance and harmonise the
needs of the self and those of society. Another trend is the self-development and personal growth
which is getting more important for people. People are more aware of their health and the impacts of
all kind of lifestyles on their health (CoreNet Global and Sodexo, 2014).
The office environment

This section summarizes the trends which are specifically related to the work-related areas. According
to Lee and Brand (2005) workplaces must support the fast technology development and
implementation, dynamic organisational changes and the employee’s needs for balancing privacy and
work processes. The office used to be the place in which to work; now it is just one of many among
others. The boundaries of physical space have expanded so has also the context of work: less hierarchy,
more non-territorial offices and temporary working areas. A lot of organisations are transforming the
traditional offices to activity-based offices whereby the fixed workstations are omitted (Bosma et al.,
2013). This open-plan design is characterized by individual workstations placed within an open space,
but also includes shared offices with more employees in one office. These open-design offices had to
provide an environment that would increase work efficiency and improve communication, while
reducing construction and equipment costs (Smith-Jackson and Klein, 2009). The lack of positive
23
outcomes for office workers has created many debates about the transformation to open-plan
designed offices. The lack is due to several variables in the office environment and many of them have
been researched, for instance; noise, lack of privacy and other distractions (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011;
Oldham and Rotchford, 1983). Some researchers have found significant effects and some studies have
failed to confirm direct relationships between aforementioned variables (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011).
However it is proved that well-designed workplaces are an essential factor to improve or maintain job
satisfaction and therefore it can contribute to enhance the business (Brill and Weidemann, 2001). That
is also a reason why the topic about the effect of the office environment on the employee’s wellbeing
and performance has grown in relevance.
Another trend which is emerging is the support of managing work-life balance by employers
(Lockwood, 2007). Employers can give the possibility to manage the work-life balance by providing
benefits such as laundry service or support a healthy lifestyle by promotion of a fitness program. Some
organisations provide tools which allow the employees to work at home but stay in touch with the
colleagues. All these developments confirm that the workplace is becoming an environment consisting
of physical and virtual spaces, variable modes of social interaction and tools that support new ways of
working. Some employees choose the organisations they want to work for based on these benefits as
well as the financial rewards. Nowadays offices are not only designed to enhance productivity but also
to generate a feeling of wellbeing among employees and help them achieve a better overall work-life
balance (Lockwood, 2007). This strategy is sometimes difficult to adopt because the composition of
the workforce in offices is often diversified in terms of age, culture and gender (CoreNet Global and
Sodexo, 2014).
The office employees

This section includes the specific changes and aspects that have an effect on the way we act at work.
It is evident how social and economic changes as well as the digital revolution are resulting in new
work-facilitating tools and new ways of working in organisations. This has added new processes, needs
and requirements to the existing ones. Abilities of an office worker have changed over the years due
to these changes (Sprudza et al., 2014). In addition the needs, requirements and expectations of
employees have increased and the demand for more wellbeing at work is growing. Overall the
adjustment and adaptation of offices to the needs of the employees play an important role in the
promotion of wellbeing and therefore in the office design. It is proven that a comfortable working
environment is important to enable employees to focus and do their job perfectly. This will ensure the
quality of life at work as well as performance of office workers (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011). In addition
Lee and Brand (2005) stated that more personal control over the physical workspace (e.g. adjustments)
and easy access to meeting places leads to higher perceived group cohesiveness and job satisfaction.
Overall research has demonstrated that aspects of the office environment can have a
significant effect on attitudes, behaviour, satisfaction and the performance of workers. Dole and
Schroeder (2001) even stated that employees who are more satisfied with the physical environment
are more likely to have better work outcomes. The studies which investigated the effect of certain
environmental variables on the performance and health of the office workers mainly have researched
similar environmental variables (Klitzman and Stellman, 1989). Most studies focus on noise, lighting,
temperature, existence of windows, ventilation and interior plant (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011; Oldham
and Rotchford, 1983). In the next section several studies will be reviewed in order to create a complete
overview of relevant work-related office aspects.
24
3.2.3 Studies on work-related aspects of the office environment
Reviewing literature on the office aspects showed that there are various models which provide a
framework that pulls together different aspects of the office environment. Combining these models
and summarizing all mentioned aspects will provide the information to eventually create a complete
overview of all the work-related aspects in the office environment for this study. One should bear in
mind that the work-related aspects for this research are the physical indoor aspects; including the
overall design. So this will also be the focus during the selection of work-related aspects for this
research. Therefore service aspects will not be taken into account. The studies that are reviewed are
executed in different time periods and have investigated several factors in the office environment.
At first, Alan Hedge did a research in 1982 about the reaction of employees to their work environment
(N=649). He mainly focused on the open-plan offices which he defined as an extremely flexible work
environment whereby each employee has equal work conditions. Hedge took various work-related
aspects into account and divided them into physical, psychosocial, work and general factors. Because
this research is focused on the interaction between employees and the physical indoor environment
the work and general factors are not taken into account. Alan Hedge had the following aspects
concerning the physical and psychosocial factors; 1) privacy and distraction, 2) health, 3) thermal
conditions, 4) workspace, 5) colour, 6) furniture and 7) routes. The privacy and distractions can both
be caused by general and specific sources. General sources are mainly of trivial matter. Specific sources
are distractions from other employees, meetings, telephones or office machines. Consequences of a
lack of privacy are related with experiences like; feeling overlooked, need for a door to close, hard to
deal with private matters because it is easy to overhear conversations. Both distractions and privacy
matters affect the work performance because in the research of Hedge respondents mentioned that
it is harder to concentrate, it is more difficult to do telephone conversations or to make decisions.
Concerning health the respondents mentioned that they frequently have sore eyes and that the office
is too stuffy. They have the desire to open a window for fresh air. Regarding the thermal conditions
employees mentioned that the office room is too hot or too cold. The fourth item; the workspace, is
about the size of the office and the storage space. Hedge assessed the furniture in an office; item six,
by the level of comfortability and satisfactory. The seventh group; routes, is defined by the comments
of the respondents about that colleagues frequently walk through the work area or that places in the
office are not properly used (Hedge, 1982). All the work-related aspects that Hedge took into account
during his study and meet the criteria for this study are summarized in table 7.
Tim Davis also did a study in 1984 about the influence of the physical environment on the behaviour
of people in an organisation. During the study he created a model that encompasses all the aspects in
the office environment. This model consists of three elements; 1) physical structure, 2) physical stimuli
and 3) symbolic artefacts, together they comprise the office environment. Various aspects of the
environment, which might influence the organisation, are divided among these three categories. In
table 5 the deviation of the environmental aspects by Tim Davis (1984) is presented.
The first category is the physical structure. This entails the architectural design and physical placement
of furnishings in a building that influence social interaction. Davis (1984) divided this category in three
groups; a) building design and physical location; b) furniture comfort, placement and seating
arrangement; c) open versus closed office design. The building design and physical location entails the
relative location of the office in the building. Davis stated that this influences the development of
interaction and relationships among employees and thereby it influences the behaviour of the
25
employees. Group B is concerning the furniture comfort, this group entails factors of the equipment
that facilitates the work. The place of the desks and the chairs can encourage and discourage
interruptions and eye contact. Group C is about the total design and experiences of the offices. Open
offices facilitate interaction, communication and productivity. The aspects of the office environment
that belong to this group are elements that offer a varying degree of visual and aural privacy, for
instance; doors and walls of glass or segregation that does not reach the floor or ceiling (Davis, 1984).
The second category of Davis; physical stimuli entails factors that influence the awareness of
the office environment among employees and affects their behaviour. This category encompasses all
objects that can draw the employee’s attention because the senses respond to it. Employers can steer
the stimuli in the desired direction. The actions or interventions that can be undertaken are also
regarding the design, organisation and experience of the office. Stimuli which are influencing the
wellbeing of the employee most of the time are Video Display Terminals (VDT) and lighting. Other
stimuli which influence the behaviour of employees according to Davis are shown in table 5.
The third category of Davis entails the symbolic artefacts; these are the individual objects of
the social setting in the office. All these objects communicate information about the organisation and
their employees in various ways. The conditions that surround the work, for instance; the furnishing
or restrooms, can be primary reasons for an employee to join a certain organisations and stay there.
In contrast a poorly designed office can trigger employees to leave the organisation. However, not all
of these aspects do influence the way of working or belong to the work-related aspects as formulated
for this research; that is why not all of the aspects will be taken into account for this research. Some
aspects are taken into account because it is important that the style of the workplace fits and pleases
the employees (Davis, 1984). These work-related aspects are shown in table 5.
Elements Aspects of office environment

1.Physical Location of office in the building
structure Furniture comfort, placement and seating arrangements (place of desk and chairs)
Open offices vs. Closed offices design (elements that varying the degree of visual and
aural privacy; doors or walls of glass, half segregation)
2.Physical The office equipment (telephone, mail, notes on the desk, computers, VDT)
stimuli Smell in the office
Noise
Lighting (artificial and daylight)
Colour of the office
Wall decoration
Cleanliness of office (e.g. organising paperwork)
Indoor climate (temperature, humidity and air circulation)
Windows in the office
3.Symbolic Size of office
artefacts Style of the office (formal vs. Informal like; photographs on desks or walls, the image of
the office must be pleasing to the user (carpeting, furnishing etc.)
Workplace design (different spaces for different kinds of work)
Table 5 Division of office environmental aspects by Tim Davis (1984)
26
Brill and Weidemann (2001) investigated the effects of the workplace on important business outcomes
like job satisfaction and job performance. Across all the workplace characteristics they have examined
the aspects of the office environment which have the strongest effects on job satisfactions, individual
and team performance. Because the work ability is correlated with the productivity of employees, this
study is relevant for this research. The most important aspects of the office environment considered
by Brill and Weidemann are shown in table 6.
Aspects of the office environment

1. Ability to do distraction-free solo work
2. Support for impromptu interactions (both in one’s workspace and elsewhere)
3. Support for meetings and undistracted group work
4. Workspace comfort, ergonomics and enough space for work tools
5. Workspace supports side-by-side work and ‘dropping in to chat’
6. Located near or can easily find co-workers
7. Workplace has good places for breaks
8. Access to needed technology
9. Quality lighting and access to daylight
10. Temperature control and air quality
Table 6 Aspect of work environment with the strongest effects (Brill and Weidemann, 2001)
The higher the aspect of the office environment in table 6, the stronger the effect on the performance
and satisfaction of the employee. Overall the aspects are related to the freedom of the employees, the
need to arrange their own comfortable work environment which meets their needs and demands (Brill
and Weidemann, 2001).
In 2011 the faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying of the University in Malaysia provided a
literature review of various environmental factors which influence the employees’ performance. Their
aim was to identify the whole factors of the physical office environment; therefore this paper is of
great value for this research to create a complete overview of the work-related aspects of the office
environment. The paper, written by Kamarulzaman et al., took the following five factors into account:
1) physical workplace design, 2) indoor temperature, 3) colour, 4) noise and 5) interior plants.
According to Kamarulzaman et al., a fundamental aspect of the office environment that contributes to
the employees’ wellbeing and performance is the layout of the office environment. The layout is a
broad concept which entails various aspects of office environment. Kamarulzaman et al. allocated the
following aspects to the layout; the number of employees in the room, closed vs. opens spaces,
flexibility of rooms, personal space, cramped or disorganized spaces, dirty and dusty spaces. These are
all elements which influence the experience of the workplace. Colour has also an influence on the
wellbeing of employees. According to Kamarulzaman employees who are executing work with great
concentration require neutral colours; jobs with a higher social level require a stronger colour. Overall
it is clear that colours assist in creating attention. Concerning noise Kamarulzaman et al. stated that
when sound is turned off errors in work are reduced and productivity increases. Furthermore, they
also stated that natural environment (including plants and windows to look outside) can have a
restorative effect on attention. The conclusion of the paper is that organisations should take the
following aspects into account: lighting, temperature, water quality, noise, indoor air quality, thermal
comfort, and layout of the individual workspaces, workplace colours, interior plants and dust levels
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2011).
27
The aim of this chapter is to answer specific research question 2, which is:

