Literature Review

American Journal of Health Promotion

2024, Vol. 38(4) 540–559
Evaluating Workforce Mental Health and © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Well-Being: A Review of Assessments sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08901171231223786
journals.sagepub.com/home/ahp

Mary T. Imboden, Ph.D1,2 , Emily Wolfe, MSW, LCSW1,

Kerry Evers, Ph.D3, Arline Ferrão, M.S4,
Heidi Mochari-Greenberger, PhD, MPH5, Sara Johnson, Ph.D1,3,
Wolf Kirsten, M.S6, and Erin L. D. Seaverson, MPH7

Abstract
The disruption, trauma, and stressors brought by COVID-19 have increased recognition and normalization of workforce
mental health needs.
Objective: Given the importance of mental health and well-being assessments to employers’ efforts to optimize employee
health and well-being, this paper reviews mental health assessments that have utility in the workplace.
Data Source: A review of publicly available mental health and well-being assessments was conducted with a primary focus on
burnout, general mental health and well-being, loneliness, psychological safety, resilience, and stress.
Inclusion Criteria: Assessments had to be validated for adult populations; available in English as a stand-alone tool; have utility
in an employer setting; and not have a primary purpose of diagnosing a mental health condition.
Data Extraction: All assessments were reviewed by a minimum of two expert reviewers to document number of questions,
subscales, fee structure, international use, translations available, scoring/reporting, respondent (ie, employee or organization),
and the target of the assessment (ie, mental health domain and organizational or individual level assessments.
Data Synthesis & Results: Sixty-six assessments across the six focus areas met inclusion criteria, enabling employers to select
assessments that meet their self-identified measurement needs.
Conclusion: This review provides employers with resources that can help them understand their workforce’s mental health
and well-being status across multiple domains, which can serve as a needs assessment, facilitate strategic planning of mental
health and well-being initiatives, and optimize evaluation efforts.

Keywords
Assessment, measurement, mental health, resilience, burnout, workplace, specific settings, stress, loneliness, psychosocial risk

