Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2015, Article ID 720193, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/720193
Research Article

Measuring Psychological Trauma in the Workplace: Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator—A Cross-Sectional Study

1Department of Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Roma, Italy
2Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics and Maternal-Infantile Sciences (DINOGMI) and Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, 16126 Genoa, Italy
3State Police Health Service Department, Ministry of the Interior, 00189 Roma, Italy
4School of Psychology, Social Work, and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia

Received 9 October 2014; Revised 19 February 2015; Accepted 20 February 2015

Academic Editor: Noureddin Nakhostin Ansari

Copyright © 2015 Nicola Magnavita et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the Psychological Injury Risk Indicator (PIRI) and to validate its psychometric properties. Methods. Workers from 24 small companies were invited to self-complete the PIRI before undergoing their routine medical examination at the workplace. All participants (841 out of 845, 99.6%) were also asked to report occupational injuries and episodes of violence that had occurred at the workplace in the previous 12 months and were given the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) to complete. Results. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 4-factor structure, “sleep problems,” “recovery failure,” “posttraumatic stress symptoms,” and “chronic fatigue,” which were the same subscales observed in the original version. The internal consistency was excellent (alpha = 0.932). ROC curve analysis revealed that the PIRI was much more efficient than GHQ12 in diagnosing workers who had suffered trauma (workplace violence or injury) in the previous year, as it revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 (95% CI: 0.625–0.734) for the PIRI, while for the GHQ12 the AUC was 0.551 (not significant). Conclusions. This study, performed on a large population of workers, provides evidence of the validity of the Italian version of the PIRI.