What are the work-related aspects of the office environment?
In order to answer this question aspects of the office environment reported in the aforementioned
studies will be summarized to create an organising framework that pulls together the work-related
aspects of the office environment. By reviewing all the mentioned work-related aspects of the studies
it was necessary to combine certain aspects because of overlap. For example the aspect distraction is
omitted; the related aspects are divided among various categories like auditory and visual privacy. In
table 7 all the mentioned environmental aspects in the studies are summarized and allocated to 16
new work-related aspects which are relevant for this study. The explanation and clarification of the
new division is described below. The new categories, to which the work-related aspects of the above
studies are allocated to, are mentioned in italic between brackets.
Aspects mentioned by Brill and Weidemann are all subscribed to new formulated categories.
The first and third aspect of Brill and Weidemann, which are; 1) ‘ability to do distraction-free solo work’
and 3) ‘support for meetings and undistracted group work’ are allocated to the category about the
workplace design (15), the visual privacy level (2) and aural privacy (1) because the ability to do
distraction free work without distraction requires a concentration room which is depended on the
workplace design and the visual and aural privacy. Aspect 2 of Brill and Weidemann; ‘support for
impromptu interactions’ is also divided among the workplace design (15) but also among the
technological office equipment (3). Aspect 4) ‘workspace comfort, ergonomics and enough space for
work tools’ is also positioned among several categories; it entails factors of furniture, comfort and
ergonomics (10) but the part about ‘enough space for work tools’ also belongs to the size of the office
(7).Aspects five and seven of Brill and Weidemann are; 5) ‘workspace supports side-by-side work and
dropping in to chat’ and 7) ‘workplace has good places for breaks’ are also categorized to the new
group about the workplace design (15). Aspect 6) ‘located near or can easily find co-workers’ belongs
to the position of the office in the building (11). Aspect 8 of Brill and Weidemann; ‘access to needed
technology’ is categorized to the technological office equipment (3). Aspect 9) ‘quality lighting and
access to daylight’ belongs to the lighting (13) and the last aspect;’ temperature control and air quality’
belongs to the indoor climate (6).
The layout category of Kamarulzaman et al. (2011) entails factors like; the number of
employees in the room, closed vs. open spaces, flexibility of rooms, personal space, cramped or
disorganized spaces, dirty and dusty spaces. These are all elements which influence the experience of
the layout of the workplace. All these aspects are subscribed to several new formulated categories
like; style of the office (14), privacy (1 and 2), size of the office (7) and cleanliness of the office (4). The
aspect water quality, which is an important aspect according to Kamarulzaman et al. (2011), is not
taken into account because this aspect does not match the criteria set for work-related aspects in the
office environment. In table 7 the new formulated categories are presented, including a description.
These new categories will be compared to the formulated categories of Adaptics in chapter 5;
Conclusion and discussion.
28
Work-related aspects of Authors Description
the office environment
1. Aural privacy (Hedge, 1982) Aural privacy is the degree to which a conversation is undesirably exposed
(Davis, 1984) to another person's hearing (Mobach, 2009). This aspect also includes the
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2011) subjects relating to open and closed offices.
(Brill and Weidemann, 2001)
2. Visual privacy (Hedge, 1982) The possibility of being away from the presence or view of others. Visual
(Davis, 1984) privacy is the degree to which a person is undesirably exposed to the view
(Brill and Weidemann, 2001) of others (Mobach, 2009). This aspect also includes the subjects relating to
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2011) open and closed offices.
3. Technological (Hedge, 1982) The technological office equipment are all the tools which can support
office equipment (Davis, 1984) employees in executing their tasks. (VDT, computer, telephone, office
(Brill and Weidemann, 2001) machines)
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2011)
4. Cleanliness of (Hedge, 1982) The degree in which the office environment is clean and organised (e.g. dust
office (Davis, 1984) free or organised paper work)
5. Windows (Hedge, 1982) The possibility for an employee to have visual access from the office
(Davis, 1984) environment to any outer environment.
6. Indoor climate (Hedge, 1982) The air quality and the related concepts like temperature, ventilation,
(Davis, 1984) thermal comfort in the office environment.
7. Size of the office (Hedge, 1982) The square metres of an office divided by the employees which occupy the
(Davis, 1984) office.
8. Storage space (Hedge, 1982) The square metres which are available for store of inventories or
documents.
9. Colours (Hedge, 1982) Colours in the office environment that influence the employees’ mood ,
(Davis, 1984) behaviour or wellbeing (e.g. colours that provide relaxing experience)
10. Furniture, (Hedge, 1982) All the existing furniture in the office (e.g. chairs, desks), their position in the
comfort and (Davis, 1984) office, their comfortability and the satisfactory of the employees about the
ergonomics (Brill and Weidemann, 2001) furniture.
11. Position of the (Davis, 1984) The relative location of the office in the building.
office in the (Brill and Weidemann, 2001)
building
12. Smell in the office (Davis, 1984) Smells that influence the mood, behaviour or wellbeing of the employees
(e.g. fresh air, absence of bad smell).
13. Lighting (Davis, 1984) The daylight coming from outside into the office environment but also
(Brill and Weidemann, 2001) artificial lights.
14. Style of the office (Davis, 1984) The total experience of the office by the employees. (e.g. formal vs. informal
(Kamarulzaman et al., 2011) style).
15. Workplace design (Davis, 1984) The design of an office environment, so the position of physical objects
(Brill and Weidemann, 2001) relative to each other in a certain room (Mobach, 2009). This also includes
the properly use of spaces as mentioned by Hedge (1982) and the range of
various places for various kinds of work. Overall the workplace design needs
to fulfil the requirements of the employees.
16. Interior plants (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011) Natural plants or flowers that are placed in the office environment.
Table 7 work-related aspects in the office environment based on literature
29
3.3 Control variables
In order to answer the general research question and ascertain the relationship between office
environmental aspects and the perceived work ability it is essential to investigate which variables
influence this relationship. Therefore specific research question 3 is formulated as follows;
What are the most important control variables which influence the relationship between the office
environment and the perceived work ability of employees?
The variables that need to be identified are variables which influence how employees experience
aspects of the office environment. These variables are not the focus of this study. One has to bear in
mind that work ability is a complicated matter because it is a balance between the work demands and
the individual’s resources (Lindberg et al., 2006). In consequence the work ability can be influenced by
variables related to the work or to an individual. Both variables can influence the experience of the
office environment by the office worker and this eventually influences the perceived work ability. That
is why they need to be identified in order to control them during the statistical analyses. This chapter
is divided into two phases; 3a and 3b. 3a will identify the work-related control variables by answering
the following question:
3a) what are the most important control variables at work that influence the office employee
and thereby their perceived work ability?
This part entails variables related to the nature of the work, so the tasks that employees need to
execute and the corresponding experiences of the employees. Bear in mind that the general research
question is about the physical work-related factors of the office environment, this means factors
relating to the supervisory or management will not be taken into account during this study.
Subsequently the impact of individual factors on the perceived work ability will be investigated; which
is part 3b. This part will answer the following question:
3b) what are the most important control variables related to individual characteristics that
influence the perceived work ability?
The individual characteristics entail variables of the individual’s life and lifestyle. In the end this
paragraph will summarize the most important control variables according to literature.
30
3.3.1 Impact of work on the individual
This section investigates the most important variables at work which influence the employee and
thereby the perceived work ability. The factors related to the work refer to the tasks which need to be
executed, their characteristics and the experience of the employees. However this issue is hard to
investigate solely since it is related with attitudes of management, superiors and co-workers; this social
environment and organisational culture will not be taken into account because this is out of the scope
of this study. So, variables related with the respondent will be controlled, the variables related to the
organisations will not be taken into account.
Many studies confirmed that various characteristics of work influence the perceived work
ability. Regarding the nature of work and perceived work ability associations were found between work
satisfactions and several occupational physical factors like; work posture, repetitive movements and
high physical demands (Sjögren-Rönkä et al., 2002). Martinez and Latorre (2006) claimed that the job
experience and satisfaction are also related with good work ability among office workers.
Overall the white-collar workers perceive their work ability better than blue-collar workers.
This is due to the less physical workload in the white collar occupations (Gould et al., 2008). In addition
Martinez and Latorre (2006) also showed that employees who perform intellectual tasks have more
preserved work ability than those who perform physical tasks. The explanation they gave for this loss
of work ability was that physical tasks might have a bigger negative influence on health. Robroek et al.
(2012) claimed that employees who experience a heavy mental workload, a low level of control and
an uncomfortable posture have 2.0 to 2.5 times higher risk on low work ability compared to employees
who do not experience these three exposures. A low level of control is associated with the level of
freedom of an employee. So if he or she is able to determine how and when to execute work activities.
Van den Berg et al. (2008) confirmed this by proving that a lack of control influences the work ability
negatively. A heavy workload is an important variable that influence the mental strain of employees
(van den Berg et al., 2008). Gould et al. (2008) also stated that work ability is strongly associated with
the mental work demands. In contrast to the physical demands, the mental strain is most common
among the white-collar workers, especially the women (Gould et al., 2008). According to Gould et al.
(2008) the mental strain and exhaustion even have the strongest effect on the work ability. Mental
strain is mental exhaustion which can be due to a high mental workload and a feeling of being mentally
drained and stressed. Sjögren-Rönka et al. (2002) also proved that stress is correlated with work ability.
Stress has become a concern for organisations as it reduces productivity and creativity. Apart from one
of the major causes of sickness and absenteeism, stress decreases motivation and effects the way in
which people interact with each other.
31
3.3.2 Impact of individual characteristics on perceived work ability
The individual characteristics refer to variables in the individual’s life, for instance, age, gender, marital
status and education. In addition it also includes lifestyle factors, which entails the way of living on a
day-to-day-basis. Lifestyle is expressed in both work and leisure behaviour patterns. These
determinants are related with how individuals deal with physical activities, smoking, alcohol, weight
(diets) and how they think about their own vitality.
Research of McGonagle (2014) underscores the importance of the individual’s resources
concerning the perceived work ability. The most important personal resources in found in their study
were sense of control and self-rated health status. Among the different individual factors health, both
physical and mental, is considered as one of the primary determinants of work ability (Ilmarinen et al.,
2005). In addition Martinez and Latorre (2006) showed that the better the health of the employees,
the greater the work ability (good and excellent). However, a lot of factors influence the health of an
individual. Overall Gould et al. (2008) stated that all chronic diseases decrease work ability but the
mental disorders and coronary heart diseases have the strongest affect. Those people had a poor
average for perceived health and also for work ability
Sjögren-Rönka et al. (2002) also investigated the work characteristics and individual factors in
relation to work ability among Finnish office employees (N=88). This research showed that the work-
related factor; intensity of musculoskeletal symptoms had the biggest impact on work ability; Van den
Berg et al. (2008) confirmed this in their research. Musculoskeletal symptoms consist of physical
disabilities that affect the muscles, bones and joints. The severity of the symptoms can change over
time. Especially when strains are accumulated they will have a negative impact on the health and
wellbeing of the employee. Musculoskeletal symptoms mainly consist of pain in neck, shoulders,
wrists, back, hips, legs, knees and feet (Sjögren-Rönka et al., 2002).
Work ability is also affected by social support as can been seen in figure 4, the dimensions of
work ability. Gould et al. (2008) proved that people who are cohabitated have higher perceived work
ability. This has to do with the social support these people experience.
Research of Kaleta et al. (2006) showed a correlation between the work ability and the healthy
lifestyle index. This means that lifestyle characteristics as non-smoking, healthy weight, healthy food
and regular physical activities contributed to a better work ability. Robroek et al. (2012) mentioned
the importance of the daily consumption of vegetables and fruit. Concerning the healthy lifestyle the
research from Robroek et al. (2012) and Van den Berg et al. (2008) concluded that especially a lower
perceived health, lack of exercises, unhealthy diet, and overweight or obesity are strongly correlated
with a lower work ability. Concerning age, the research showed that employees with an age above 50
years have 2.42 times higher risk for a low work ability than respondents below an age of 30 years
(Robroek et al., 2012). In addition Gould et al. (2008) and Sjögren-Rönkä et al. (2002) also claimed that
a lower level of work ability is more prevalent among older employees. This means perceived work
ability decreases with age. In addition Robroek et al. (2012) also underscore the influence of education
in relation with the work ability. It is proven that a lower educational level correlates with lower work
ability (Robroek et al., 2012; Gould et al., 2008; Van den Berg, 2010). As Gould et al. (2008) stated; the
professional skills produced by education have a significant role in an individual’s ability to work and
increases the possibility to maintain work ability. According to Van den Berg (2010) important variables
which impact the work ability perception positively are; physical exercises, healthy food, non-smoking,
education and maintaining a healthy weight. Associations between work ability and mental symptoms
like; aging, being overweight and smoking impact the perceived work ability negatively. As van den
Berg et al. (2010) and Gould et al. (2008) stated gender is not associated with work ability.
32
Overall work ability is influenced by a number of variables. In general these variables include socio-
demographic characteristics, lifestyle, work conditions and organizational aspects (Sprudza et al.,
2014; Robroek et al., 2012; Sjögren-Rönkä et al., 2002). After a thorough literature study several
control variables are found which form the answer on research question 3:

What are the most important control variables which influence the relationship
between the office environment and the perceived work ability of employees?
To answer this question it is broken down into two parts. At first the impact of variables at work that
influence the perceived work ability of employees is researched. These variables are summarized in
table 8. Thereby it answers research question 3a:
What are the most important control variables at work that influence the office employee and
thereby their perceived work ability?
Control variables at work Authors

1. Work satisfaction Sjögren and Rönkä et al., 2002
Martinez and Latorre, 2006
2. Physical workload Sjögren and Rönkä et al., 2002
Gould et al., 2008
3. Mental workload Robroek et al., 2012
Ilmarinen et al., 2005
4. Level of control/autonomy Robroek et al., 2012
Van den Berg et al., 2010
McGonagle, 2014
5. Mental strain/stress Gould et al., 2008
Sjögren and Rönkä et al., 2002
Table 8 Control variables at work
The physical workload includes all the complaints concerning the physical health. These are things like
uncomfortable posture, repetitive movements and other high physical demands.
33
After investigating the control variables related to the work of employees the most important
individual factors were researched. These are summarized in table 9 in order to answer question 3b,
which is:
3b) what are the most important control variables related to individual characteristics that
influence the perceived work ability?
Individual control variables Authors

1. Self-rated health McGonagle, 2014
Gould et al., 2008
2. Mental disorders Gould et al., 2008
3. Coronary heart diseases Gould et al., 2008
4. Musculoskeletal symptoms Van den Berg et al., 2008
5. Social support Gould et al., 2008
6. Smoking Kaleta et al., 2006
7. Weight Kaleta et al., 2006
Robroek et al., 2012
Van den Berg, 2010
8. Physical activities Kaleta et al., 2006
Van den Berg, 2010
9. Healthy food intake Kaleta et al., 2006
Van den Berg, 2010
10. Age Robroek et al., 2012
Gould et al., 2008
11. Educational level Robroek et al., 2012
Gould et al., 2008
Table 9 Control variables related to individual characteristics
34
3.4 Relationship between the office environment and the perceived work
ability
In the European Union more than 2,000,000 employees suffer from illness which in their view was
caused or made worse by their work. This leads to the loss of more than 30,000,000 working days each
year (James and Walters, 1997). So there are major chances in this world of work to improve the
wellbeing of employees. This section analyses work-related aspects of the office environment and their
influence on the employees in order to answer specific research question 4:
How is the relationship between the work-related aspects of the office environment and the perceived
work ability of employees conceptualised in literature?
Because the answer on this question will form the foundation of the empirical study this literature
study will only elaborate on the work-related aspects which are included in the data of Adaptics.
Therefore this part of the literature study is delimited to the aspects described in table 10. The office
environmental aspects presented in table 7 will be used to make a comparison with the aspects
included in the survey of Adaptics. This comparison is elaborated in chapter 5.1.
Not much research is done on the relationship between the work-related aspects of Adaptics
and the perceived work ability, that is why prior research about the office environment and their
impact on the health, productivity or employability will also be taken into account in order to create a
complete overview. This is possible because prior literature study has shown that these subjects are
closely related to the perceived work ability (Gould et al., 2008; Robroek et al., 2012; Sprudza et al.,
2014). The upcoming paragraphs will analyse the relationship between the aspects mentioned in table
10 and the perceived work ability, health, productivity or employability in order to predict their
relationship with the perceived work ability.
Category Work-related aspects

Office equipment  VDU (computer, laptop)
 Office chair and desk
 Keypad, mouse and accessory
 Delay caused by limited use of computer
Workplace design and  Fixed workplace
experience  Outside view
 Sufficient workspace on the office desk and storage space
 Distractions by colleagues
 Feeling of too much people in an office
 Feeling of obstruction at work because of colleagues
 Sufficient privacy
Indoor climate  Temperature
 Influence of seasons on indoor temperature
 Personal control on temperature
 Windows to open
Noise  Distractions due to noise of outside
 Distractions due to other offices and colleagues
 Personal control on distracted noises
Lighting  Light in the office
 Personal control over daylight in office
Table 10 The work-related aspects of the survey of Adaptics
35
3.4.1 Office equipment
The office equipment entails all the facilities which support the employee in executing their tasks. So
this concerns the workstation of the employee. Adaptics included the computer, laptop and the input
devices like the mouse and keypad to this category. In addition the office chair and desk are also
allocated to this group.
Advanced technology is indispensable in the working lives. However Ekman et al. (2000) found
that computer use was associated with physical and psychological complaints. In addition Aida et al.
(2007) suggests that technologies can offer advantages but they can also cause stress and strain. This
stress is called; techno stress and is a modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with
computer technologies in a proper manner (Brod, 1984). Techno stress has several effects like; inability
to concentrate on a single issue, increased irritability and feeling of loss of control. Symptoms of techno
stress start with disquieted feeling toward computer use that may lead to anxiety and stress. Anxiety
may evoke symptoms such as muscle cramp, headache, joint pain and insomnia (Brod, 1984). The use
of technology is related to conflicts and potential stress (Danna and Griffin, 1999). However Hedge
(1982) indicated that distractions and disturbances at the office due to colleagues have a greater
impact on the employee than distraction or delay at work due to technology.
Computers and laptops also influence the physical health of the employee. Due to an increase
of technology use, mainly computers, the need for ergonomic interventions has increased over the
past few years (Ye et al., 2007). The ISO 9241 includes the ergonomic requirements for office work
with visual displays units (VDU). VDU work stands for visual display unit work, so the work that is
executed with a computer or laptop. The ISO 9241 entails issues like; software ergonomics, workplace
ergonomics and environment ergonomics (Hoehne-Hueckstaedt et al., 2007). Despite the standard ISO
9241 one-third of the employees’ in the EU experiences back pain during working time and almost
one-fourth neck or shoulder pain (Ye et al., 2007). Sjögren and Elfström (1989) proved that the
frequency of eye discomfort is also related to the working time at the computer or laptop. Therefore,
visual and physical discomfort has a high prevalence for office workers because both symptoms are
related to VDU work. Eye discomfort includes complaints like gritty feeling or redness of the eye as
well as sensitivity to light (Sjøgren and Elfstrøm, 1989). In addition, the glare of the screens has a
significant affect to eye focusing problems and tired eyes (Aarås et al., 2000).
The static muscle load and high frequency of repetitive movements when working with
computers have the biggest impact on the musculoskeletal symptoms. According to Ferreira Jr et al.
(2007) the neck, back and brachial plexus (the network of nerves from the spine to the shoulder) are
the main complaints of musculoskeletal discomfort among VDU users. This is due to monotonous work
tasks and low and static muscle loads (Forsman and Thorn, 2007). Despite the fact that office workers
experience injuries and pain due to computer work, the work with these technologies is hardly
indispensable at most organisations.
Exposures caused by input devices can cause health risks also due to highly repetitive use, one
of the most well-known injury is RSI (=Repetitive Strain Injury). Hoehne-Hueckstaedt et al. (2007)
investigated the input devices like keyboards and mice to eventually give recommendations
concerning the overall ergonomic design of office workplaces with VDU. The conclusion of the research
was that every input device has risk factors that can cause health problems. However, it is important
that the employees have the right knowledge about the correct posture. Robertson (2007) showed
that by providing ergonomic skills by giving trainings about the use of workstations in a more
ergonomic and healthy way leads to a decrease in discomfort among employees and reduces the
36
musculoskeletal risks related with computer work. This is thanks to the knowledge the employees
obtained. After the training they were able to change and adjust their equipment like the chair and the
workplace facilities more ergonomically and effectively. Just providing ergonomic furniture alone may
even be beneficial according to Robertson (2007). However the equipment still needs to be adaptable
to each office worker. Organisations are trying to find solutions to effectively use office workplaces to
enhance the employees’ performance and to reduce psychological and physical complaints among
office workers (Re and Fubini, 2007).
3.4.2 Workplace design and experience