Introduction Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being

Worldwide, the prevalence of common mental health
conditions increased more than 25% in the first year of the
COVID-19 pandemic.1 Given that more than 1 in 3 U.S.
adults now report symptoms of anxiety or depression, there
is a renewed focus on mental health and well-being, par-
ticularly in light of the rapid and unforeseen changes in
work, home, and community circumstances.2
The disruption, trauma, and other major stressors brought
by the pandemic have caused an increased recognition and
normalization of the presence of mental health needs in our
workforces.3 The World Health Organization1 recently un-
derscored the critical role of employers in promoting and
protecting mental health.1 The U.S. Surgeon General’s
further emphasized the importance of employers normaliz-
ing and supporting mental health at work while decreasing
1
Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO), Raleigh, NC, USA
2
George Fox University, Newberg, OR, USA
3
Pro-Change Behavior Systems Inc, South Kingstown, RI, USA
4
Independent Social and Organizational Psychologist, Maputo, Mozambique
5
AbleTo, New York, NY, USA
6
International Health Consulting, Tucson, AZ, USA
7
WebMD Health Services Group Inc, Portland, OR, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mary T. Imboden, Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO),
14460 Falls of Neuse Rd., Ste 149-362, Raleigh, NC 27614, USA.
Email: mary.imboden@hero-health.org
Imboden et al.
stigma around accessing mental health support.4 Mental health
concerns are associated with absenteeism, presenteeism5,6 and
employee attrition.3 The mental health burden among indi-
viduals with comorbid complex medical conditions is par-
ticularly pronounced and contributes to higher medical costs.7
Conversely, the treatment of common mental health condi-
tions in employed populations improves both mental health
symptoms8 and productivity.9 Interventions that promote
psychological safety, a healthy work environment, access to
care, and reduced mental health stigma yield positive mental
health and well-being outcomes.3,8 Employer support for
mental health also plays a key role in attracting and retaining
talent; for example, data from the 2022 American Psycho-
logical Association’s Work and Well-Being Survey indicated
that 81% of workers agree that support for mental health is an
important deciding factor in looking for future work.10
The Health Enhancement Research Organization report
“Employee Mental Health and Well-being: Emerging Best
Practices and Case Study Examples” outlines the impact of
mental health conditions on employee productivity, absen-
teeism, presenteeism, and well-being and emphasizes the need
for a comprehensive approach to mental health.11 This in-
cludes the careful and informed use of mental health and well-
being assessments. Assessing mental health and well-being
needs and measuring intervention impact has been identified
as a critical component of efforts to promote mental health and
address mental health challenges.11,12 Assessments represent a
crucial first step that helps to inform the strategic plan for
mental health and well-being programs, resources, and ini-
tiatives to meet the needs of diverse and dispersed workforces.
For employers, assessments can be useful tools for supporting
psychosocial risk management initiatives, and providing a
mechanism for tailoring recommendations or referrals to
evidence-based interventions available within and outside of
the organization. Additionally, data gathered through as-
sessments provide benchmarking for future comparisons, and
play a key role in establishing, evaluating the impact of, and
refining initiatives that are deployed by employers or third-
party vendors or service providers. The outcomes of interest
may vary across organizations, but broad categories have been
suggested including (a) process outcomes such as employee
awareness, utilization, and satisfaction with mental health and
well-being programs/resources, and (b) performance related
outcomes, including presenteeism, engagement, and pro-
ductivity at work.12
Given the importance of mental health and well-being
assessments to employers’ efforts to optimize employee
health and well-being, this paper reviews mental health as-
sessments that can be used to measure mental health and well-
being of a workforce. A recently published scoping review13
of instruments that can facilitate an organization’s efforts to
implement integrated approaches to workplace mental health
reviewed 109 assessments. The eligibility criteria for that
review required that the assessments be work-specific; free to
implement; and relate to one or more of three domains of an
541
integrated approach to workplace mental health (ie, prevent
harm, promote the positive, or respond to problems). While
informative, the categorization of instruments based on the
domain of an integrated approach to workplace mental health
could increase challenges for employers seeking a streamlined
resource for specific domains of mental and emotional well-
being. Sixty-six percent of the 109 assessments reviewed were
in the prevent harm domain. This may complicate things for an
organization looking to assess a specific dimension/aspect of
mental and emotional health and well-being in their organi-
zation. In addition, this review excluded what the authors
considered to be individual outcome instruments that did not
assess external to work factors, which eliminates some
measures of social connection/loneliness. Given the recent
emphasis on how critical social connections are to mental and
emotional health, this is an important gap. Further, exclusion
of fee-based assessments may have eliminated useful in-
struments with applicability for employers.13 Therefore, a
review of workforce mental health assessments categorized by
specific domains of mental health (burn-out, stress, psycho-
social hazard and risk, resilience, loneliness, and general
mental health) may be useful to organizations in the strategic
planning of their mental health initiatives. Further a follow-up
review that broadens the scope of this current research was
acknowledged by authors as needed.13
The objective of this review was to curate a list of common
mental health and well-being assessments that are applicable
to the workplace and categorized under one or more of the
following domains: burnout, general mental health and well-
being, loneliness, psychosocial hazard and risk, resilience, and
stress. While not all of the assessments described will have
utility across all workforces or employer settings, the aim is
that this aggregated review will inform the reader of assess-
ments that are available to consider or adapt for self-identified
organizational needs.
Methods
A review of mental health and well-being assessments was
conducted with a primary focus on common workforce mental
health and well-being topics and tools deemed by project
researchers as having utility in the employer setting. The
analysis focused on the following domains of workforce
mental health and well-being: burnout, general mental health
and well-being, loneliness, psychosocial hazard and risk,
resilience, and stress (definitions of each domain are provided
within their respective tables). Inclusion criteria are listed in
Table 1. In summary, to be included in this review, assess-
ments had to have utility in an employer setting; be vetted by a
well-respected non-profit organization or a government
agency (eg, American Psychological Association, National
Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, Center for
Workplace Mental Health), or have published validation data;
be used in adult populations; be available in the English
language; and function as a stand-alone assessment (ie, an
542
organization is able to implement the assessment without
ongoing vendor support services). Assessments included
could be either free or fee-based. Assessments were excluded
if their primary purpose was to diagnose one or more clinical
mental health conditions as generally diagnostic assessments
have limited utility in the workplace.
The review of assessments was an iterative process that in-
cluded eight researchers with expertise in workforce mental
health and well-being. First, the team performed a targeted search
of the literature using the following key terms: mental health,
emotional health, anxiety, workplace mental health, workforce
mental health, job stress, burn-out, depression, flourishing,
loneliness, social connectedness, psychosocial risk, psychosocial
safety, psychosocial hazard, psychological health, resilience,
stress, well-being, alongside common measurement types/tools
(including questionnaire, survey, scale, rating, index, inventory,
instrument, assessment, risk assessment, measure, and score).
Next, the researchers collated a set of meta-analyses and literature
reviews comparing various mental health assessments for each of
the domains of focus.14-16 Researchers also reviewed websites
and published articles and reviews, reviewing assessments listed
that met the inclusion criteria. Reference lists of articles, reviews,
and meta-analyses were searched to identify other relevant as-
sessments. Finally, researchers inquired other industry experts on
additional assessments and resources that could be reviewed.
Searches were performed between March 2022 and
August 2023.
Each assessment identified as meeting inclusion criteria
was reviewed by two expert reviewers. If there was any
discrepancy between reviewer ratings, a third review was
conducted by another independent reviewer. All assess-
ments were reviewed to ensure inclusion criteria were met
and to obtain the following information: number of items/
questions, focus or subscales, fee structure, if the tool is
used internationally, if language translations are available,
if scoring/reporting is available (score(s) or a results report
are provided after completing the assessment online,
scoring instructions are provided on how to manually
calculate a score from the assessment, etc.), who the re-
spondent(s) is (eg, organization/employer, individual,
both), and who the respondent is reporting about (eg, self,
organization/employer).
Table 1. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria for Mental Health Assessment Tools.
Inclusion criteria
The assessment is related to one of the domains of mental health (general mental health (anxiety, The assessment has mental health
depression, flourishing, thriving, well-being), resilience, psychosocial hazard and risk, burn-out, diagnostic application
stress, loneliness)
The assessment has utility in the workplace
Validation data from an adult population available for the assessment or assessment has been
vetted by a well-respected non-profit organization or government
The assessment can be completed outside a vendor platform (“stand-alone”)
Available in the English language
American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)
Results
From the list of 104 assessments identified, 66 met the study
inclusion criteria. All included assessments were categorized
into key workforce mental health and well-being categories
(eg, burnout (Table 2), general mental health and well-being
(Table 3), loneliness (Table 4), psychosocial hazard and risk
(Table 5), resilience (Table 6), and stress (Table 7), with some
assessments being categorized into multiple categories.
Discussion
This review identified a diverse array of mental and emotional
health and well-being assessments with utility for employers
across multiple domains, enabling employers to select those
that will best meet their unique needs. Given that mental health
is a multi-dimensional construct, an optimal measurement
strategy will likely include a combination of measures and
evolve over time.
In addition to informing strategic planning about a con-
tinuum of initiatives for workforce mental health, increasing
access to services, and facilitating outcome analyses,5 utilizing
assessments of mental health can help normalize conversa-
tions about mental health and help seeking,4,12 thereby re-
ducing stigma. A number of steps can be taken to ensure
employees feel secure in responding honestly to such as-
sessments and that organizations are not unnecessarily cre-
ating response burden or risking “survey fatigue.” This
includes the observation of ethical practices, such as86,87:
· Ask the minimum number of questions to accomplish
the objective of the assessment.
· Adhere to the highest standards of confidentiality and
data privacy. This may include only collecting de-
identified data and/or requiring a minimum sample
size for the assessment to be used to protect
anonymity.
· Inform employees in plain language about what kind of
data is to be collected from them; the purpose of the
assessment; who will have access to their responses;
how their responses will be stored and for how long; and
Exclusion criteria
Imboden et al. 543

Table 2. Burnout Assessments Working Definition: A Syndrome of Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Decreased Efficacy as a Result From
Chronic Workplace stressors.17

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number Cost (free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization of items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Burnout Yes Yes Individual Individual 23 Exhaustion, Free Yes

assessment mental
tool (BAT)18 distance,
cognitive
impairment,
emotional
impairment
Copenhagen Yes Yes Individual Individual 19 Personal burnout, Free Yes
Burnout work related
inventory19 burnout, client-
related burnout
Maslach burnout Yes Yes Individual Individual 16 Exhaustion, Proprietary Yes
inventory cynicism,
general20 professional
surveya efficacy
Oldenburg Yes Yes Individual Individual 16 Exhaustion, Free Yes
burnout disengagement
inventory21
Shirom– Yes Yes Individual Individual 14 Emotional Free Yes
Melamed exhaustion,
burnout physical fatigue,
measure and cognitive
(SMBM)22 weariness
Shirom-melamed Yes Unknown Individual Individual 22 Physical fatigue, Free Yes
burnout cognitive
questionnaire weariness,
(SMBQ)23 tension and
listlessness
Single item burn- No No Individual Individual 1 N/A Free Yes
out measure24
The stanford No No Individual Individual 6 Professional Free for non- Yes
professional fulfillment, profits. Fee
fulfillment work, for for-profit
scale25 exhaustion, organizations.
interpersonal
disengagement
a
There are specific versions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory for medical personnel, educators, human service workers, and students.

