Assessing psychological violence and harassment at work: reliability and i.e., Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) and. ventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) Leymann defines .. el LIPT (Leymann Inventory of Psychological. Terrorization) en. Important note in preface to Heinz Leymann, “Mobbing . questionnaire ( Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization, Leymann, ).
|Published (Last):||22 December 2004|
|PDF File Size:||13.8 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Second, respondents were asked to report the relative frequency of experiencing each item compared with their colleagues in the column Busing three response options: The instructions, items and response options of the IVAPT were first translated from the English version into Japanese by a professional translator.
Register Already have an account? Even with these limitations, the present study has shown that the Japanese version onventory the IVAPT is a reliable and valid instrument for measurement trrrorization psychological violence and harassment at work. Any opportunities that I may have for a promotion or improvement in my work are blocked or impeded.
Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT)
Sign In Join Now. My work is devalued and they never recognize my doing something well. The objective of this study was to examine reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Inventory of Violence and Psychological Harassment IVAPT Pando,a item measure of psychological harassment at work and presence and intensity of psychological violence widely used in Latin American countries. Previous studies showed that the IVAPT had an acceptable level of internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.
Intensity of psychological violence was well concordant with other scales of workplace bullying, i. Second, the sample was from civil servants, particularly from nonmanual workers.
These findings could be useful in classifying existing scales of psychological harassment at work and comparison of findings based on different scales. Please type a message to the paper’s authors to explain your need for the paper. In an exploratory factor analysis, eigenvalues and the total variance psycchological were The results may be biased toward those who were willing to report their experience of psychological violence terrorizatio harassment at work. I receive mockery, slander or public defamation.
J Occup Health 15;55 2: Segundo Leymann para se falar em mobbing, o fenomeno deve compreender pelo menos uma das 45 formas de comportamento descritos no Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization LIPTdesenvolvido e validado pelo autor em The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for responses concerning experiencing more than one’s colleagues were 0. Two major scales have been developed to measure psychological harassment at work and are widely used in Europe and other English-speaking countries.
They have tried to humiliate me or to make a leynann of me in public.
Univ Psychol ; 7: Obstetrics and Gynecology The prevalence of psychological harassment at work based on the IVAPT definition medium or high was 5. I am ignored or excluded from work meetings or from decision-making. Still can’t find the full text of the article? Both LIPT and NAQ-R may be sensitive for measurement of psychological violence, since when psychological violence becomes severe, it would increase terrorjzation risk of psychological harassment at work as well.
Patologie emergente in medicina del lavoro: Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization adult bullying questionnaire. The prevalence of intense medium or high of psychological violence was 8. lwymann
Search Our Scientific Publications & Authors
The column A responses were subjected to a factor analysis using principal component analysis with varimax rotation. A further study should be conducted to rationalize the classification by, for example, comparing psychological impacts of psychological violence, and psychological harassment at work. psychologiccal
I have fewer opportunities for training and for preparing myself adequately than those that are offered to other colleagues. The work or activities given to me require more experience than that which I possess, and they are assigned to me with the intention of discrediting me. Only shared with authors of paper. In addition, an additional final question asked whether the behaviors assessed have been produced by superiors, colleagues, or subordinates at work, which allows us to have reports of the directionality of the behaviors mobbing ascending, collateral, or descending.
Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) – Allie: Abbreviation / Long Form Info.
Ten years of working conditions in the European Union. Then we tested this first translated version with a group of nine occupational health staff occupational physicians, occupational health od, and clinical psychologists in Japan to receive their feedback, and revised the translation accordingly.
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: A total of 1, respondents men and women out of 2, initial respondents filled in all questions including sex, age, and the IVAPT. My errors or small faults are punished much more drastically if the rest of my colleagues. First, respondents were asked to answer the frequency of their experience of each item in the column A using five-point Likert-type options: For interpretation, the presence of psychological violence at work was defined based on conflict situations at work that, when not resolved, can be habitual behavior.
The instrument could be useful in international comparison studies of psychological violence and harassment at work between Latin American countries and Japan, as well as other countries, and in studies intending to differentiate psychological violence and harassment at work.
The IVAPT was translated into Japanese, and the translation was amended through a small pretest and a back-translation and finalized.