The office environment is complex because it exists out of several variables that influence an
individual. In addition the variables also have an impact on each other. All in all the productivity of the
employee is better when they feel comfortable at the office environment (Newsham, 2005; Sundstrom
and Sundstrom, 1986; Roelofsen, 2002). Based on this statement it can be concluded that the work
place environment is an important place in order to enhance the employee and the business. This
section focuses on the variables in the workplace environment which are identified by Adaptics. These
are; fixed workstation, view to the outside, sufficient storage space and workspace, distractions by
colleagues, feeling of obstruction at work due to colleagues in the office and sufficient privacy.
The office environment is changed due to developments in information and communication
technology. Thanks to these developments work processes can be organised more flexible and this
created the rise of the flexible and open plan offices (de Korte et al., 2007). A benefit of these flexible
working places is that employees can adapt the workplace to their current needs. However flexible
working places also suffer from drawbacks due to more open offices. For example; aural and visual
distractions or a lack of privacy. The aural distractions will be described in section 3.4.4: Noise at the
office. The visual distraction and the lack of privacy will be described in this section. Both issues show
a negative impact on employees’ performance, wellbeing and health (de Korte et al., 2007).
Additionally it may also relate to a negative perception of the physical work environment, therefore it
is important to avoid these situations. In addition Korte et al. described the most important factors
that affect the employees at work. One of them is the distraction of other colleagues; this influences
the employee negatively (de Korte et al., 2007). In the research conducted by Brill and Weidemann
(2001) the ability to do distraction-free solo work was ranked as the number one aspect that influences
the productivity, team performance and employee satisfaction. Thereby the employees who worked
in shared office or open office reported that they are often distracted by others (Brill and Weidemann,
2001). Thus from time to time employees need privacy to avoid mistakes and perform well.
Privacy is related to people’s personal space, the personal control over this space and
interactions with others (Ding, 2008). People feel comfortable if their personal space is maintained.
When other people invade the space, visual or auditory, employees will feel uncomfortable and
displeasured (Iizuka et al, 2007). However personal space is elastic and not fixed, so it depends per
person, per type of work and of course it depends on the frequency of the invasion. Overall research
showed that if employees have the feeling that they have some control over their workplaces, they
will perceive a greater degree of privacy and become more satisfied with their working environment
(Ding, 2008). In addition employees need sufficient space to execute their tasks in order to be satisfied
with their work environment. This includes the storage and work areas. Research suggested that the
amount of workspace and storage space are predictive values of employee satisfaction with the office
environment (Spreckelmeyer, 1993).
37
There are several studies conducted on the presence or absence of windows with an exterior
view in offices. According to Kaplan (1995) nature is restorative. It improves productivity, mood vitality,
and it reduces stress and anger (Kaplan, 1995). Farley and Veitch (2001) proved that a window with
views of nature also enhances work and wellbeing. Overall people prefer places with windows than no
windows (Farley and Veitch, 2001). Windows may have benefits but also drawbacks. The benefits are
relating to the refreshment, the relaxation when there is a desired exterior view, the daylight and
sunshine, the natural ventilation they provide and the spaciousness they create in offices. In contrast
to that they also have drawbacks like noise distractions from the outside, damage of visual privacy and
distraction of concentration (Dogrusoy and Tureyen, 2007). Eventually it can be concluded that the
benefits outweigh the drawbacks, so office employees prefer windows in their office. However as
Dorusoy and Tureyen (2007) stated employees prefer windows mainly because they provide daylight,
sunlight and natural ventilation. The issue daylight is related to the light the window provides to the
office, this topic is included in section 3.4.5: Lighting at the office.
3.4.3 Indoor climate at the office

The employees’ health and wellbeing is influenced by the environmental satisfaction (Newsham, 2005;
Kamarulzaman et al., 2011). The manner in which the employee experiences the indoor climate
impacts their level of comfort and their performances (Vink, 2009). According to Pikkemaat (2014) a
lot of employees have complaints like headache, dry eyes, fatigue and a loss of concentration due to a
bad indoor climate. These complaints due to the indoor climate are also called the Sick Building
Syndrome (SBS). If people leave the building the complaints will disappear. According to
Kamarulzaman (2011) heat affects the productivity negatively. However he also stated that air-
conditioning systems can make sure that employees feel comfortable and the productivity increases
again and when an employee feels comfortable with the office environment they can perform better
because distractions will be reduced. It is important that the heating, ventilation and air conditioning
system is well maintained and that it meets the guidelines (Newsham, 2005). According to the law the
employer should ensure that employees do not suffer from a too cold, hot or stuffy indoor climate.
The NEN standards also take the individual differences into account. Each person has different
experiences and it is proved that if the indoor climate meets the requirements of the individual they
will perform better (Vink, 2009; Pikkemaat, 2014). A solution which is adduced is giving the individuals
the control over the indoor climate. For example, the air-flow rate, air-flow direction or temperature
(Newsham, 2005; Pikkemaat, 2014). This can also be done by opening a window. Pikkemaat (2014)
stated that it is easier to meet the needs of the employees if the offices are smaller and less employees
work in one office. Because then there are less desires to reckon with.
3.4.4 Noise at the office

Adaptics related the noise in offices with auditory distractions; therefore this section is focused on
auditory distractions. So, positively related aspects of noise (e.g. music) are not taken into account.
Auditory distractions in the office are often mentioned as the most problematic distraction in relation
to concentration. It is mainly a problem when employees have to perform complex tasks (De Korte et
al., 2007). Ding (2008) stated that absence of auditory distractions was the most important feature in
efficiently and effectively accomplishing work tasks (Ding, 2008). Kamarulzaman (2011) stated that
noise in the office can be stressful and demotivated. Scheijndel and Horsten (2008) mentioned that
noise can cause health complaints among office employees. In this case noise distractions due to
background conversations of colleagues or other distracted noises are the most important ones
38
concerning the reduction of concentration, fatigue and headaches. The office environment is able to
reduce the amount of background noises with aid of sound-absorbing materials (Scheijndel and
Horsten, 2008). It is clear that auditory privacy is essential in the office environment. This means no
distractions due to noise from other offices, colleagues, machines or outside because they influence
the performance of the employee negatively. This is also included in the NVN 3438, which is a guideline
concerning the maximum noise levels in offices. The principle is that the environmental noises may
not provoke annoyances (Agterberg et al., 2008)
3.4.5 Lighting at the office

Employees need sufficient light in the office to execute their tasks. In this case the amount of light also
depends on which tasks an employee has to perform; reading an article requires more light than a
meeting (Gifford, 2014). As reported by Gifford (2014) employees prefer to work in daylight because
this ensures that employees can perform better and feel better. According to Newsham (2005)
employers should provide a window to as many employees as possible, or at least a view of a window.
However according to Scheijndel and Horsten (2008) daylight through a window can cause negatively
related feelings among employees due to the distractions they create.
Concerning the artificial lights there are several requirements. Hedge (2000) stated that many
office workers report dissatisfaction with their lighting due to glare or asthenopia (tired eyes). An
option is to provide individual dimming control over lights so that employees can choose their own
preferred light level (Gifford, 2007; Newsham, 2005). When employees can adjust the lighting to their
needs they will find the workplace, as well as their job more satisfying. Additionally they report less
intense symptoms of physical illness (Gifford, 2014). Hedge (2000) concluded that an office lighting
system in which indirect ambient light is coupled with direct, user adjustable light is the best for health,
productivity and comfort (Hedge, 2000).
39
The relation between the office environment and the general wellbeing of the employee is complex
because it exists out of a lot of variables which all influence the employee. Generally, the adjustment
and adaptation of the office environment to the needs and expectations of the employees play an
important role in the promotion of wellbeing. It is proven that a comfortable working environment is
important to enable employees to focus and execute their tasks (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011). In order
to have a closer look hypotheses per category are used to guide the empirical study. These hypotheses
define the relationship between the work-related aspects and perceived work ability. Although
previous research has shown some effects of the work-related aspects on the employees, not much
research is done on these work-related aspects and the perceived work ability of office workers. Before
formulating the hypotheses, conclusions about the relationship between the categorized work-related
aspects and the perceived work ability will be drawn. These conclusions together form the answer of
research question 4.
Conclusion – relationship between office equipment and the perceived work ability
The majority of the working population in the EU works in offices (Vink et al., 2007). A study in the
Netherlands (N=7022) among employees’ showed that 63.4 % works at an office with a computer. In
the near future the technology at work will increase, this means that offices should facilitate the new
work processes (Van Vuuren et al., 2006). The concerns are focused on computer-related discomfort
and issues. Based on the literature it can be concluded that VDU work has impact on the health of
people due to several causes; the main cause is the work posture which is static and has a low muscle
load. However Re and Fubini (2007) claimed that if office ergonomics interventions are successful
implemented, so the equipment is functioning properly and supports a good work posture this will
lead to enhanced individual effectiveness and the prevention of musculoskeletal symptoms and
injuries. That is why the hypotheses which will be tested relating to this subject are formulated as
follows:
- H1a: Properly functioning office equipment is positively related to the perceived work
ability.
- H1b: If the office equipment supports a good work posture according to the OHS
regulations, this will be positively related to the perceived work ability.
Conclusion – relationship between workplace environment and perceived work ability

The effect of the workplace environment on the health and work ability of employees depends on the
nature of the work. If an office worker has to execute tasks which requires a high level of concentration,
distractions in the office will influence his or her performance negatively. However if an office worker
need to co-operate with colleagues it may be better to operate in an office with more colleagues who
are working on this same task. So the impact of flexible and fixed workplaces on employees is
dependent on several variables. These variables are also related to the level of distraction, level of
privacy, and the feeling of obstruction at work due to colleagues in the office and sufficient work and
storage space. Distractions have a negative influence on the work ability of employees because it
impacts the employee’s performance and wellbeing negatively. This is also the case for the lack of
privacy and the feeling of obstruction in the office. The hypothesis that will be tested concerning this
topic is about the general experience of the office environment. That is why the hypothesis is
formulated as follows:
40
- H2: Experiences at the office environment associated with a lack of privacy, distractions
and a feeling of obstruction among office employees is negatively related to the perceived
work ability.
Conclusion – relationship between the indoor climate and the perceived work ability
Based on literature it can be concluded that the indoor climate exists out of several variables which all
have an impact on the employees’ wellbeing. The effects of these variables differ per person; therefore
it is hard to predict the relation between the several variables and the perceived work ability of the
employee. The research of Tuomi et al. (2001) confirmed that a poor physical indoor climate is related
with a lower score of the work ability. So if an employee thinks the office is too stuffy, too cold or too
hot then this will impact the perceived work ability negatively.
Overall the perceived indoor climate is important and that is what Adaptics measures. If
employees are able to control certain variables of the indoor climate, this will influence the perceived
work ability positively. Based on the statement of Pikkemaat (2014) it can be concluded that when
employees have to share an office with more colleagues their perceived work ability will be lower
because the indoor climate cannot be adjusted to their personal desires. This is confirmed by Vink
(2009). The study of Wyon (1996) even concluded that if employees are able to control the indoor
climate by themselves their satisfaction rate concerning the office environment will increase 90 till
99%. This even has a positive effect on the performances of employees. Based on these statements it
can be concluded that the personal control on the indoor climate is an important factor, therefore the
hypothesis that will be tested is formulated as follows:
- H3: The possibility for office employees to adjust the indoor climate to their personal
preferences is positively related to the perceived work ability.
Conclusion –relationship between office noise and the perceived work ability
Overall it can be concluded that any kind of sound that distract the employee will impact the perceived
work ability negatively. Therefore Adaptics measures the level of distraction and obstruction at work
due to several noises. The level of personal control applies also for the distractions due to noises. If
employees are able to regulate it by themselves the impact will be less. The hypothesis that will be
tested concerning the noise in offices is:
- H4: Auditory distractions in the office environment are negatively related to the perceived
work ability of office employees
Conclusion – relationship between office lighting and the perceived work ability
The amount of light favoured by an individual depends on the work tasks but also on the preferences
of the individual. In this case it is the same as the noise levels and the indoor climate; if employees can
control the amount of light they will feel more comfortable. So if this is the case this will have a positive
influence on the perceived work ability. If the employee is not satisfied with the lighting in the office
this will have a negative effect on the perceived work ability. Therefore the hypothesis that will be
tested is formulated as follows:
- H5: An office environment which provides sufficient light for the office employees to
execute their work tasks is positively related to the perceived work ability.
41
Overall the literature study proved that the more personal control employees have over the office
environment (e.g. lighting adjustment, temperature regulation, adaptability of office equipment) the
more likely they are satisfied and achieve greater productivity. If employees have the feeling that they
have some control over their workplace, they will perceive a greater degree of privacy and become
more satisfied with their office environment (Ding, 2008). Therefore the final hypothesis that will be
tested is:
- H6: A feeling of personal control over the office environment is positively related to the
Finally the hypotheses form the answer on the specific research question 4;