the circumstances that would require disclosure of
personal information.
Before selecting an assessment to use within an organi-
zation, employers should consider the rationale and goal
behind the assessment being implemented. Key questions that
will help guide organizations in selecting a mental health
assessment include: What construct is our organization in-
tending to measure, is there an assessment that is specific to
our industry type or the specific employee population our
organization employs (eg, healthcare, education,
manufacturing, etc.), can we ensure equitable access to the
assessment for all employees, has the assessment been vali-
dated in a similar population, how long will the assessment
take for employees to complete, what is the follow-up time
between assessment completion and receiving the results, how
are the results being communicated with the employees.
Although organizations may be tempted to extract single
questions from longer assessments based on relevance to what
they intend to measure or to combat survey fatigue, this
practice could jeopardize the validity of the results. The
validity and reliability of multi-item instruments is evaluated
in the context of all of the questions in that survey or subscale.
Thus, single questions and in isolation may not be a valid
544 American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)

Table 3. General Mental Health Assessments Working Definition: Mental Health is a State of Well-Being in Which an Individual Realizes his
or her Own Abilities, can Cope With the Normal Stresses of Life, can Work Productively and is Able to Make a Contribution to his or her
Community.26

Scoring/
Analysis
Alternative Respondent Assessing available
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number Cost (free or (Yes/
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization of items Subscales Proprietary) No)

Workplace mental Unknown No Organization Organization 20 N/A Free Yes

health
assessment27
Brief Yes Yes Individual Individual 10 Relationship, Free Yes
comprehensive engagement,
inventory of mastery,
thriving28 autonomy,
meaning,
optimism,
subjective well-
being
100 MLives well- Unknown No Individual Individual 24 Life satisfaction and Free Yes
being life evaluative,
assessment29 physical health,
mental health and
physical function,
meaning and
purpose,
character and
caring,
relationships,
community and
social support
financial
evaluation and
stability, affect
100 MLives well- Unknown No Individual Individual 12 N/A Free Yes
being
assessment
-short version30
Flourishing scale31 Yes Yes Individual Individual 8 Purpose and Free Yes
meaning in life,
life satisfaction,
optimism,
competence,
engagement in
activities, positive
relationships,
contributing to
others’ happiness,
being respected
by others
Mental health Yes Yes Individual Individual 14 Emotional well- Free Yes
continuum being,
short form32 psychological
(MHC-SF)a well-being, social
well-being

(continued)
Imboden et al. 545

Table 3. (continued)

Scoring/
Analysis
Alternative Respondent Assessing available
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number Cost (free or (Yes/
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization of items Subscales Proprietary) No)

Mental health Yes Yes Individual Individual 40 Emotional well- Free Yes
continuum- being,
long form33 psychological
well-being, social
well-being
Mental health Yes Yes Individual Individual 47 Core cognition, Free Yes
quotient complex
(MHQ)34 cognition, social
and self, mood
and outlook,
drive and
motivation, mind
body connection
NIOSH worker Yes Yes Individual Individual 68 Work evaluation Free Yes
well-being and experience,
questionnaire workplace
(NIOSH policies and
WellBQ)35 culture,
workplace
physical
environment and
safety climate,
health status,
home,
community,
society
Cantril scale36 Yes Yes Individual Individual 2 N/A Free Yes
Minds matter Yes Yes Organization Organization 12 Awareness and Free Yes
tool37 training,
organization
support,
leadership
Well-being Unknown Unknown Individual Individual 40 Emotional health, Free Yes
assessment physical health,
(WBA)38 meaning and
purpose,
character
strengths, social
connectedness,
financial security
Proactive coping Yes Yes Individual Individual 55 Proactive coping, Free Yes
inventory39 preventive
coping, reflective
coping, strategic
planning,
instrumental
support seeking,
emotional
support seeking,
avoidance coping

(continued)
546 American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)

Table 3. (continued)

Scoring/
Analysis
Alternative Respondent Assessing available
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number Cost (free or (Yes/
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization of items Subscales Proprietary) No)

Harvard human Yes Unknown Individual Individual 10 Happiness and life Free Yes
flourishing satisfaction,
measure40 mental and
physical health,
meaning and
purpose,
character and
virtue, close
social
relationships,
Secure flourish41 Yes Unknown Individual Individual 12 Happiness and life Free Yes
indexb satisfaction,
mental and
physical health,
meaning and
purpose,
character and
virtue, close
social
relationships,
financial and
material stability
Scale of positive Yes Yes Individual Individual 12 Positive feelings, Free Yes
and negative negative feelings,
experience affect balance
(SPANE)31
Quality of worklife No No Individual Individual 79 Job level, culture/ Free No
questionnaire42 climate, health
outcomes, other
outcomes, hours
of work, work/
family,
supervision,
benefits, union

(continued)
Imboden et al. 547

Table 3. (continued)

Scoring/
Analysis
Alternative Respondent Assessing available
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number Cost (free or (Yes/
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization of items Subscales Proprietary) No)

Comprehensive Yes Yes Individual Individual 54 18 subscales (3 Free Yes

inventory of items per
thriving43 subscale)
support,
community, trust,
respect,
loneliness,
belongingness,
flow, skills,
learning, lack of
control,
accomplishment,
self-efficacy,
meaning,
optimism, life
satisfaction,
positive
emotions,
negative
emotions
Flourish DX -- Yes Yes Individual Individual 36 Positive emotions, Free (basic Yes
flourish engagement, version free
survey44 positive for 1-12
relationships, employees.
meaningfulness, Premium
accomplishment, version fee
sleep associated
for 1-
10,000+
employees)
HERO health and Yes Yes Organization Organization 67 Mental health and Free Yes
well-being best well-being best
practices practice score
scorecard in
collaboration
with Mercer©
(HERO
Scorecard)45
a
This scale also provides a flourishing and languishing mental health indicator based on three subscales—Emotional well-being, psychological well-being, and
social well-being.
b
Includes the same questions as the Harvard Flourishing Measure with the addition of two question related to financial and material stability.