How is the relationship between the work-related aspects of the office
environment and the perceived work ability of employees conceptualised in literature?
An overview of the answer on this question can be found in figure 6. This figure shows the
measurement model which provides an overview of the expected relationship between the work-
related aspects in the office environment (hypotheses) and the perceived work ability. The hypotheses
will be tested with statistical analyses in SPSS. These analyses are described in the next chapter,
chapter 4.
Figure 6 Measurement model with expected effects
42
4. EMPIRICAL STUDY
In this part of the study the measurement model will be tested. So the relationship between the work-
related aspects and the perceived work ability conceptualized in literature will be tested to see if it
matches the relationship in practice. This relationship will be tested with statistical analyses in SPSS.
The last specific research question will be answered in this part of the study. This is research question
5;
To what extent are work-related aspects of the office environment influencing the perceived work
ability?
The statistical analyses will start based on the measurement model derived from literature. As figure
6 shows the dependent variable is the perceived work ability and the independent variable is the office
environment. At first the dataset of Adaptics will be manipulated to filter the usable data of the office
environment. The questions of the survey of the office environment that will be taken into account for
the statistical analyses are selected based on the level of objectivity. This means that when a question
is about an opinion of an employee it is not included in this study. This means that questions which
reveal the opinion or the behaviour of an employee are excluded in this research in order to maintain
the reliability. After this selection the following 30 questions remained; 58, 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72,
1018, 1020-1023, 1025, 1026, 1028-1040, 342 and 344. This data consists of dichotomous variables.
So the respondents can answer with a Yes or a No. These questions will be reduced to another amount
of factors with aid of a factor analysis. After this analysis the reliability will be checked with the
Cronbach’s Alpha. Finally the relation between aspects of the office environment and the perceived
work ability of the office employees will be investigated with a linear regression. Prior to this the real
impact of the control variables will be checked with a regression. The significant control variables will
be held constant during the final linear regression in order to control them.
43
4.1 The research sample
This exploratory study makes use of detailed survey data which is gathered by Adaptics during the
previous three years among their clients. The data that is used for this research only contains
information about office workers and their office environments. This means that their activities during
work mainly contain working inside a building with computers.
The study population exists of 650 respondents from various organisations. From all the
respondents 261 are women and 389 are men. The age of the respondents is between 22 and 66 years
old. The average age is 47,5. Concerning the perceived work ability the sample consists of 343
respondents with a mean of 41,13 which relates to a good score of work ability.
The research sample consists of a diverse group of office employees because they are from
different organisations (e.g. profit and non-profit), have different ages and different functions. The
data among these office employees is gathered in three years during work time. This increases the
external validity of the research because there is a variety of place, with different people and at
different times. This also increases the generalizability of the study.
4.2 Results statistical analyses

Several statistical analyses have been executed in SPSS in order to get the final result with the multiple
linear regression. In below sections the results of all statistical analyses will be described.
4.2.1 Factor analysis

In order to answer RQ 5 an exploratory factor analysis is conducted as first statistical analysis. This
analysis reduces the amount of items to a smaller scale. In advance the data has to be checked on
accuracy. Therefore several questions of the survey had to be rephrased or recoded from a negative
response to a positive. Eventually the answer that indicates a positive response to the perceived work
ability is coded with 1. 0 is used for the negative response. This was the case for the following
questions: 58, 59, 63, 64, 66-68, 71, 72, 342, 344 and 1018.
The data that will be used for this analysis is concerning the work environment. Data is
excluded pairwise because then it is possible to use more of the dataset. Each value corresponds with
an individual, which corresponds with another value. So if a value is missing the other values still can
be used in the analysis. The extraction is based on eigenvalues greater than 1 and with maximum
iterations for convergence of 25. A varimax rotation is conducted; this rotation is working towards the
simplest structure of factor loadings. This method leads to good interpretable solutions. The small
coefficients are suppressed till absolute value below 0,5. Eventually these settings showed a significant
Bartlett’s test (P= 0,00). This means that there are some relationships between the items and that a
factor analysis is appropriate to do. The KMO should be higher than 0,5. In this case it is 0,765 thus the
sample size is adequate and big enough to execute a factor analysis. Eventually the factor analysis
created 9 factors which explain 57,302% of the original dataset. Table 11 shows the factor loadings for
each item on each factor and the explanation percentage per factor. The last column shows the label
of the factor.
44
Fact Explanati Items Label
or on %
1 9,617%  Q1034: Are you regularly obstructed at work due to activities of Possibility for
colleagues? (0,785) seclusion
 Q1025: Do you feel hampered in work when using a telephone, receiving
visitors or during meetings because others may be distracted by it?
(0,773)
 Q1026: Do you have sufficient privacy at your office? (0,652)
 Q1023: Are you regularly obstructed or interrupted due to colleagues
who are invading or colleagues who stay to long? (0,604)
 1033: Do you regularly suffer from noise distractions from adjacent
offices or offices from the hallway? (0,602)
2 7,575%  Q71: My office keyboard and mouse come with a cable that is long Office
enough for easy placement and use on the office desk? (0,767) accessories
 Q72: The office mouse moves smoothly and without hitches? (0,790)
 Q1021: Do you have sufficient workspace at your desk? (0,563)
3. 7,306%  Q1030: Is it possible to control the indoor temperature as you require Indoor climate
when the sun is shining or when it is hot outside? (0,795) control
 Q1029: Is it possible to control the indoor temperature as you require
when it is cold outside? (0,751)
 Q1028: Do weather conditions or seasons have an adverse effect on the
temperature at your workplace? (0,691)
4 6,906%  Q67: The height of my desk is set up according to the correct settings of Ergonomics
my office chair so that I can support my arms in a good way? (0,714)
 Q64: My office chair is properly set according to my body measurements
by me or an expert? (0,670)
 Q342: As a VDU worker I have sufficient knowledge about the correct
procedure regarding working with a VDU and other office equipment?
(0,619)
 Q59: The top of my screen is approximately at eye level (0,538)
5 6,258%  Q1037: Are you content with the light at the office environment? (0,912) Artificial
 Q1038: Are you content with the light at your office desk? (0,884) lighting
6 5,680%  Q66: The armrests of my office chair are adjustable in height so that they Adaptable
are not bothering when I want to sit by the office desk? (0,805) office chair
 Q63: I have the possibility to adjust the armrests and backrest of my
office chair? (0,784)
7 5,270%  Q1020: Do you work in a room with a view to the outside? (0,799) Exterior view
 Q1039: Is it possible to control the daylight in the office as you require?
(0,694)
8 4,540%  Q1032: Are you regularly obstructed or interrupted due to noises from Auditory
outside? (e.g. noise of traffic) (0,687) privacy
 Q1018: Do you have a fixed workplace? (0,508)
9 4,149%  Q1040: Do you have delay at work because you cannot make sufficient Computer
use of a computer? (0,703) functioning
Table 11 Results factor analysis
45
4.2.2 Cronbach’s alpha
In order to check the reliability of the new factors the Cronbach’s alpha has to be calculated. The
reliability means that a scale consistently measures the same construct. The Cronbach’s alpha is a
measure of internal consistency. This shows how closely related a set of items is as a group. It is a
measure of scale reliability. A reliability coefficient of 0,7 is preferable in most social science researches
(Field, 2009), so also in this case. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0,7 means that there is a strong relationship
between the items and that they measure the same construct. Values lower than 0,7 indicate an
unreliable scale. The Cronbach’s alpha is calculated per factor. In table 12 the reliability coefficients
are shown. Only three coefficients are 0,7 or higher and there are two extremes; one of them is factor
9. This factor exists of one item; therefore the Cronbach’s alpha cannot be calculated. The other
extreme is factor 8 and has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,017, which is very low. Therefore these two factors
will not be taken into consideration for this research. This means only the first seven factors will be
taken into account during the multiple linear regression. The average Cronbach’s Alpha is 0,68, which
is 0,7.
Factor Cronbach’s alpha

1. Possibility for seclusion (5 items) 0,747
2. Office accessories (3 items) 0661
3. Indoor climate control (3 items) 0,691
4. Ergonomics (4 items) 0,608
5. Artificial lighting (2 items) 0,852
6. Adaptable office chair (2 items) 0,743
7. Exterior view (2 items) 0,483
8. Auditory privacy (2 items) 0,017
9. Computer functioning (1 item) Not applicable
Table 12 Results Cronbach’s alpha
4.2.3 Control variables

To discover the direct relationship between the work-related aspects of the office environment and
the perceived work ability some variables, which also affect the perceived work ability but are not the
focus of this study, need to be controlled. These control variables are identified in section 3.3.
Nevertheless not all variables which are identified in literature will be taken into account in this
empirical study. This is due to a lack of information or because it is out of the scope of this study. The
variables that are included in the linear regression are presented in table 13; control variables related
to work, and in table 14; individual control variables. The selection process is described below.
In order to keep the control variables constant during the linear regression the information per
respondent is necessary. Therefore each control variable had to be linked with questions from the
survey of Adaptics. These related questions can also be found in table 13 and in table 14. After
identifying the related questions an average score per respondent is calculated. Prior to this some
questions had to be rephrased to get similar scales or similar effects on the perceived work ability.
Control variables related to work

According to Martinez and Latorre (2006) and Sjögren-Rönka et al. (2012) job satisfaction is related
with good work ability among office workers. Job satisfaction entails several variables because it is
46
closely linked with the quality of job and life (Martinez and Latorre, 2006). That is why job satisfaction
will not be taken into account. In addition the physical workload is also not taken into account. Gould
et al. (2008), Robroek et al. (2012) and Martinez and Latorre, (2006) mentioned that a heavy physical
workload affects the perceived work ability negatively. However there is also stated that; the white-
collar workers perceived their work ability better than blue-collar workers. This is due to the less
physical workload in the white collar occupations (Gould et al., 2008). So it can be concluded that
physical tasks are not relevant for this research since it is focused on the office workers. Though Van
den Berg et al. (2008) stated that the physical demands at work also include poor work postures and
poor ergonomic conditions. These exposures at the office can also be due to facilities like an office
chair and desk which are not adaptable to the needs of the employee. These facilities belong to the
office environment and are part of the focus of the study, so in this case there is no need to elaborate
on them because this relation will be identified during the linear regression. In addition physical tasks
are not relevant for the office environment, so the occupation physical factors will not be taken into
account.
Finally it can be concluded that concerning the work, three control variables are included for
the linear regression. These are: the workload, a low level of control/autonomy and the stress/mental
strain. It is expected that the workload and the stress variables have a negative impact on the perceived
work ability. The level of control/autonomy will have a positive effect. As Gould et al. (2008) explained;
the contents of work should fit the employees’ resources in order to avoid work exhaustion. If the
workload is too heavy or employees experience stress or mental strain this means the work does not
fit the employees’ resources and this will influence the perceived work ability negatively. As can been
seen in table 13 the questions about the workload are almost similar to the questions about the
stress/mental strain. This is due to the fact that a heavy workload causes stress. In addition, work-
related stress occurs when the demands of the work are not realisable by the employee; this has
negative consequences for employees (Halpern, 2005). Because stress is related to the amount of work
with unrealistic demands the question of Adaptics: ’It is common that I do not get my work done’ is
included as control variable for stress and for the workload.
47
Control Questions of Adaptics Range per
variable respondent
Mental  Q335: On average I work overtime at least once a week 0-1.33
workload  Q336: I often have to work under extra high pressure or with 0: High workload
an extra high work pace 1.33: Low
 Q337: It is common that I do not get my work done workload
Level of  Q338: I am able to determine my own work pace 0-1.25
control/auto  Q339: In advance the week or day production is determined 0:Low level of
nomy or there is a ´ready to go home´ system control
 Q334: During my work I am able to insert breaks or start other 1.25: High level
tasks of control
 Q325: I have the possibility to determine the order of my
work tasks and to determine the work method
Stress/ment  Q336: I often have to work under extra high pressure or with 0-1.50
al strain an extra high work pace 0:High stress
 Q337: It is common that I do not get my work done level
1.5:Low stress
level
Table 13 Control variables work-related
Control variables related to the individual

The individual factors that influence the relationship between the office environment and the
perceived work ability are also identified in section 3.3. In this case some variables will also be omitted.
For instance the research of McGonagle (2014) underscores the importance of the self-rated health
status. This is a vague concept and entails several variables. Therefore these will not be taken into
account. Nevertheless factors relating to the general health of the respondent will be included. These
are the coronary heart diseases and musculoskeletal symptoms because these were mentioned the
most in literature and Adaptics identified these variables extensively. Overall Gould et al. (2008) also
mentioned that the mental disorders have a strong effect on the perceived work ability. Unfortunately
Adaptics did not investigate the mental disorders per respondents so it is not possible to control for
this variable.
Finally the individual factors which will be included in this research as control variables are;
age, educational level, weight, physical activities, non-smoking, fruit and vegetable intake, social
support, coronary heart diseases and the musculoskeletal symptoms. Table 14 shows which questions
of Adaptics will be taken into account, including their range per respondent. In this case the questions
are also formulated so that it has a linear effect on the perceived work ability; the higher the figure,
the better the expected effect on the perceived work ability. The social support is included as control
variable because literature suggests that the level of social support at home affects the perceived work
ability. However the answer on this question varies a lot and an average is needed to control for this
subject. Therefore the answer; single, is coded as 0 and all the other answers (e.g. living together, long-
term relationship but do not live together, living with other adults, living with parents) are coded as 1.
Concerning the weight Adaptics created four categories; too skinny, healthy weight, overweight and
obese. In order to make it a linear effect the category obese and too skinny are taken together in
category 0. So category 1 represents overweight and 2 represents normal weight.
48
Control variable Questions of Adaptics Range per
respondent
Age  Age 22-66
Educational level  Q1: What is the highest level of education you have 0-7
completed? 0:No education
7:Academic
Social support  Q3: Which situation currently applies to you? (living 0-1
together, long-term relationship but do not live together, 0:Single
single, living with other adults, living with parents) 1:In a relationship
Weight  Categories of weight 0-2
0: Obese and skinny
2: Normal weight
Physical  Q17: How many times a week are you moving for at least 0-3
activities/exercises 30 minutes whereby your heart rate goes up and your 0: Low level of
breathing is faster? physical activities
 Q18: How many times a week are you moving for at least 3: High level of
20 minutes whereby you start sweating or panting? physical activities
Smoking  Q24: Do you smoke? 0-2
0: Daily smoker
2: Non-smoker
Fruit and vegetable  Q20: How many days per week do you eat vegetables? 0-7
intake  Q22: How many days per week do you eat fruit? 0: Low intake of
healthy food
7:High intake of
healthy food (daily)
Coronary heart  Q9: Is there ever detected by a doctor that you suffer from 0-1
diseases cardiovascular disease and that you should perform only 0: Complaints or
physical activities recommended by a doctor? suffering from
 Q10: Do you have pain on the chest during physical coronary heart
exercises? diseases
 Q11: Did you have pain on the chest during the previous 1: No complaints or
months when not doing physical exercises? suffering from
 Q14: Does your doctor prescribe medication for you these coronary heart
days in associated with your blood pressure or a heart diseases
problem?
Musculoskeletal  Q931: Do you have or did you have back pain in the last 4 0-1
symptoms weeks? 0: Complaints or
 Q936: Do you have or did you have pain in your neck the suffering from the
last 4 weeks? musculoskeletal
 Q941: Do you have or did you have pain in your legs the last 1: No complaints or
4 weeks? suffering from the
 Q946: Do you have or did you have pain in your arms the musculoskeletal
last 4 weeks?
Table 14 Individual control variables
49
4.2.4 Multiple linear regression
Finally the linear regression will reveal the predictive value from the independent factors on the
dependent value. This analysis will test the seven independent factors to see what their predictive
value is on the perceived work ability. One should bear in mind that the WAI score is used as the
dependent value, this score ranges from 7-49. Thus the four categories of the WAI are not used in this
multiple regression because these categories provide an insufficient amount of information. In order
to identify the predictive value of the independent variables, the control variables need to be taken
into account. These will be divided into the work-related control variables and the individual control
variables.
In this study hierarchical multiple regressions were used to assess the ability of the seven
environmental factors to influence the perceived work ability office employees. Each independent
variable will be assessed in terms of what it adds to the prediction of the perceived work ability after
the previous variables have been controlled for. The work-related and individual control variables are
entered separately in the regression to decrease the complexity. The two separate regression analyses
will reveal the significant control variables and their explanation rate on the perceived work ability.
Thanks to this the linear regression for the total model, which exists of the significant control variables
and the seven environmental factors, can be conducted.
Control variables related to work

Firstly the three control variables related to work were tested. Table 15 presents the results. Based on
the figures it can be concluded that mental workload does not have a significant influence on the
perceived work ability (P=0,944). So based on statistical reasons it is excluded from the model. The
level of autonomy (P=0,00) and mental strain (P=0,03) have a significant influence on the variance of
the perceived work ability, therefore these are included for further analyses.
Variables R² Adjusted R² Adjusted R² change Sig. F Change
1. Mental workload 0,000 -,003 0,000 0,944

2. Level of autonomy 0,047 0,042 0,045 0,000
3. Mental strain 0,072 0,063 0,021 0,003
Table 15 Results linear regression with control variables related to work
50
Control variables related to the individual
Nine individual control variables have been identified during the literature study. As shown in table 16
four out of nine individual control variables do not significantly contribute to the perceived work
ability. Therefore they can be excluded from the analysis. The respective control variables are: social
support (P= 0,36), physical activities (P= 0,37), smoking (P= 0,76) and the amount of fruit and vegetable
intake (P= 0,5). So the five individual control variables which remain are: age, educational level, weight,
coronary heart diseases and musculoskeletal symptoms.
Variables R² Adjusted R² Adjusted R² Sig. F Change

change
1. Age 0,017 0,014 0,000 0,026
2. Educational level 0,085 0,078 0,064 0,000
3. Social support 0,088 0,078 0,000 0,356
4. Weight 0,102 0,090 0,012 0,033
5. Physical activities 0,105 0,089 -,001 0,374
6. Smoking 0,105 0,086 -,003 0,757
7. Fruit and vegetable intake 0,107 0,084 -,002 0,495
8 Coronary heart diseases 0,138 0,113 0,029 0,002
9. Musculoskeletal symptoms 0,204 0,178 0,065 0,000
Table 16 Results linear regression with individual control variables
51
Thanks to above linear regressions the significant effects of the control variables are identified. With
this information the 5th specific research question can be answered.

To what extent are work-related aspects of the office environment influencing
the perceived work ability?
The regression analysis revealed that only seven out of twelve control variables are significant,
therefore these are included in the final model. These control variables are; level of autonomy, mental
strain, age, educational level, weight, coronary heart diseases and the musculoskeletal symptoms. The
results of the final multiple regression with the seven remaining control variables are shown in table
17. Remarkable is that the control variables mental strain and weight are not significant on the 0,05
significance level (95%) level anymore. All the control variables have an explanation variance of 20,6%
(P=0,000) of the perceived work ability among office employees. The total regression model explains
23,5% (P=0,016). This means that the seven environmental factors only explain 2,9% of the perceived
work ability. Despite the minimal influence it is a statistical significant contribution (P=0,016).
Remarkable is that the control variables explain a greater amount of the perceived work ability than
the seven environmental factors. The level of autonomy (4,3%), educational level (5,3%) and the
musculoskeletal symptoms (5,7%) had the best explanations variances of the perceived work ability.
Variables R² Adjusted R² Adjusted R² Sig. F Change

(cumulative) (cumulative) change
1. Level of autonomy 0,047 0,043 0,000 0,000
2. Mental strain 0,052 0,046 0,003 0,188
3. Age 0,070 0,060 0,014 0,022
4. Educational level 0,125 0,113 0,053 0,000
5. Weight 0,137 0,122 0,009 0,051
6. Coronary heart diseases 0,166 0,149 0,027 0,002
7. Musculoskeletal symptoms 0,225 0,206 0,057 0,000
8. 7 environmental factors 0,273 0,235 0,029 0,016
Table 17 Model summary
With the linear regression the magnitude of the underlying items can be checked. In table 18 the beta
coefficients are shown in column B. This value represents the change in the perceived work ability
associated with a unit change in the predictor variable. So it shows the individual contribution of each
predictor to the model. Based on table 18 it can be concluded that the physical health of the employee,
which in this study is measured by coronary heart diseases and the musculoskeletal symptoms, has
the biggest influence of the control variables on the perceived work ability (respectively b=- 4,683,
P=0,002 and b=- 4,131, P=0,000). This means the more an employee experiences complaints about
their musculoskeletal or coronary heart diseases, the lower the perceived work ability. The age of the
office employee also has a negative impact. This means; the older the employee, the lower the
perceived work ability. This matches the findings in literature. However the coefficient is not very high
52
so the impact is small (b= -,029, P=0,022). In contrary the level of autonomy has an important positive
contribution (b=1,804, P=0,000).
Concerning the environmental factors, factor 1 has the biggest influence on the perceived work
ability and it is the only factor which has a significant contribution (b= 0,845, P=0,000). There is no
linear trend between factor two till seven and the perceived work ability.
Predictor variables B t Sig.

Constant 27,744 11,475 0,000
Level of autonomy 1,804 1,986 0,000
Mental strain 0,450 1,155 0,188
Age -,029 -1,237 0,022
Education level 0,789 4,521 0,000
Weight - 0,624 -1,884 0,051
Coronary heart diseases - 4,683 -2,912 0,002
Musculoskeletal symptoms - 4,131 -3,965 0,000
Factor 1; Possibility for seclusion 0,845 3,552 0,000
Factor 2; Office accessories 0,308 1,322 0,204
Factor 3; Indoor climate control 0,331 1,423 0,145
Factor 4; Ergonomics 0,106 0,459 0,538
Factor 5; Artificial lighting 0,225 1,008 0,345
Factor 6; Adaptable office chair 0,075 0,322 0,816
Factor 7; Exterior view -0,039 -0,168 0,815
Table 18 Coefficients of final model
53
4.3. Hypotheses testing
In order to answer the general research question the hypotheses need to be tested. In this case each
hypothesis has to match with one of the created factors thanks to the statistical analysis. This overview
is shown in table 19.
Factor Matching Hypotheses

1. Possibility for seclusion H2: Experiences at the office environment associated with a lack of privacy,
distractions and a feeling of obstruction among office employees is negatively
related to the perceived work ability.
Partly H4: Auditory distractions in the office environment are negatively
related to the perceived work ability of office employees
2. Office accessories H1a: Properly functioning office equipment is positively related to the
3. Indoor climate control H3. The possibility for office employees to adjust the indoor climate to their
personal preferences is positively related to the perceived work ability.
Partly H6: A feeling of personal control over the office environment is
positively related to the perceived work ability.
4. Ergonomics H1b: If the office equipment supports a good work posture according to the
OHS regulation, this will be positively related to the perceived work ability.
5. Artificial lighting H5. An office environment which provides sufficient light for the office
employees to execute their work tasks is positively related to the perceived
work ability.
6. Adaptable office chair H1b: If the office equipment supports a good work posture according to the
OHS regulation, this will be positively related to the perceived work ability.
Partly H6: A feeling of personal control over the office environment is
positively related to the perceived work ability.
7. Exterior view Partly H5. An office environment which provides sufficient light for the office
employees to execute their work tasks is positively related to the perceived
work ability.
Table 19 Link between factors and hypotheses
For this study a p-value of 0,05 is obtained for rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis. This means
that when the p-value is less than the significance level (P<0,05) there might be concluded that the
effect actually reflects the office employees in the Netherlands. In this case the null hypothesis can be
rejected. The null hypothesis means that there is no effect. In this study only factor 1 is significant. So
concerning this factor the hypothesis H2 and partly 4 can be accepted. Regarding factor 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. So it can be concluded that the office accessories,
ergonomics, indoor climate control, artificial light, exterior view and an adaptable office chair do not
significantly contribute to the perceived work ability of office employees. Therefore hypotheses 1a,
1b, 3 ,5 and 6 are rejected.
54
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
A literature and empirical study was performed to finally answer the general research question:
General research question

Is the perceived work ability of employees influenced by work-related aspects of
the office environment and how can the relationship be conceptualized in a
measurement model?
This question will be answered by using the information gathered in literature and the empirical study.
Firstly conclusions will be drawn by comparing the literature study with the empirical study. Thereafter
inferences will be made based on the results of the empirical study.
5.1 Gap between literature and empirical study

The concept of perceived work ability relates to the individual’s self-perception of his or her ability to
continue working, given the work demands, the health status and the individual resources (Sprudza et
al., 2014). Regarding the work demands the organisations have the power to adapt work to the
individual’s resources. Though this is hard because the resources of an individual also changes
throughout life due to aging, new technologies and influences of globalization (Gould et al., 2008). As
a consequence the perceived work ability of office employees also changes throughout life. This means
that the perceived work ability is a measure of one particular moment in time. This measurement does
not identify what the causes are of a poor level of work ability. Therefore actions need to be taken
with the respective individual to pinpoint the essential matters. This study provides more insight about
the essential elements in the office environment which have an impact on the eventual perceived work
ability score. By knowing these elements organisations are able to undertake targeted interventions.
Based on the literature it can be concluded that the environment always has an impact on an
individual. Nevertheless this impact can be positive or negative and differs per person. This makes it
hard to identify the direct relationship between the environment and the perceived work ability of an
employee. During the literature study the most important work-related aspects of the office
environment that impact the wellbeing of an employee are identified with the aid of prior studies
concerning the relationship between the office workers and the office environment. Thanks to this
literature study a comparison could be made between the work-related aspects of the office
environment included in the survey of Adaptics, which are also used for the empirical study, and the
work-related aspects of the office environment in literature. In figure 7 this gap is identified. One has
to bear in mind that the definition of work-related aspects in this research is delimited to the physical
white collar office aspects and the experience of these aspects. So the services are not taken into
account. Adaptics uses the same definition for work-related aspects in the survey but they also
included one item about the postal services. During the literature study services like the catering and
security were mentioned frequently but the postal services was not. Therefore the added value of this
item in the survey is questionable, especially in this digital era. Additionally, it is remarkable that in
literature several environmental aspects are mentioned frequently but are not included in the survey
from Adaptics. These corresponding variables are circled in figure 7. Based on this figure it can be
conclude that not only the aspects measured in this empirical study should be taken into consideration.
The colours used in the office, position of the office in the building, smell in the office, style of the
55
office and interior plants should also be considered for further research because these aspects are also
effecting the employees’ wellbeing.
Figure 7 the gap between work-related aspects from literature and Adaptics
56
5.2 Empirical study
In the empirical study 343 perceived work ability scores were assessed. This study found that some
work-related aspects of the office environment influence the perceived work ability significantly. The
final model has an explanation variance of 23,5% of the perceived work ability. The environmental
aspect that significantly contributes to the perceived work ability is concerning the possibility for an
office employee to seclude (b= 0,845, P=0,000). This means he or she has to be able to execute tasks
in a place without disruption. Thereby hypothesis 2 can be accepted and hypothesis 4 can be accepted
partly. This means that experiences at the office environment associated with a lack of privacy,
distractions and a feeling of obstruction among office employees is negatively related to the perceived
work ability. Despite the minimal impact of this environmental aspect (2,9%), it significantly influences
the perceived work ability of office employees. Work-related aspects in the office environment
concerning the office accessories, indoor climate control, ergonomics, artificial lighting, adaptable
office chair and the experience of daylight do not significantly impact the perceived work ability
according to this study. Therefore hypotheses 1a, 1b, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected. So the conclusion is that
there is no linear trend between factor 2 to 7 and the perceived work ability. In order to maintain an
overview of the relationship between the office environmental aspects and the perceived work ability
a final measurement model is created with the results from the final multiple regression. This model
is shown in figure 8.
Figure 8 Final measurement model
57
The final model explains 23,5% of the perceived work ability, so 76,5% of the perceived work ability
kept unexplained. This can be due to several things.
At first the perceived work ability is a complicated matter and it is also influenced by whether
or not the employee is able to adjust work demands and working conditions to their individual
resources (Lindberg et al., 2006). Due to the broad concept of perceived work ability the final model
entails a high amount of control variables. In the final linear regression only the significant control
variables were taken into account. These are two work-related and five individual control variables.
Prior studies included less control variables therefore their final model mainly had a higher explained
variance of the perceived work ability. In this study only the first factor had a significant contribution
of 2,9% of the variance of the perceived work ability. All in all the final model shows that the seven
control variables explain a bigger part of the perceived work ability (20,6%) than the environmental
factor concerning the possibility of seclusion at the office (2,9%). As can been seen in table 17 the
control variables concerning the musculoskeletal symptoms (5,7%) and the educational level (5,3%)
have the biggest explained variance of the perceived work ability. A possible explanation for the
educational level is that the professional skills produced by education have a role in an individual’s
ability to maintain their work ability (Gould et al. 2008). The final model also shows that the physical
health of the employee, which in this study is measured by coronary heart diseases and the
musculoskeletal symptoms, has a bigger influence on the perceived work ability than the
environmental aspect. This means the more an employee experiences complaints about their
musculoskeletal or coronary heart diseases, the lower the perceived work ability. So in this study the
physical health has the biggest influence on the perceived work ability of the office employee. Besides
the coronary heart diseases and the musculoskeletal symptoms there are more variables that indicate
the physical health of an employee, but these are not included in this study. This might also influence
the end results.
Secondly the low explanation rate of the final model can be due to the binary data. In order to
test the real experience of the office environment of each employee, more in-depth information is
necessary. In this case a pattern in the magnitude of the influences can be identified. Due to the
existing database of Adaptics it was not possible to gain more in-depth information among the
respondents. However, the survey is executed among 650 office employees from several companies,
whereby 343 respondents have an indication of their perceived work ability. Thanks to this big sample
some patterns could be identified. Even though some significantly predictors are discovered, Adaptics
can gain more in-depth information about the experience of the office environment when they apply
a Likert scale in their survey instead of a dichotomous variable. As a result of the yes/no answers it is
not possible to identify the level of their experience and therefore only one environmental factor has
a significant contribution of 2,9%.
Thirdly, this research took 30 items about the office environment into account for the empirical
study. 12 out of 30 items were concerning the office equipment and their settings, this is due to a lot
of items in the survey regarding this topic. More information and a broader view about the relationship
between the office environment and the employees can be obtained by adding more diverse work-
related aspects to the survey. This can also increase the explained variance of the measurement model.
So for further research the work-related aspects which form the gap between the literature study and
the empirical study (section 5.1) can be researched to identify their relationship with the employees.
With this extensive information Adaptics is able to give more advice concerning the design of the office
environment.
58
The results of the statistical analyses also showed contradictions compared to the literature
study. According to Tuomi et al. (2001) the work and work conditions (ergonomics, work spaces and
tools, work postures and movements and physical load) have the best explanation rate of the work
ability score, which was 28%. This study did not find a significant contribution of these variables. One
of the explanations might be that this research did not ascertain the relationship between the work
and the perceived work ability but only the office environment, therefore the explanation rate is lower.
Secondly Tuomi et al. (2001) only included ageing workers in his study and thirdly Tuomi et al (2001)
only controlled for age, gender and work content. So he added less control variables to his study, this
may also impact the end result. Another possible explanation might be that this study was executed in
2001, so fourteen years ago. The magnitude of influencing factors on perceived work ability can be
changed due to the expanding boundaries of the physical space for work. The office used to be the
place to work, nowadays it is just one many among others. Employees have more freedom concerning
the place of work and time of work, this can be seen in the rise of third workplaces and working at
home (Lee and Brand, 2005). These workplaces provide employees more freedom concerning their
furniture, technological support, work posture and the time of working. They can choose a workplace
which fits their needs the best. This offers them to choose a work environment where they feel
comfortable. The level of comfortability is based on a matter of feeling and experience and not so
much the concerns about ergonomics, work postures and movements (Kamarulzaman et al., 2011).
Among the data of Adaptics only 32,6% of the respondents have a fixed workplace. This means 67,4%
of the respondents is able to choose their own workplace, this can be at the office, a third workplace
or even at home. This might also be an explanation why the impact of these variables is not as high as
it was in 2001.
The next chapter describes the recommendations for organisations and for Adaptics based on
aforementioned conclusions. One should bear in mind that even though the research sample consists
of a diverse group of office employees (varies in organisations, age and function) the independent
variable in this study (the office environment) can be experienced in several ways among different
employees. This can be due to trends, developments or other (individual) factors which might influence
this relationship and the external validity.
59
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides recommendations based on the drawn conclusions. In the first section
recommendations for organisations are described. The second section will elaborate on the
recommendations for Adaptics.
6.1 Organisations
Overall this research proved that the physical health of an office employee has a greater impact on the
perceived work ability than the office environment. The office environment can prevent physical
complaints and aches but it is not able to recover it, therefore it is recommended for the employer to
focus on the health of employees in order to improve the perceived work ability of them and enhance
the business. However, given that employees are expected to spend an indefinite amount of time at
work, offices should respond with new functions and service to enhance employees’ health. Employers
should react on the trends in the offices and of the society. However, there is no one-fits-all concept.
Each organisation has its own mix of employees with their mix of needs. The expected effects of work-
related aspects on employees might not be straightforward for each office employee; therefore it is
recommended for employers to focus on the health of the employees and embed the (WAI) in a
broader strategic policy of an organisation. If the WAI is measured more often in time and on structural
basis employees can detect changes in their physical and mental health and see how well the work
demands matches their individual resources. Subsequently employers can create targeted
interventions in order to improve the perceived work ability. In addition employers can execute a work
environment survey on structural bases in order to measure the experience of the work environment
among the employees. Based on this information they can also adapt the office environment to the
preferences of the employees in order to support the employees during work. An example of a work
environment survey is described in section 6.2. All in all it is important that employees feel comfortable
at work and do not experience physical or mental health complaints. In order to realize this, employers
should provide offices adaptable to various needs of the employees. Herewith the level of privacy
needs to be considered. If employees need to execute certain tasks which require a high concentration
level it is important that they are able to work in a room without any distractions. Otherwise it will
affect their perceived work ability.
However, Adaptics indicated that they pursue an annual measurement but most employees
are not willing to cooperate every year because they get tired of all the surveys. A possible solution for
this is to keep the employees well informed about the results of the survey so that they are aware of
any progress. By doing this they create engagement. Nowadays there is a trend occurring regarding a
healthy lifestyle. People are more aware of their health and the impacts of certain lifestyles on it. They
are more interested in keeping themselves healthy; therefore this trend can be a chance to implement
the WAI on a structural basis.
Additionally, employers have to bear in mind that the mental capacity of employees need
support because of the fast and continuing changes in the world and the office environment as a result
of digitalisation and globalisation. Therefore trainings and courses will be of great value to keep the
employees developing their personal resources. As a consequence, well-educated employees will be
more capable of restoring or maintaining their perceived work ability. A higher work ability score has
benefits like; higher productivity of the employee and a healthier employee which leads to a possible
longer work life.
60
6.2 Adaptics
This research is delimited to certain work related aspects in the office environment due to the existing
survey of Adaptics. Based on the gap between the literature study and the empirical study it is
recommended for Adaptics to add these ‘missing’ variables concerning the office environment to the
survey in order to create a complete overview. These variables are discussed with Adaptics and they
see the added value of these topics for future research. An example of a complete survey concerning
the office environment is the Work Environment Diagnosis Instrument (in Dutch the
WerkplekOmgevingsDiagnose or WODI). The WODI is a scientifically based instrument which measures
the performance of the work environment. The focus is on the physical work environment, but other
aspects which concern the experience of the work environment are also included. The most important
aspects that the WODI entails are aspects related to the building, the workplace of the employee, the
psychological and social aspects at the workplace, the facilities, the technological aspects, the
perceived productivity of the employee, the level of importance that the employees attach to the
workplace, general pattern of activities of the employees and the overall appreciation. With this
information the WODI identifies bottlenecks and successes of the work environment. Every year the
WODI survey is evaluated and updated based on the latest development. Additionally, the survey can
be adjusted and supplemented on demand.
Secondly it is also recommended for Adaptics to use a Likert scale in their survey instead of
dichotomous variables. As a result of the yes/no answers it is not possible to identify the level of the
experience of the office environment by employees. If Adaptics applies a Likert scale (e.g. 5-scales)
they can obtain information about how the employees really feel about their office environment. In
this way, they can provide their clients with detailed advice about their office environment. This will
make the advice worthier and they will be able to create targeted interventions in order to improve
the experience of the employees concerning the office environment.
61
APPENDICES
Appendix I – General survey Adaptics
Persoonsgegevens
1 Wat is de hoogste opleiding die u hebt 0 (0) Geen opleiding gevolgd/afgemaakt
afgemaakt? 0 (1) Basisonderwijs
0 (2) Voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs
0 (3) MAVO
0 (4) HAVO/VWO
0 (5) Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs
0 (6) Hoger beroepsonderwijs
0 (7) Wetenschappelijk onderwijs
2 Wat is uw burgerlijke staat? 0 (0) Gehuwd
0 (1) Ongehuwd en nooit gehuwd geweest
0 (2) Gescheiden
0 (3) Weduwe/weduwnaar
3 Welke situatie is op dit moment op u 0 (0) Woon samen met partner / echtgenoot / echtgenote
van toepassing? 0 (1) Heb duurzame relatie, maar woon niet samen
0 (2) Alleenstaand
0 (3) Woon samen met andere volwassene(n)
0 (4) Woon bij ouder(s)
Open Anders, namelijk…
4 Heeft u kinderen? 0 (1) Ja
0 (0) Nee
62
Zo ja, hoeveel kinderen in de leeftijdscategorie van:
5 0 t/m 3 jaar? Aantal
8 18 jaar of ouder? Aantal
Werksituatie
Werknemer met vast dienstverband voor onbepaalde
102 Wat is de aard van uw dienstverband? 0 (1)
tijd
Werknemer met tijdelijk dienstverband met uitzicht