indicator of what the instrument declares it measures. If or-
ganizations intend to use part of an instrument, it is recom-
mended that they use validated scales, which would measure a
specific construct and can be part of a wider instrument.
The assessment, by definition, is not a stand-alone inter-
vention but rather is one component of an overall strategy or
program and often one of the first steps for informing follow-
up initiatives. All mental health assessments should be ad-
ministered as part of an overall health and well-being strategy
and not in isolation. Relevant stakeholders should be con-
sulted, and related initiatives coordinated, so employees un-
derstand the rationale and need for the assessment(s). For
example, Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) have proven
to be useful partners for driving the mental health and well-
being strategy. Not only do EAPs have valuable mental health
and well-being data, but they often use their own assessments
and extend program recommendations. For example, one in
four EAPs use a research-validated measure for work
548 American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)

Table 4. Loneliness Assessments. Working Definition: One’s Perceived Subjective Feelings of Social Isolation and Lack of Relationships.46

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of Cost (free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

De jong Yes Yes Individual Individual 11-Item Both versions Free Yes
gierveld scale; 6- contain 2
loneliness item subscales: Social
scale47 short loneliness,
scale has Emotional
been loneliness
derived
Direct Yes Yes Individual Individual 1 N/A Free Yes
measures
of
loneliness
(single item
measures)
48

UCLA Yes Yes Individual Individual 20 N/A Free Yes

loneliness
scale (ULS-
20)49
ULS-850 Yes Yes Individual Individual 8 N/A Free Yes
UCLA 3-item Yes Yes Individual Individual 3 N/A Free Yes
loneliness
scale49
Loneliness in Yes Unknown Individual Individual 16 Emotional Free Yes
the deprivation,
workplace social
scale51 companionship

outcomes, eg, the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) or
the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS).88 It is recommended
that EAPs be incorporated into the mental health and well-
being strategic planning when assessing mental health.
Strengths and Limitations of This Review
This review provides employers with resources that can help
them understand their workforce’s mental health and well-
being status, which can serve as a needs assessment, facilitate
strategic planning of mental health and well-being initiatives,
and optimize evaluation efforts. This review does not rec-
ommend a single assessment, but rather provides employers
with relevant information on various tools in different mental
health domains to guide their decision process of what as-
sessment to use based on their unique needs.
This review provides a wide variety of mental health as-
sessments reflecting the complexity of mental health and well-
being with the categories identified: burnout, general mental
health and well-being (including anxiety, depression, flour-
ishing), loneliness, psychosocial risk/safety, resilience, and
stress. While not exhaustive, the selection represents a useful
resource for employers in need of mental health assessments.
The categorization will help employers identify relevant as-
sessments for their intended areas of focus.
There are limitations to this workforce mental health as-
sessment review. This review made it evident that there are
many clinically-focused mental health assessments available.
While these assessments are valuable in screening for and
diagnosing individual mental health conditions, and may have
utility by some workplace departments, diagnosis is not the
primary objective for the vast majority of employer assess-
ments. As a result, these assessments were not captured in this
review causing gaps to be noted in various mental health
categories. Third-party vendors may also offer informative
mental health and well-being assessments that have utility in
the workplace but require the assistance of the vendor in
administering and interpreting. Therefore, these assessments
were not considered stand-alone and were excluded from this
review. This review also did not include assessments of other
correlates of mental health, such as quality of life or as-
sessments that capture intervention targets such as self-esteem,
self-efficacy, etc. Further, this review did not capture as-
sessments of behaviors that are considered main drivers of
mental health, including physical activity, sleep, diet, etc. The
primary focus of this review was English-language assess-
ments. Assessments developed in other countries that have not
Table 5. Psychosocial Hazards and Risk Assessments Working Definition of Psychosocial Hazards and Risks: Environmental Factors in the Workplace That May Cause Physical or
Psychological Harm to the individual.52

Scoring/
Imboden et al.

Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis

Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of Cost (free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Copenhagen Yes Yes Individual Individual Core, middle, Quantitative demands, work pace, Free Yes
Psychosocial and long cognitive demands, emotional
questionnaire version are demands, demands of hiding
(COPSOQ)53 available. emotions, influence at work,
Length possibilities for development,
varies by variation of work, control over
version working time, meaning of work,
used. predictability, recognition, role
clarity, role conflicts, illegitimate
tasks, quality of leadership,
social support from supervisor,
social support from colleagues,
sense of community at work,
commitment to the workplace,
work engagement, job
insecurity, insecurity over
working conditions, quality of
work, job satisfaction, work life
conflict, horizontal trust,
vertical trust, organizational
justice, gossip and slander,
conflicts and quarrels,
unpleasant teasing, cyber
bullying, sexual harassment,
threats of violence, physical
violence, bullying, self-rated
health, sleeping troubles,
burnout, stress, somatic stress,
cognitive stress, depressive
symptoms, self-efficacy
Flourish DX – Work Yes Yes Individual Individual 75 Prevent harm, promote Free (basic version Yes
design survey46 flourishing, mitigate illness free for 1-12
employees.
Premium version
fee associated for
1-10,000+
employees)

(continued)
549
Table 5. (continued)
550

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of Cost (free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Karasek job content Yes Yes Individual Individual 36-49 Decision latitude, psychological Proprietary Yes
questionnaire I demands and mental workload,
(JCQ1)54 social support, physical
demands, job insecurity
Karasek job content Yes Yes Organization Organization Variable Decision latitude, psychological Proprietary Yes
questionnaire II job demands, job insecurity,
(JCQ2)54 supervisor and coworker
support
Workforce.MHQ Yes Yes Individual Individual and 47 Dimensional scores – core Proprietary Yes
(MHQ)34 organization cognition, complex cognition,
social and self, mood and
outlook, drive and motivation,
mind body connection
Psychosocial safety Yes No Individual Organization 12 Management support/ Free Yes
climate (PSC-12)55 commitment, management
priority, organizational
communication, organizational
participation
Social encounters Yes Unknown Individual Organization 23 Supervisor civility, supervisor Proprietary Yes
scale (SES)56 incivility, supervisor
intimidation, coworker civility,
coworker incivility, coworker
intimidation, instigated civility,
instigated incivility, instigated
intimidation
StressAssess Yes Yes Individual Individual and Variable Work demands, work Free Yes
workplace edition57 organization organization, relationships, job
insecurity, work values (social
capital), work environment/
safety, job satisfaction, worklife
conflict, symptoms and health
status, offensive behaviors
Workplace Yes Yes Individual Individual and 90 Relationship dimensions, growth Proprietary Yes
environment organization or goal orientation dimensions,
scale58 and the system maintenance/
change dimensions
WorkWell index59 Yes Yes Individual Individual and 10 Demand/effort, control, support, Free Yes
organization reward, social capital

(continued)
American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)
Table 5. (continued)

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of Cost (free or available
Imboden et al.

Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Work related stress Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 33 General domains: Job satisfaction, Free Yes
questionnaire60 organization workplace, role, job demand,
(WRSQ)a job control, peer’s and
managers’ support, relationship,
change and work-life balance.
Special domains: Emotional
demand, dealing with
technology and religious, and
ethnic or racial discrimination.
Workplace stressors Unknown Unknown Individual Individual and 22 Demands, control, support, role, Free Yes
assessment organization relationships, rewards
questionnaire61
Guarding minds at Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 61 Psychosocial factors, psychological Free Yes
work62 organization hazards, indicators of workplace
inclusion, indicators of
workplace stress of trauma,
organizational review
Decent work scale63 Yes Yes Individual Organization 15 Safe working conditions, access to Free Yes
healthcare, adequate
compensation, free time & rest,
complementary values
Index of psychological Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 25 Interpersonal fit at work, thriving Free Yes
well-being at organization at work, feeling of competency
work64 at work, perceived recognition
at work, desire for involvement
at work
Job related tension Yes Yes Individual Individual and 15 Performance, workload, Free Yes
index65 organization organizational design, decision
Job diagnostics Yes Yes Individual Individual and 23 Skill variety/Task identity, task Free Yes
survey66 organization significance, autonomy,
FeedbackS

(continued)
551
 552

Table 5. (continued)

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of Cost (free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Work stressor Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 55 Disagreement & indecision, Free Yes
questionnaire67 organization pressure on the job, job
description conflict,
communications & comfort with
supervisor, job related health
concerns, work overload stress,
work underload stress,
boredom induced stress,
problem of job security, time
pressure, job barrier stress
Perceived work Yes Unknown Individual Individual 41 Job content, job control, job Free Yes
characteristics demands, management style,
survey68 social supports/relations, role
strain
a
Special domains are administered only if the item is appropriate to the type of work.
American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)
 Imboden et al.

Table 6. Resilience Assessments Working Definition: The Ability to Thrive in a Changing Environment, Bounce Back, Adapt and Recover From Challenges and Adversity.69,70

Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Analysis
Internationally translation (Individual or individual or Number Cost (Free or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) organization) organization of items Subscales proprietary) (Yes/No)

Brief resilience Yes Yes Individual Individual 6 None Free Yes

scale (BRS)70
Connor-davidson Yes Yes Individual Individual 25 Personal competence, high standards, and Proprietary Yes
resilience71 tenacity, trust in one’s instinct,
scalea tolerance of negative effects, and
strengthening effects, positive
acceptance of change and secure
relationships, control, spiritual influence
Employee Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 9 N/A Free Yes
resilience scale organization
(EmpRes)72
Resiliency at work Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 20 Living authentically (LA), finding your Free Yes
scale (RAW organization calling (FYC), maintaining perspective
Scale)73 (MP), managing stress (MS), interacting
cooperatively (IC), staying healthy (SH),
building networks (BN)
Resilience Yes No Individual Individual 9 Mindset, meaning, and social connection Proprietary Yes
evaluation
Measure©
(REM)74
a
There are two briefer versions, the 10 item (CD-RISC 10) and two item (CD-RISC 2) scales.
553
554 American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)

Table 7. Stress Assessments Working Definition: A Perceived State of Viewing Life Situations as Stressful, Specifically Job-Related Stress That
can Adversely Impact Mental Well-Being.75
Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Cost (free Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Karasek job content Yes Yes Individual Individual 36-49 Decision latitude, Proprietary Yes
questionnaire I psychological
(JCQ1)54 demands and mental
workload, social
support, physical
demands, job
insecurity
Karasek job content Yes Yes Organization Organization Variable Decision latitude, Proprietary Yes
questionnaire II psychological job
(JCQ2)54 demands, job
insecurity, supervisor
and coworker
support.
NIOSH generic job Yes Yes Individual Individual and 217 items Job content, job control, Free Yes
stress organization 22 job demands, social
Questionnaire76 modules support/relations,
teamwork, work
schedules, job (in)
security, role strain
(uncertainty)
Stress & satisfaction Yes Unknown Individual Individual 4 Control, reward, Free Yes
offset score (SSOS) a demand, effort
Self-Assessment77
Stress mastery Yes No Individual Individual 87 Stress warning signs, Proprietary Yes
questionnaire stress effects,
(american institute of stressors, hostility/
stress & stress master anger, perfectionism,
international)78 disappointment,
burnout, physical
stress, hassles, life
events, life/work
satisfaction
The work stress Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 21 N/A Free Unknown
questionnaire ©79 organization
Perceived stress scale Yes Yes Individual Individual 10 N/A Free Yes
(PSS-10)80
Stressometer® (SOM)81 Yes Unknown Individual Individual 55 Human nature (eg, Unknown Yes
irritability),
circumstances (eg,
recent job change or
marriage), body and
mind (symptoms of
stress, like, anxiety,
or disturbed sleep),
home life (eg, lack of
family support), and
work life (eg,
unsupportive
colleagues)
Digital stressors scale Unknown Unknown Individual Individual 50 Complexity, conflicts, Unknown Yes
(DSS)82 insecurity, invasion of
privacy, overload,
safety, social
environment,
technical support,
usefulness,
unreliability

(continued)
Imboden et al. 555

Table 7. (continued)
Scoring/
Alternative Respondent Assessing Cost (free Analysis
Internationally translation (individual or individual or Number of or available
Tool name used (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Organization) organization items Subscales Proprietary) (Yes/No)