0 (2)
op een vaste aanstelling
Werknemer met tijdelijk dienstverband voor

0 (3)
bepaalde tijd
0 (4) Uitzendkracht
0 (5) Oproepkracht/invalkracht
0 (6) Ondernemer/zelfstandige/freelancer
103 Hoe lang bent u werkzaam bij uw 0 (3) 0 tot 6 maanden

huidige werkgever? 0 (9) 6 tot 12 maanden
0 (18) 1 tot 2 jaar
0 (30) 2 tot 5 jaar
0 (60) 5 tot 10 jaar
0 (120) 10 jaar of langer
104 Hoe lang bent u werkzaam in uw huidige 0 (3) 0 tot 6 maanden

functie? 0 (9) 6 tot 12 maanden
0 (18) 1 tot 2 jaar
0 (30) 2 tot 5 jaar
0 (60) 5 tot 10 jaar
63
0 (120) 10 jaar of langer
105 Hoeveel uur werkt u gemiddeld per 0 (1) Minder dan 12 uur
week, inclusief overwerk? 0 (2) 12 tot en met 19 uur
0 (3) 20 tot en met 32 uur
0 (4) 33 tot en met 40 uur
0 (5) Meer dan 40 uur
Ja Nee
106 Werkt u in ploegendienst en/of 0 (1) 0 (0)

onregelmatige werktijden?
107 Geeft u leiding in uw huidige functie? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Medische achtergrond
Ja Nee
Is er ooit door een arts geconstateerd dat u last van hart- en

9 vaatziekten heeft en dat u alleen fysieke (lichamelijke) inspanning op 0 (1) 0 (0)
advies van een arts mag uitvoeren?
10 Heeft u pijn op de borst bij fysieke inspanning? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Heeft u in de afgelopen maand pijn op de borst gehad terwijl u geen

11 0 (1) 0 (0)
fysieke inspanning uitvoerde?
Verliest u weleens uw evenwicht als gevolg van duizeligheid of verliest

12 0 (1) 0 (0)
u weleens het bewustzijn?
Heeft u bot of gewrichtsaandoeningen, zoals artrose, artritis of reuma

13 0 (1) 0 (0)
die verergeren door inspanning?
Schrijft uw arts u op dit moment medicijnen voor in verband met uw

14 0 (1) 0 (0)
bloeddruk of een hartprobleem?
Bent u op de hoogte van andere redenen waarom u geen fysieke

15 0 (1) 0 (0)
(lichamelijke) inspanning zou mogen uitvoeren?
355 Gebruikt u medicijnen? 0 (1) 0 (0)
64
356 Zo ja, waarvoor gebruikt u medicijnen?
Algemeen
Familie anamnese
Ja Nee
Is er iemand binnen uw familie die op jonge leeftijd (jonger dan 50 jaar)

49 0 (1) 0 (0)
een hartinfarct heeft gehad?
Is er iemand binnen uw familie die op jonge leeftijd (jonger dan 50 jaar)

50 0 (1) 0 (0)
plotseling, zonder voorafgaande ziekteperiode, is overleden?
Heeft u, voor zover u weet, een familielid dat lijdt aan

51 0 (1) 0 (0)
hartritmestoornissen?
Heeft u, voor zover u weet, een familielid dat lijdt aan een aangeboren
52 0 (1) 0 (0)
hartziekte?
Heeft u, voor zover u weet, een familielid dat lijdt aan drukkende pijn
53 0 (1) 0 (0)
op de borst (angina pectoris)?
54 Heeft u een familielid dat, voor zover u weet, gedotterd is? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Heeft u een familielid dat, voor zover u weet, een hartoperatie heeft
55 0 (1) 0 (0)
ondergaan?
Leefstijl (BRAVO)
Beweging
0 (0) Ja
16 Vindt u dat u voldoende beweegt?
0 (1) Nee
Hoe vaak per week beweegt u 0 (1) 5 keer per week of meer
gedurende minimaal 30 minuten
waarbij uw hartslag omhoog gaat en uw 3 of 4 keer per
0 (2)
17 adem sneller gaat? week
1 of 2 keer per
0 (3)
week
65
0 (4) Nooit
Hoe vaak per week beweegt u 0 (1) 5 keer per week of meer
gedurende minimaal 20 minuten
3 of 4 keer per
waarbij u gaat zweten of hijgen? 0 (2)
18 week
1 of 2 keer per
0 (3)
week
0 (4) Nooit
Roken
24 Rookt u? 0 (1) Nee, helemaal niet
0 (2) Ja, af en toe
0 (3) Ja, dagelijks
90 Heeft u vroeger wel eens gerookt? 0 (1) Nee, ik heb nooit gerookt
Ja, maar daar ben ik mee

0 (2)
gestopt
91 Sigaretten per dag Aantal
92 Shagjes per dag Aantal
93 Sigaren per dag Aantal
94 Pijp per dag Aantal
Alcohol
Ik drink geen
0 (0)
Hoe vaak drinkt u gewoonlijk bier, wijn, alcohol
25
of sterke drank? Iedere
0 (7)
dag
0 (6) 6 dagen per week
66
0 (1) 1 dag per week
0 (0.5) Minder dan 1 dag per week
Ik drink geen
Hoeveel glazen drinkt u doorgaans per 0 (0)
26 alcohol
drinkmoment?
0 (1) 1 glas
0 (2) 2 glazen
0 (3) 3 glazen
0 (4) 4 glazen
0 (5) 5 glazen
0 (6) 6 glazen
0 (7) Meer dan 6 glazen
Leefstijl (BRAVO)
Alcohol (vervolg)
Ik drink geen
0 (0)
Hoe vaak komt het voor dat u meer dan alcohol
27
6 glazen op één dag drinkt? Iedere
0 (8)
dag
67
0 (1) Minder dan 1 dag per week
Voeding
19 Vindt u dat u gezond eet? 0 (0) Ja
0 (1) Nee
Hoeveel dagen per week eet u groente? Iedere

20 0 (7)
dag
Hoeveel opscheplepels (één Minder dan 100

0 (50)
opscheplepel is ongeveer 50 gram) gram
21 groente eet u gemiddeld op een dag dat
u groente eet? 100
0 (100)
gram
150
0 (150)
gram
0 (200) 200 gram of meer
68
Iedere
22 Hoeveel dagen per week eet u fruit? 0 (7)
dag
Minder dan 1 stuk fruit per

0 (0)
Hoeveel stuks fruit eet u gemiddeld op dag
een dag dat u fruit eet? (2 mandarijnen
23 0 (1) 1 stuk fruit per dag
of bijv. een handje kersen telt als 1 stuk
fruit) Soms 1, soms 2 stuks fruit per
0 (1.5)
dag
0 (2) 2 of meer stuks fruit per dag
Leefstijl (BRAVO)
Ontspanning (slaap)
30 Vindt u dat u voldoende slaapt? 0 (0) Ja
0 (1) Nee
3512 Heeft u geregeld last van slapeloosheid? 0 (1) Ja
0 (0) Nee
3528 Wat is de reden van uw slaapprobleem? 0 (1) Onregelmatige werktijden
0 (2) Stress
69
Lichamelijke
0 (3)
klachten
Veel inspanning laat op de

0 (4)
avond
0 (5) Leefstijl
0 (6) Geluidsoverlast
0 (7) Anders
Hoeveel uur slaapt u meestal per etmaal 0 (3) Minder dan 6 uur
31
(24 uur) 0 (2) Tussen 6 en 8 uur
0 (1) 8 uur of meer
Drugs
28 Gebruikt u wel eens drugs? 0 (3) Ja, dagelijks
0 (2) Ja, af en toe
0 (1) Nee, helemaal niet
Welke drug / welk stimulerend middel 0 (1) Cannabis

29
gebruikt u? 0 (2) Cocaïne
0 (3) Amfetamine
0 (4) XTC
0 (5) Heroïne
0 (6) GHB
Ik gebruik geen
0 (0)
drugs
70
Ervaren gezondheid
Werkvermogen 1
2927 Welk soort taken verricht u in uw werk? 0 (1) Voornamelijk geestelijk (psychisch) inspannende taken
0 (2) Voornamelijk lichamelijk inspannende taken
Zowel geestelijk (psychisch) als lichamelijk inspannende

0 (3)
taken
Als u aan uw werkvermogen in de beste Cijfer

periode van uw leven 10 punten geeft,
2045 hoeveel punten zou u dan aan uw
werkvermogen op dit moment
toekennen?
Hoe beoordeelt u uw werkvermogen op 0 (5) Zeer goed

dit moment in relatie tot de lichamelijke
2046 eisen van uw werk? 0 (4) Goed
0 (3) Matig
0 (2) Slecht
0 (1) Zeer slecht
Hoe beoordeelt u uw werkvermogen op 0 (5) Zeer goed

dit moment in relatie tot de psychische
2047 (geestelijke) eisen van uw werk? 0 (4) Goed
0 (3) Matig
0 (2) Slecht
0 (1) Zeer slecht
71
Geef de aandoeningen aan die u op dit moment heeft én die daadwerkelijk
zijn vastgesteld en/of behandeld is door een arts:
Ja Nee Ja Nee
Aandoeningen aan
2048 Verwonding door ongeval 0 (0) 0 (1) 2055 de urinewegen of de 0 (0) 0 (1)
geslachtsorganen
Aandoeningen van het Huidaandoeningen