Occupational stress Yes Yes Individual Individual and 46 Underload, high Free Yes
index83 (OSI)a organization demand, strictness,
extrinsic time
pressure, aversive/
noxious exposure,
threat-avoidant
vigilance/disaster
potential, conflict/
uncertainty
Work related stress Yes Unknown Individual Individual and 33 General domains: Job Free Unknown
questionnaire60 organization satisfaction,
(WRSQ)b workplace, role, job
demand, job control,
peer’s and managers’
support, relationship,
change and work-life
balance. Special
domainsb: Emotional
demand, dealing with
technology and
religious, and ethnic
or racial
discrimination.
Guarding minds at work, Yes Unknown 6 Free Yes
stress satisfaction
scan62
Pressure management Free Yes
indicator84
Stress diagnostics Yes Yes 30 Role ambiguity, role Free Yes
survey85 conflict, role
overload-
quantitative,
overload- qualitative,
career development,
responsibility for
people
a
Occupation-specific OSI questionnaires have been created for the following sector(s): Generic, and specific for transportation, health care, education.
b
Special domains are administered only if the item is appropriate to the type of work.

been translated into English were not included. Further, all
the tools reviewed may not be appropriate for all organi-
zations, as some may be specific to industry type or only
validated in a specific organization population. While re-
searchers adopted an iterative search strategy when looking
for mental health assessments, this review does not cover all
available mental health assessments that have utility for the
workforce. Other review articles with different inclusion
criteria may provide additional assessments that can benefit
employers and their employees.13 Finally, due to the need
for effective mental health and well-being resources and the
fast-moving nature of the field, it is likely that new tools
have been developed by the time this review has been
published. Therefore, regular updates and future research
on new mental health and well-being assessments are
recommended.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Mary T. Imboden  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4088-814X
References
1. World Health Organization. COVID-19 Pandemic Triggers
25% Increase in Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression
556
Worldwide; 2022. Retrieved February 10, 2023, from https://
www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-
triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-
depression-worldwide
2. Vahratian A, Blumberg SJ, Terlizzi EP, Schiller JS. Symptoms
of Anxiety or Depressive Disorder and Use of Mental Health
Care Among Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic
— United States, August 2020–February 2021. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report; 2021. Retrieved February 10,
2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/
mm7013e2.htm
3. Greenwood K, Anas J. It’s a new era for mental health at work.
Harvard Business Review; 2021. https://hbr.org/2021/10/its-a-
new-era-for-mental-health-at-work
4. Department of Health & Human Services. U.S. surgeon gen-
eral’s framework for workplace mental health and well-being.
Current Priorities of the U.S. Surgeon General. Retrieved
February 10, 2023, from https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
workplace-mental-health-well-being.pdf
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mental Health in
the Workplace. Workplace Health Promotion. 2019. Retrieved
F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 3 , f r o m h t t p s : / / w w w. c d c . g o v /
workplacehealthpromotion/tools-resources/workplace-health/
mental-health/index.html
6. Wulsin L, Alterman T, Bushnell PT, Li J, Shen R. Prevalence
rates for depression by industry: a claims database analysis.
Soc Psychiatr Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49(11):1805
7. Greenberg PE, Fournier AA, Sisitsky T, Pike CT, Kessler RC.
The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder
in the United States (2005 and 2010). J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;
76(2):155-162. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.14m09298
8. Bondar J, Babich Morrow C, Gueorguieva R et al. Clinical
and financial outcomes associated with a workplace mental
health program before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2216349. DOI: 10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2022.16349
9. Lerner D, Adler D, Hermann RC et al. Impact of a work-focused
intervention on the productivity and symptoms of employees
with depression. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54(2):128-135.
DOI: 10.1097/jom.0b013e31824409d8
10. American Psychological Association. Workers Appreciate
and Seek Mental Health Support in the Workplace. APA’s
2022 Work and Well-Being Survey Results. https://www.apa.
org/pubs/reports/work-well-being/2022-mental-health-
support
11. Health Enhancement Research Organization. Employee
Mental Health and Well-Being: Emerging Best Practices
and Case Study Examples. HERO. Retrieved February 10,
2023, from https://hero-health.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/09/HERO_MHWB_BestPractices_CaseExamples_
091520.pdf
12. Wu A, Roemer EC, Kent KB, Ballard DW, Goetzel RZ. Or-
ganizational best practices supporting mental health in the
workplace. J Occup Environ Med. 2021;63(12):e925-e931. doi:
10.1097/JOM.0000000000002407
American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)
13. Nebbs A, Martin A, Neil A, Dawkins S, Roydhouse J. An
integrated approach to workplace mental health: a scoping re-
view of instruments that can assist organizations with im-
plementation. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2023;20:1192. doi:
10.3390/ijerph20021192
14. Jeon SW, Kim Y-K. Application of assessment tools to examine
mental health in workplaces: job stress and depression. Psychiatry
Investig. 2018;15(6):553-560. doi:10.30773/pi.2016.10.24
15. Edú-Valsania S, Laguı́a A, Moriano JA. Burnout: a review of
theory and measurement. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2022;
19(3):1780. doi:10.3390/ijerph19031780
16. Shea T., De Cieri H. (2011, October 12). Workplace Stress
Evaluation Tools: A Snapshot Review. https://research.iscrr.
com.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0011/297758/Workplace-stress-
evaluation-tools-snapshot.pdf
17. Burn-out an “Occupational Phenomenon”: International Clas-
sification of Diseases. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2023,
from https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-
occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-
diseases
18. Test-manual-BAT-English-version-2.0-1.pdf. Accessed March
29, 2023.https://burnoutassessmenttool.be/wp-content/uploads/
2020/08/Test-Manual-BAT-English-version
19. Copenhagen burnout inventory - CBI. Accessed March 29,
2 0 2 3 . h t t p s : / / n f a . d k / d a / Va e r k t o e j e r / S p o rg e s k e m a e r /
Sporgeskema-til-maaling-af-udbraendthed/Copenhagen-
Burnout-Inventory-CBI
20. Maslach burnout inventory (MBI) - assessments, tests | Mind
garden - Mind garden. Accessed March 29, 2023.https://www.
mindgarden.com/117-maslach-burnout-inventory-mbi
21. Assessment, burnout, olbi.pdf. Accessed March 29,
2023.https://www.goodmedicine.org.uk/sites/default/files/
assessment%2C_burnout%2C_olbi.pdf
22. Schilling R, Colledge F, Brand S, Ludyga S, Gerber M. Psy-
chometric properties and convergent validity of the Shirom–
Melamed burnout measure in two German-speaking samples of
adult workers and police officers. Front Psychiatr. 2019;10:536.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00536.
Accessed March 29, 2023
23. Lundgren-Nilsson Å, Jonsdottir IH, Pallant J, Ahlborg G. In-
ternal construct validity of the shirom-melamed burnout ques-
tionnaire (SMBQ). BMC Publ Health. 2012;12(1):1. doi:10.
1186/1471-2458-12-1
24. Dolan ED, Mohr D, Lempa M, et al. Using a single item to
measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evalu-
ation. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(5):582-587. doi:10.1007/
s11606-014-3112-6
25. Trockel M, Bohman B, Lesure E, et al. A brief instrument to assess
both burnout and professional fulfillment in physicians: reliability
and validity, including correlation with self-reported medical errors,
in a sample of resident and practicing physicians. Acad Psychiatr.
2018;42(1):11-24. doi:10.1007/s40596-017-0849-3
26. The Global Health Observatory. Health and well-being. 2023.
Retrieved November 28, 2023, from https://www.who.int/data/
gho/data/major-themes/health-and-well-being
Imboden et al.
27. Workplace mental health - organizational assessment. Accessed
March 29, 2023.https://www.workplacementalhealth.org:443/
employer-resources/partnerships-and-initiatives/organizational-
assessment
28. Su R, Tay L, Diener E. The development and validation of
comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and brief inventory
of thriving (BIT). Appl Psychol Health and Well-Being. (in
press).
29. Stiefel MC, McNeely E, Riley CL, Roy B, Straszewski T,
VanderWeele TJ. WellBeing Assessment (Adult - 24 Items).
100 Million Healthier Lives, convened by the Institute for
Healthcare Improvement; 2020. https://www.ihi.org/
100MLives
30. Stiefel MC, Riley CL, Roy B, Straszewski T. Well-being As-
sessment (Adult – 12 Items) – 100 Million Healthier Lives.
Boston: 100 Million Healthier Lives, Convened by the Institute
for Healthcare Improvement; 2020. (Available at https://www.
ihi.org/100MLives)
31. Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W et al. New measures of well-being:
flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Soc Indicat Res.
2009;39:247-266
32. Lamers SMA, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, ten Klooster PM,
Keyes CLM. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the
mental health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF). J Clin Psy-
chol. 2011;67(1):99-110. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20741
33. Keyes CLM. Promoting and protecting mental health as
flourishing: a complementary strategy for improving national
mental health. Am Psychol. 2007;62(2):95-108
34. Sapien Labs. Introducing the mental health quotient
(MHQ) – Sapien labs: neuroscience: Human brain diversity
project. Sapien Labs | Neuroscience | Human Brain Diversity
Project; 2019. https://sapienlabs.org/whats_new/
introducing-the-mental-health-quotient-mhq/
35. NIOSH [2021]. In: Chari R, Chang CC, Sauter SL, Petrun
Sayers EL, Huang W, Fisher GG, eds. NIOSH Worker
Well-Being Questionnaire (WellBQ). Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publi-
cation. No. 2021-110 (revised 5/2021) doi:10.26616/
NIOSHPUB2021110revised52021
36. Gallup. Understanding How Gallup Uses the Cantril Scale;
2021. https://news.gallup.com/poll/122453/understanding-
gallup-uses-cantril-scale.aspx
37. Know where your workplace stands on mental health. In Under
3 minutes. MindsMatter. Accessed March 29, 2023.https://
mindsmatter.openingminds.ca/
38. Weziak-Bialowolska D, Bialowolski P, Lee MT, Chen Y,
VanderWeele TJ, McNeely E. Psychometric properties of
flourishing scales from a comprehensive well-being assess-
ment. Front Psychol. 2021;12:12. https://www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.652209. Accessed March
29, 2023
39. Greenglass ER, Schwarzer R, Taubert S. The Proactive Coping
Inventory (PCI): A Multidimensional Research Instrument;
557
1999. [On-line publication] https://www.psych.yorku.ca/
greenglass/
40. VanderWeele TJ. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:8148-8156
41. We˛ ziak-Białowolska D, McNeely E, VanderWeele T.
Flourish index and secure flourish index – development and
validation. Published online October 21, 2017. doi:10.2139/
ssrn.3145336
42. Quality of worklife questionnaire | NIOSH | CDC. Published
February 21, 2020. Accessed March 29, 2023.https://www.cdc.
gov/niosh/topics/stress/qwlquest.html
43. Su R, Tay L, Diener E. The development and validation of the
comprehensive inventory of thriving (CIT) and the brief in-
ventory of thriving (BIT). Appl Psychol Health Well Being.
2014;6(3):251-279. doi:10.1111/aphw.12027
44. Diagnostix P. FlourishDx - psychological health, safety and
wellbeing software. https://www.flourishdx.com/en. Accessed
March 29, 2023.
45. HERO Health and Well-Being Best Practices Scorecard in
Collaboration with Mercer, Version 5. Available at: https://hero-
health.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/HERO_Scorecard_V5-
Editable.pdf
46. Veazie S, Gilbert J, Winchell K, Paynter R, Guise J-M. Social
isolation and loneliness definitions and measures. In Addressing
Social Isolation to Improve the Health of Older Adults: A Rapid
Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US);
2019. [Internet] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK537897/
47. Gierveld JDJ, Tilburg TV. A 6-item scale for overall, emotional,
and social loneliness: confirmatory tests on survey data. Res
Aging. 2006;28(5):582-598. doi:10.1177/0164027506289723
48. Recommended national indicators of loneliness - Office
f o r N a t i o n a l S t a t i s t i c s . h t t p s : / / w w w. o n s . g o v. u k /
peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/compendium/
nationalmeasurementofloneliness/2018/
recommendednationalindicatorsofloneliness. Accessed March
29, 2023.
49. Russell D. UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, val-
idity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66:20
50. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR. A short-form measure of loneliness.
J Pers Assess. 1987;51(1):69-81. DOI: 10.1207/
s15327752jpa5101_6
51. Wright SL, Burt CDB, Strongman KT. Loneliness in the
Workplace: construct definition and scale development. N Z
J Psychol. 2006;35(2):59-68
52. Psychosocial Hazards. (2023). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
learning/safetyculturehc/module-2/8.html
53. International COPSOQ Network. https://www.copsoq-network.
org/assets/Uploads/COPSOQ-network-guidelines-an-
questionnaire-COPSOQ-III-131119-signed.pdf. Accessed
March 31, 2023.
54. Questionnaires JCQ & JCQ2. JCQ Center Global Karasek
Job Content Questionnaire; 2018. Retrieved March 10, 2023,