2049 0 (0) 0 (1) 2056 0 (0) 0 (1)
bewegingsapparaat
2050 Hart- en vaataandoeningen 0 (0) 0 (1) 2057 Tumoren 0 (0) 0 (1)
Aandoeningen van de luchtwegen Stofwisselings-

2051 0 (0) 0 (1) 2058 0 (0) 0 (1)
stoornissen
Psychische aandoeningen Aandoeningen aan

2052 0 (0) 0 (1) 2059 0 (0) 0 (1)
het bloed
2053 Neurologische en zintuigaandoeningen 0 (0) 0 (1) 2060 Aangeboren ziekten 0 (0) 0 (1)
Overige
Aandoeningen van de
2054 0 (0) 0 (1) 2061 aandoeningen of 0 (0) 0 (1)
spijsverteringsorganen
ziekten
3521 Slaapapneu 0(0) 0 (1) 3522 Diabetes 0 (0) 0 (1)
Zo ja, welke aandoening: Open
Vormen aandoeningen, ziekten of Er is geen beperking/ik heb geen aandoeningen,

0 (6)
verwondingen een beperking voor de ziekten, klachten.
2063 uitoefening van uw werk?
Ik kan mijn werk uitoefenen,maar ervaar daarbij wel
0 (5)
enige klachten.
Ik moet soms langzamer werken of mijn manier van

0 (4)
werken veranderen
Ik moet vaak langzamer werken of mijn manier van

0 (3)
werken veranderen
Door mijn aandoening, ziekte of verwonding ben ik

0 (2)
alleen in staat om part-time te werken.
Naar mijn mening, ben ik geheel niet in staat om te

0 (1)
werken.
72
Ervaren gezondheid
Work Ability Index (vervolg)
Hoeveel hele dagen heeft u in de 0 (5) 0 dagen (niet ziek geweest)

afgelopen 12 maanden in totaal niet
kunnen werken als gevolg van een 0 (4) 1 - 9 dagen
2064
gezondheids probleem (ziekte, opname 0 (3) 10 - 24 dagen
of onderzoek)?
0 (2) 25 - 99 dagen
0 (1) 100 - 365 dagen
Denkt u, uitgaande van uw huidige 0 (1) Onwaarschijnlijk

gezondheidstoestand, dat u over twee
2065 jaar nog in staat bent uw huidige werk 0 (4) Misschien
te kunnen uitvoeren? 0 (7) Zeer waarschijnlijk
Altijd Regelmatig Soms Zelden Nooit
2066 Bent u de laatste tijd actief en fit? 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0)
Heeft u de laatste tijd plezier in uw

2067 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0)
gewone dagelijkse bezigheden?
Heeft u de laatste tijd vertrouwen in de

2068 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0)
toekomst?
73
Klachten houdings- en bewegingsapparaat
Heeft u momenteel of in de laatste 4 0 (1) Ja

931
weken rugpijn gehad? 0 (2) Nee
932 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het bukken? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Alleen 's morgens
0 (3) Aan het eind van de dag
0 (4) Verdeeld over de dag
0 (5) Bukken lukt niet vanwege de pijn
933 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het zitten? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Alleen aan het eind van de dag
0 (3) Alleen bij het opstaan uit de stoel/auto
0 (4) Na ongeveer 1/2 uur zitten begint de pijn
0 (5) Zitten lukt niet vanwege de pijn
934 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het lopen? 0 (1) Geen
0 (4) Na 1/2 uur lopen begint de pijn
0 (5) Lopen lukt niet vanwege de pijn
935 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het tillen? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Soms
0 (3) Alleen bij meer dan 23 kg
0 (4) Regelmatig over de dag
74
Tillen doe ik niet vanwege de
0 (5)
pijn

936
weken pijn in uw nek gehad? 0 (2) Nee
Ervaren gezondheid
Klachten houdings- en bewegingsapparaat (vervolg)
937 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het bukken? 0 (1) Geen
0 (5) Bukken lukt niet vanwege de pijn
938 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het zitten? 0 (1) Geen
Na 1/2 - 1 uur zitten begint de

0 (4)
pijn
0 (5) Zitten lukt niet vanwege de pijn
Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij gebruik van uw

939 0 (1) Geen
computer?
0 (3) Alleen bij het opstaan uit zit
0 (4) Na 1/2 uur achter de computer zitten pijn
0 (5) Dit lukt niet vanwege de pijn
75
Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het draaien van het 0 (1) Geen
940
hoofd? 0 (2) Een beetje
Alleen het over de schouder

0 (3)
kijken
0 (5) Draaien doe ik niet vanwege de pijn

941
weken pijn in uw been (-en) gehad? 0 (2) Nee
942 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het lopen? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Alleen startpijn
0 (5) Lopen lukt niet vanwege de pijn
943 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het opstaan uit zit? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Alleen startpijn
0 (4) Iedere keer bij het opstaan
0 (5) Gebruik mijn andere been bij het opstaan
944 Heeft u pijn bij het traplopen? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Aleen aan het eind van de dag
0 (3) Alleen bij trap op of trap af
0 (4) Ik ontlast mijn been bij het traplopen
76
0 (5) Traplopen lukt niet vanwege de pijn
945 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het staan? 0 (1) Geen
0 (2) Een beetje
0 (5) Ik ontlast mijn been bij het staan
Ervaren gezondheid
Klachten houdings- en bewegingsapparaat (vervolg)
946 Heeft u momenteel of in de laatste 4 0 (1) Ja

weken pijn in uw arm(-en) gehad? 0 (2) Nee
947 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het reiken? 0 (1) Geen
0 (5) Ik ontlast mijn arm volledig
948 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij werkzaamheden? 0 (1) Geen
949 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij een hand geven? 0 (1) Geen
77
0 (2) Soms
0 (3) Iedere keer een beetje pijn
0 (4) Iedere keer veel pijn
950 Zo ja, heeft u pijn bij het tillen of dingen 0 (1) Geen
pakken?
0 (2) Soms
0 (3) Alleen bij meer dan 23 kg
0 (4) Iedere keer als ik iets til of pak
78
Appendix II – Office environment survey Adaptics
Beeldschermwerk
56 Hoeveel uur per dag werkt u gemiddeld op uw werk aan 0 (1) > dan 2 uur
het beeldscherm? 0 (3) 2 – 4 uur
0 (5) 4 – 6 uur
0 (6) meer dan 6 uur
57 0 (0) niet / nooit

Hoeveel uur per dag werkt u thuis aan het beeldscherm?
0 (1) > dan 2 uur
0 (3) 2 – 4 uur
0 (5) 4 – 6 uur
Beeldscherm
Ja Nee
58 Mijn beeldscherm staat recht voor mij? 0 (0) 0 (2)
De bovenzijde van mijn beeldscherm staat ongeveer op

59 0 (0) 0 (2)
ooghoogte?
60 De kijkafstand tussen ogen en beeldscherm is goed? 0 (0) 0 (1)
Beeldschermmaat Aanbevolen kijkafstand

14 inch 50 – 70 cm
15 inch 55 – 75 cm
17 inch 60 – 85 cm
19 inch 70 – 95 cm
21 inch 75 – 105 cm
Mijn beeldscherm heeft donkere letters of lijnen op een lichte

61 0 (0) 0 (1)
achtergrond?
62 Mijn (lees)bril is geschikt bevonden voor beeldschermwerk 0 (1) 0 (2)
79
Bureaustoel
Ja Nee
Bij mijn bureaustoel heb ik de mogelijkheid mijn armleuning en

63 0 (0) 0 (2)
rugleuning in te stellen?
Mijn stoel is door mij of een deskundige goed ingesteld op mijn

64 0 (0) 0 (2)
lichaamsmaten (volgens de protocollen)?
Mijn armsteunen staan ver van mijn lichaam af (meer dan een vuist
65 0 (1) 0 (0) n.v.t (0)
tussen lichaam en armsteun)?
Mijn armsteunen zijn goed in hoogte instelbaar zodat ze niet

66 0 (0) 0 (2)
hinderlijk zijn bij het aanschuiven aan tafel?
Werktafel
Ja Nee
De hoogte van mijn werktafel is ingesteld na een juiste instelling

67 van mijn bureaustoel, zodat ik mijn armen (schouders) op een 0 (0) 0 (2)
goede manier kan ondersteunen (onderarm ongeveer 90 graden)?
Er is voor mij (indien noodzakelijk na instelling van stoel en bureau)

68 0 (0) 0 (1) n.v.t (0)
een stabiele, in hoogte verstelbare voetensteun beschikbaar?
Ik heb voldoende beenruimte onder het werkvlak, zodat mijn

69 benen bij het gaan zitten, het aanschuiven en het opstaan nergens 0 (0) 0 (1)
tegenaan stoten?
Mijn werkblad is inclusief de draagconstructie (mits aan de

70 0 (2) 0 (0)
voorzijde) aan de voorzijde dikker dan 5 cm?
Toetsenbord, muis en accesoires
Ja Nee
Mijn toetsenbord en muis zijn voorzien van een kabel die lang
71 genoeg is voor een gemakkelijke plaatsing en bediening op het 0 (0) 0 (2)
bureau
72 De muis beweegt soepel en zonder haperingen op mijn werkvlak 0 (0) 0 (1)
Er is voor mij (indien gewenst) een voldoende grote en stabiele

73 0 (0) 0 (2) n.v.t (0)
documenthouder/lessenaar beschikbaar
80
Ik klem regelmatig bij het gelijktijdig telefoneren en
74 beeldschermwerken de hoorn van de telefoon tussen hoofd en 0 (2) 0 (0) n.v.t (0)
schouder
Laptop
Ja Nee
358 Ik gebruik een laptop gemiddeld langer dan 2 uur per dag? 0 (1) 0 (0)
359 Ik heb de beschikking over een los toetsenbord en laptophouder? 0 (0) 0 (1) n.v.t (2)
Kantooromgeving
Kantooromgeving (werkruimte)
Ja Nee
1018 Heeft u een vaste werkplek? 0 (1) 0 (0)
1019 Met hoeveel andere personen deelt u gemiddeld uw kamer?
1020 Werkt u in een ruimte met uitzicht naar buiten? 0 (1) 0 (0)
1021 Beschikt u over voldoende werkruimte aan uw bureau? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Heeft u voldoende mogelijkheden om uw spullen op te bergen of

1022 0 (1) 0 (0)
te ordenen?
Worden uw werkzaamheden regelmatig hinderlijk onderbroken

1023 0 (0) 0 (1)
door collega's die bij u 'binnenvallen' of te lang blijven?
1024 Vindt u dat u met te veel mensen in één ruimte werkt? 0 (0) 0 (1)
Voelt u zich in het werk belemmerd als u telefoneert, bezoek

1025 ontvangt of overlegt, omdat anderen daar hinder van kunnen 0 (0) 0 (1)
ondervinden?
1026 Heeft u voldoende privacy op uw werkplek? 0 (1) 0 (0)
81
Kantooromgeving (klimaat)
Ja Nee
Vindt u de ruimte waarin u werkt regelmatig te benauwd of te

1027 0 (0) 0 (1)
muf?
Hebben weersomstandigheden of seizoenen een hinderlijke

1028 0 (0) 0 (1)
invloed op de temperatuur in uw werkruimte?
Kunt u de temperatuur op uw werkplek naar wens regelen

1029 0 (1) 0 (0)
wanneer het buiten koud is?
Kunt u de temperatuur op uw werkplek naar wens regelen

1030 0 (1) 0 (0)
wanneer de zon schijnt of het buiten warm is?
1031 Kunt u gemakkelijk een raam open zetten als u dat wenst? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Kantooromgeving (geluid)
Ja Nee
Wordt u regelmatig gehinderd door geluiden van buiten (zoals

1032 0 (0) 0 (1)
verkeerslawaai)?
Heeft u tijdens uw werk regelmatig last van geluid uit

1033 0 (0) 0 (1)
aangrenzende kamers of uit de gang?
Wordt u op uw werkplek regelmatig gehinderd door activiteiten

1034 0 (0) 0 (1)
van collega's (zoals telefoneren)?
Wordt u bij uw werk vaak hinderlijk afgeleid door geluiden van

1035 0 (0) 0 (1)
kantoorapparatuur?
Is het voor u mogelijk om op de een of andere wijze geluidsoverlast

1036 0 (1) 0 (0)
voldoende te beperken?
Kantooromgeving (licht en verlichting)
Ja Nee
1037 Bent u tevreden over de verlichting van de ruimte waarin u werkt? 0 (1) 0 (0)
1038 Bent u tevreden over het licht op uw werkplek? 0 (1) 0 (0)
1039 Kunt u de lichtinval van buiten naar wens regelen? 0 (1) 0 (0)
82
Kantooromgeving (voorzieningen)
Ondervindt uw werk regelmatig vertraging omdat u

onvoldoende gebruik kunt maken van een: Ja Nee
1040 computer? 0 (0) 0 (1)
1041 printer? 0 (0) 0 (1)
1042 fax? 0 (0) 0 (1)
1043 kopieerapparaat? 0 (0) 0 (1)
Voldoen uw computer en de gebruikte programmatuur (software)

1044 0 (1) 0 (0)
qua snelheid en gebruiksgemak aan uw behoefte?
Wordt u vaak gehinderd door de licht die uit printer(s) of

1045 0 (0) 0 (1)
kopieerapparatuur wordt geblazen?
1046 Werkt u in een schone, goed onderhouden ruimte? 0 (1) 0 (0)
1047 Bent u tevreden over de postvoorziening? 0 (1) 0 (0)
Ondervindt u hinder van lange loopafstanden binnen uw bedrijf

1048 0 (0) 0 (1)
(bijv. tussen de afdelingen)?
KANS
Werktaken
Ja Nee
Mijn functie bestaat alleen uit uitvoerend werk (dus geen

322 0 (1) 0 (0)
werkvoorbereiding, ondersteuning, organisatie en controle)
Mijn functie bestaat uit een combinatie van verschillende, zowel

323 0 (0) 0 (1)
gemakkelijke als moeilijkere taken
Ik wissel het werken met het beeldscherm regelmatig af met ander

324 werk, dat niet aan het beeldscherm wordt uitgevoerd (zoals 0 (0) 0 (1)
overleg, kopiëren, telefoneren)
83
Ik heb mogelijkheden om de werkvolgorde en de werkmethode
325 0 (0) 0 (1)
(deels) zelf te kiezen
326 Mijn werk heeft voor mij voldoende uitdagingen 0 (0) 0 (1)
Ik kan bij (technische) problemen hulp inroepen om zo gezamenlijk

327 0 (0) 0 (1)
de knelpunten op te lossen
328 Ik heb voldoende contactmogelijkheden met collega's 0 (0) 0 (1)
Het is voor mij duidelijk dat de verrichte werkzaamheden 'goed'

329 0 (0) 0 (1)
zijn uitgevoerd
Werktijden
Ja Nee
330 Ik werk geregeld langer dan 6 uur per dag aan het beeldscherm 0 (1) 0 (0)
Ik maak langer dan 2 uur per dag gebruik van een laptop of
332 notebook (zonder gebruik te maken van een laptop-standaard, los 0 (2) 0 (0) n.v.t. (0)
toetsenbord, losse muis of losse monitor)
Ik kan het beeldschermwerk na maximaal 2 uur gedurende 10

333 0 (0) 0 (2)
minuten onderbreken met een pauze of ander werk
Ik kan tijdens mijn werk geregeld een (micro) pauze of ander werk
334 0 (0) 0 (1)
inlassen
Ik verricht gemiddeld meer dan 1x per week overwerk (uitgaande

335 0 (1) 0 (0)
van een werkdag van 8 uur)
331 Ik werk geregeld langer dan 4 uur per dag aan het beeldscherm 0 (1) 0 (0)
Werkdruk
Ja Nee
Ik moet geregeld onder extra hoge werkdruk werken of met een

336 0 (2) 0 (0)
extra hoog werktempo (pieken)
337 Het komt geregeld voor dat ik mijn werk niet afkrijg 0 (1) 0 (0)
338 Ik kan mijn eigen werktempo regelen 0 (0) 0 (1)
Er is sprake van een vastgestelde dag- of weekproductie of een

339 0 (2) 0 (0)
'klaar-naar-huis-systeem'
84
Mijn werk wordt geregeld op hinderlijke wijze onderbroken door
340 0 (1) 0 (0)
collega's, telefoon etc.
341 Ik vind de software handig en efficiënt 0 (0) 0 (1)
Werkwijze
Ja Nee
Ik ben als beeldschermwerker voldoende voorgelicht over de juiste

342 0 (0) 0 (2)
werkwijze m.b.t. beeldschermwerk en werkplek
Mijn armen worden tijdens het werk geregeld afgesteund op de

343 0 (0) 0 (2)
juist ingestelde armsteunen van de stoel of het bureaublad
344 Tijdens het typen en het muizen zijn mijn polsen min of meer recht 0 (0) 0 (1)
345 Ik wissel regelmatig van werkhouding 0 (0) 0 (2)
Ik heb een ontspannen werktechniek waarbij het aanspannen van

346 0 (0) 0 (2)
de schouders en/of vingers wordt vermeden
Ik voer geregeld enkele rek- en strekoefeningen uit, voor een

347 0 (0) 0 (1)
goede doorbloeding van mijn schouders en armen
85
REFERENCES
1. Aarås, A., Horgen, G. and Ro, O. (2000). Work with the visual display unit: Health
consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(1), 107-134.
2. Agentschap N.L. (2011). Slim licht werkt beter in kantoorgebouwen, snel en eenvoudig
kosten besparen met energiezuinige verlichting. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en
Koninkrijksrelaties.
3. Agterberg, H., Heer, de P., Verkerke, R. and Ketel, M. (2008) Inrichting kantoorwerkplek,
Arbokennisnet.
4. Aida, R. I. R. Z., Azlina, A. B. and Balqis, M. N. S. (2007). Techno stress: A study among
academic and non academic staff, Ergonomics and health aspects of work with computers
(pp. 118-124): Springer.`
5. Batenburg, R. and Voordt, T. v. d. (2007). Invloed van facilitybeleving op arbeidsproductiviteit

(2). Facility Management Magazine, 20(156), 45.
6. Blik op werk (2009), Work Ability Index (WAI) informatiebrochure, Blik op werk
7. Bosma, K., Schaap, N. and Folge, G. (2013) Op naar een vraaggestuurde kantorenmarkt,
Corenet Global Benelux and Facility Management Nederland (FMN)
8. Brill, M. and Weidemann, S. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workplace design.
9. Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution: Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
10. Chu, C., Breucker, G., Harris, N., Stitzel, A., Gan, X., Gu, X. and Dwyer, S. (2000). Health-
promoting workplaces—international settings development. Health Promotion International,
15(2), 155-167.
11. CoreNet Global and Sodex, LLC (2014), The workplace Experience Survey. Sodexo thought
leadership APP.
12. Danna, K. and Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and
synthesis of the literature. Journal of management, 25(3), 357-384.
13. Davis, T. R. (1984). The influence of the physical environment in offices. Academy of
management review, 9(2), 271-283.
14. De Korte, E., Kuijt-Evers, L. and Vink, P. (2007). Effects of the office environment on health
and productivity 1: auditory and visual distraction, Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work
with Computers (pp. 26-33): Springer.
86
15. Ding, S. (2008). Users' privacy preferences in open plan offices. Facilities, 26(9/10), 401-417.
16. Dogrusoy, I. T. and Tureyen, M. (2007). A field study on determination of preferences for
windows in office environments. Building and environment, 42(10), 3660-3668.
17. Dole, C. and Schroeder, R. G. (2001). The impact of various factors on the personality, job
satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 16(4), 234-245.
18. Donabedian, A. (1988). The quality of care: How can it be assessed? Jama, 260(12), 1743-
1748.
19. Ekman, A., Andersson, A., Hagberg, M. and Hjelm, E. (2000). Gender differences in
musculoskeletal health of computer and mouse users in the Swedish workforce.
Occupational Medicine, 50(8), 608-613.
20. Ellegast, R., Hamburger, R., Keller, K., Krause, F., Groenesteijn, L., Vink, P. and Berger, H.
(2007). Effects of using dynamic office chairs on posture and EMG in standardized office tasks
Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 34-42): Springer.
21. Farley, K. M. and Veitch, J. A. (2001). A room with a view: a review of the effects of windows
on work and well-being.
22. Ferreira Jr, E., Ferreira, K. d. S. R. and Ferreira, G. d. S. R. (2007). Video display terminals and
neck pain: when ophthalmology explains the failure of biomechanical intervention
Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 43-47): Springer.
23. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage publications.
24. Forsman, M. and Thorn, S. (2007). Mechanisms for work related disorders among computer
workers Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 57-64): Springer.
25. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Psychology, 65(1), 541.
26. Gould, R., Ilmarinen, J., Järvisalo J. and Koskinen, S. (2008). Dimensions of work ability,
results of the Health 2000 survey, Waasa Graphics Oy.
27. Halpern, D. F. (2005). How time‐flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health, and
save money. Stress and Health, 21(3), 157-168.
28. Hedge, A. (1982). The Open-Plan Office A Systematic Investigation of Employee Reactions to
Their Work Environment. Environment and Behavior, 14(5), 519-542.
87
29. Hedge, A. (2000). Where are we in understanding the effects of where we are? Ergonomics,
43(7), 1019-1029.
30. Hoehne-Hueckstaedt, U. M., Chandra, S. K. and Ellegast, R. P. (2007). Ergonomic

requirements for input devices Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp.
216-224): Springer.
31. Iizuka, S., Goto, Y. and Ogawa, K. (2007). A study of personal space in communicating
information Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers (pp. 95-104): Springer.
32. Ilmarinen J. (2006) Towards a longer worklife! Ageing and the quality of worklife in the
European Union. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and
Health, Helsinki
33. Ilmarinen, J. (2007). The work ability index (WAI). Occupational Medicine, 57(2), 160-160.
34. Ilmarinen, J. and Costa, G. (1999). Aging of the working population in the European Union. La
Medicina del lavoro, 91(4), 279-295.
35. Ilmarinen, J., Tuomi, K. and Seitsamo, J. (2005). New dimensions of work ability. Paper
presented at the International Congress Series.
36. James, P. and Walters, D. (1997). Non-union rights of involvement: the case of health and
safety at work. Indus. LJ, 26, 35.
37. Kaleta, D., Makowiec-Dąbrowska, T. and Jegier, A. (2006). Lifestyle index and work ability.
International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 19(3), 170-177.
38. Kamarulzaman, N., Saleh, A., Hashim, S., Hashim, H. and Abdul-Ghani, A. (2011). An Overview
of the Influence of Physical Office Environments Towards Employee. Procedia Engineering,
20, 262-268.
39. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
40. Klitzman, S. and Stellman, J. M. (1989). The impact of the physical environment on the
psychological well-being of office workers. Social Science and Medicine, 29(6), 733-742.
41. Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology, a step-by-step guide for beginners, Sage
Publications Ltd
42. Leder, S., Newsham, G. R., Veitch, J. A., Mancini, S. and Charles, K. E. (2015). Effects of office
environment on employee satisfaction: a new analysis. Building Research and
Information(ahead-of-print), 1-17.
88
43. Lee, S. Y. and Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of
the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323-
333.
44. Lindberg, P., Vingård, E., Josephson, M. and Alfredsson, L. (2006). Retaining the ability to
work—associated factors at work. The European journal of public health, 16(5), 470-475.
45. Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage.

Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.
46. Martinez, M. C. and Latorre, M. d. R. D. d. (2006). Health and work ability among office
workers. Revista de Saúde Pública, 40(5), 851-858.
47. Martus, P., Jakob, O., Rose, U., Seibt, R. and Freude, G. (2010). A comparative analysis of the
Work Ability Index. Occupational medicine.
48. McGonagle, A. K., Fisher, G. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L. and Grosch, J. W. (2014). Individual and
Work Factors Related to Perceived Work Ability and Labor Force Outcomes.
49. Mobach, M. (2009). Een organisatie van vlees en steen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
50. Newsham, G. (2005). Making the cubicle a better place to work. Implications, 3(10), 1-4.
51. Oldham, G. R. and Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Relationships between office characteristics and
employee reactions: A study of the physical environment. Administrative Science Quarterly,
542-556.
52. Pikkemaat, N. (2014). Klimaatklachten: ze bestaan nog steeds. Werk en Veiligheid, duurzame
inzetbaarheid.
53. Re, A. and Fubini, E. (2007). Call centres in the domain of telecommunications: ergonomic
issues for well-being improvement, Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers
(pp. 125-134): Springer.
54. Remery, C., Henkens, K., Schippers, J. and Ekamper, P.. (2003). Managing an aging workforce
and a tight labor market: views held by Dutch employers. Population Research and Policy
Review, 22(1), 21-40.
55. Robertson, M. M. (2007). Health and performance consequences of office ergonomic

interventions among computer workers Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with
Computers (pp. 135-143): Springer.
56. Robroek S., Reeuwijk, K. and Burdorf A. (2012). Werkvermogen in de Limburgse zorg; Oorzaken
en gevolgen van verminderd werkvermogen. Zorgaanzet.
89
57. Roelofsen, P. (2002). The impact of office environments on employee performance: The design
of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement. Journal of facilities
Management, 1(3), 247-264.
58. Scheijndel, P.A.M. and Horsten, F. (2008). Succesvolle kantoorinrichting; bouwstenen voor een
optimaal resultaat. Sdu Uitgevers.
59. Sjøgren, S. and Elfstrøm, A. (1989). Eye discomfort among 1000 VDT-workers. Paper
presented at the The 2nd International Conference in Work With Display Units. Montreal:
Instititut de Recherche en Sante et an Securite du Traval.
60. Sjögren-Rönkä, T., Ojanen, M. T., Leskinen, E. K., Mustalampi, S. T. and Mälkiä, E. A. (2002).
Physical and psychosocial prerequisites of functioning in relation to work ability and general
subjective well-being among office workers. Scandinavian journal of work, environment and
health, 184-190.
61. Smith-Jackson, T. L. and Klein, K. W. (2009). Open-plan offices: Task performance and mental
workload. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 279-289.
62. Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1993). Office Relocation and Environmental Change A Case Study.
Environment and Behavior, 25(2), 181-204.
63. Sprudza, D., Lakisa, S., Erts, R., Bake, M. A., Vanadzins, I., Kozlova, L. and Martinsone, I. (2014).
Work Ability and Stress Factors of Latvian Office Workers. Medical Basic Sciences.
64. Sundstrom, E. and Sundstrom, M. G. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical
environment in offices and factories. CUP Archive.
65. Taylor, P. (2013). Older workers in an ageing society: critical topics in research and policy.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
66. Tuomi, K., Huuhtanen, P., Nykyri, E. and Ilmarinen, J. (2001). Promotion of work ability, the
quality of work and retirement. Occupational Medicine, 51(5), 318-324.
67. Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Martikainen, R., Aalto, L. and Klockars, M. (1997). Aging, work, life-
style and work ability among Finnish municipal workers in 1981—1992. Scandinavian journal
of work, environment and health, 58-65.
68. Van den Berg, T., Elders, L., de Zwart, B. and Burdorf, A. (2008). The effects of work-related
and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occupational and
environmental medicine.
69. Van den Berg, T. (2010). The role of work ability and health on sustaining employability:
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam.
90
70. Van Vuuren, T., Smulders, P. and Korver, T. (2006). VDU-work and working at home and
working from home. Worklife in the Netherlands, TNO, Hoofddorp, 125-140.
71. Vänni, K., Virtanen, P., Luukkaala, T. and Nygård, C.-H. (2012). Relationship between perceived
work ability and productivity loss. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, 18(3), 299-309.
72. Vink, P., de Korte, E., Blok, M. and Groenesteijn, L. (2007). Effects of the office environment
on health and productivity 1: effects of coffee corner position Ergonomics and Health Aspects
of Work with Computers (pp. 157-162): Springer.
73. Vink, P. (2009). Aangetoonde effecten van het kantoorinterieur. Wolters Kluwer business.
74. Westman, M. and Liinamaa, M. J. (2012). Relief of asthenopic symptoms with orthoptic
exercises in convergence insufficiency is achieved in both adults and children. Journal of
optometry, 5(2), 62-67.
75. Wyon, D. (1996, July). Individual microclimate control:: required range, probable benefits
and current feasibility. In 7th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (pp.
1067-1072).
76. Ye, L., Petrovic, M., Dainoff, M. J., and Mark, L. S. (2007). Guerilla ergonomics: perceiving the
affordances for workplace design Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers
(pp. 163-168): Springer.
77. Zuidema, M.V., Elp van, M. and Schaaf van der, M.J. (2012), Landelijke samenvatting
kantorenmonitor, Economisch Instituut voor de Bouw, p. 48.
91

Optimization of Perceived Work Ability Among Offi-Groen Kennisnet 366032

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Optimization of Perceived Work Ability Among Offi-Groen Kennisnet 366032

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimization of Perceived Work Ability Among Offi-Groen Kennisnet 366032

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis

Optimization of perceived work ability among

Linda Bolck, MME, Facility Management

Author: Linda Bolck

Registration number: 911126091070

E-mail address: linda.bolck@wur.nl

Faculty: MME, Facility Management

Course number: MST-80433

Start date: 26-01-2015

Institute: Adaptics, Nijmegen

Extern advisor: L. Gerritsen

1st Academic Supervisor: Dr. H. B. Kok

2nd Academic Supervisor: Dr. J.L.F. Hagelaar

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................vi

1.1 Background of the research

2.1 Research objective

2.2 Research questions

General Research Question

Specific research questions

Figure 3 Theoretical framework

2.3.1 Literature study

2.3.2 Empirical study

3.1 Perceived work ability

3.1.1 Definition of perceived work ability

Figure 4 Dimensions of work ability (Ilmarinen, 2006)

Work ability score Productivity loss

Figure 5 Model for promoting work ability (Ilmarinen, 2006)

Specific research question 1

3.2.1 Definition of the office environment

What are the work-related aspects of the office environment?

The office environment

The office employees

Elements Aspects of office environment

Aspects of the office environment

Specific research question 2

Table 7 work-related aspects in the office environment based on literature

Specific research question 3

Control variables at work Authors

Individual control variables Authors

Category Work-related aspects

3.4.2 Workplace design and experience

3.4.3 Indoor climate at the office

3.4.4 Noise at the office

3.4.5 Lighting at the office

Conclusion – relationship between workplace environment and perceived work ability

Specific research question 4

Figure 6 Measurement model with expected effects

4.2 Results statistical analyses

4.2.1 Factor analysis

Factor Cronbach’s alpha

4.2.3 Control variables

Control variables related to work

Control variables related to the individual

Control variables related to work

Variables R² Adjusted R² Adjusted R² change Sig. F Change

1. Mental workload 0,000 -,003 0,000 0,944