from https://www.jcqcenter.com/questionnaires-jcq-jcq2/
#jcq1-jcq2
558
55. Hall GB, Dollard MF, Coward J. Psychosocial safety climate:
development of the PSC-12. Int J Stress Manag. 2010;17(4):
353-383. doi:10.1037/a0021320.[CrossRef Exact] [CS: 100]
56. Leiter MP. Assessment of workplace social encounters: social
profiles, burnout, and engagement. Int J Environ Res Publ
Health. 2021;18(7):3533. doi:10.3390/ijerph18073533. Pub-
lished 2021 Mar 29
57. StressAssess. Stressassess.ca. Accessed March 31, 2023.https://
stressassess.ca/index.php?lang=en
58. Moos R. Work Environment Scale Manual. 4th ed. Palo Alto,
CA: Mind Garden, Inc; 2008.
59. Mauss D, Li J, Angerer P. Psychometric properties of the
WorkWell index: a short questionnaire for work-related stress.
Stress Health. 2017;33:80-85
60. DeSio S, Cedrone F, Perri R et al. Work-Related Stress Ques-
tionnaire (WRSQ): a new tool to assess psychosocial risks at
workplaces. Clin Ter 2020, 171, e316–e320.
61. Mahmood MH, Coons SJ, Guy MC, Pelletier KR. Development
and testing of the workplace stressors assessment questionnaire.
J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52:1192-1200
62. Workplace Strategies for Mental Health. Assess and address
psychological health and safety in your workplace. Available
online: https://www.guardingmindsatwork.ca/about/about. ac-
cessed on July 23, 2023.
63. Duffy RD, Allan BA, England JW et al. The development and
initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. J Counsel Psychol.
2017;64:206-221
64. Dagenais-Desmarais V, Savoie A. What is psychological well-
being, really? A grassroots approach from the organizational
sciences. J Happiness Stud. 2012;13:659-684
65. Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA.
Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity.
9780471454809. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley; 1964.
66. Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Development of the job diagnostic
survey. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60:159-170
67. Work Stressor Questionnaire. American Institute of Preventive
Medicine; 2019. Retrieved August 21, from https://healthylife.
com/online/fullversion/stress/work-stressor-questionnaire.html
68. Haynes CE, Wall TD, Bolden RI, Stride C, Rick JE. Measures of
perceived work characteristics for health services research: test
of a measurement model and normative data. Br J Health
Psychol. 1999;4:257-275
69. Workplace Mental Health - Resilience: A Strong Workforce
Needs it. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2023, from https://
workplacementalhealth.org:443/mental-health-topics/resilience
70. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P,
Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to
bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194-200
71. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience
scale: the connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress
Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76-82. doi:10.1002/da.10113
72. Näswall K, Kuntz J, Malinen S. Employee resilience scale
(EmpRes) measurement properties.
73. Winwood PC, Colon R, McEwen K. A practical measure of
workplace resilience: developing the resilience at work scale.
American Journal of Health Promotion 38(4)
J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(10):1205-1212. doi:10.1097/
JOM.0b013e3182a2a60a
74. ProChange. Introducing the Resilience Evaluation Measure.
ProChange Behavior Solutions; 2021. Published July 29 https://
prochange.com/introducing-the-resilience-evaluation-measure/.
Accessed 29 March 2023.
75. Bhui K, Dinos S, Galant-Miecznikowska M, de Jongh B,
Stansfeld S. Perceptions of work stress causes and effective
interventions in employees working in public, private and non-
governmental organisations: a qualitative study. BJPsych Bull.
2016;40(6):318-325. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.115.050823
76. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
NIOSH Generic Job Stress Questionnaire. Organization of
Work: Generic Job Stress Questionnaire; 2017. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workorg/detail088.
html
77. Shain M, Centre for addiction and mental health, & health
Canada. Stress & Satisfaction Offset Score (SSOS) Self-As-
s e s s m e n t ; 2 0 0 8 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p s : / / w w w.
workplacementalhealth.org/getmedia/83a58e25-7d9c-43d7-
b5b1-81f24abf54e6/fd_ssos?ext=.pdf
78. Petersen J. Stress Mastery Questionnaire (SMQ). The
American Institute of Stress; 2022. Retrieved March 10,
2023, from https://www.stress.org/product/stress-mastery-
questionnaire-smq
79. Holmgren K. The Work Stress Questionnaire (Revised Version);
2008. Retrieved from https://www.gu.se/sites/default/files/
2020-03/wsq-engelska.pdf
80. Cohen S. Perceived Stress Scale; 1988. Retrieved March 10,
2023, from https://www.mindgarden.com/documents/
PerceivedStressScale.pdf
81. Vohra S, Kelling AS, Varma MM, Prakash A, Khurana D.
Measuring reliability and validity of "Stressometer®": a
computer-based mass screening and assessment tool for
evaluation of stress level and sources of stressors. Indian
J Psychiatr. 2019;61(3):295-299. doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.
indianjpsychiatry_429_18
82. Fischer T, Reuter M, Riedl R. The Digital Stressors Scale:
development and validation of a new survey instrument to
measure digital stress perceptions in the workplace context.
Front Psychol. 2021;12:607598. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.
607598
83. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Organization of
Work: Occupational Stress Index (OSI). Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2023,
from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/workorg/detail085.
html
84. Małkiewicz M, Borkowska A, Kobos Z, Gołuch D, Terelak J.
Psychometric properties of pressure management indicator scale
(PMI): the preliminary study on a polish sample. Pol J Aviat Med
Bioeng Psychol. 2016;22:30-45
85. Ivancevich J, Matteson M. Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS)
Comments and Psychometric Properties of a Multidimen-
sional Self Report Inventory. McLean, VA, USA: FD As-
sociates; 1988.
Imboden et al.
86. World Health Organization. Good Practice in Occupational
Health Services: A Contribution to Workplace Health (No. EUR/
02/5041181). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe;
2002. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/
115486/E77650.pdf
87. Taskinen HK. Good Occupational Health Practice: A Guide
for Planning and Follow-Up of Occupational Health Ser-
vices; 2004. https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/
559
1 3 5 11 3 / G o o d _ O c c u p a t i o n a l _ H e a l t h _ P r a c t i c e . p d f ?
sequence=1
88. LifeWorks. (2022). Workplace Outcome Suite (WOS) Annual
Report 2021: EAP counseling use and outcomes, COVID-
19 pandemic impact, and best practices in outcome data
collection. Author: Attridge, M: Toronto, ON. White paper.
https://file:///Users/wolfkirsten/Downloads/WOS_Annual_
Report_2021_FINAL2022APR29_LifeWorks-Attridge.pdf