Description

The Work Tension Scale (WTS-7) is a brief self-report measure developed by Robert J. House and John R. Rizzo to assess psychological and psychosomatic tension associated with work.

The scale does not directly measure objective workplace stressors, such as workload, organisational change, or conflict with colleagues. Instead, it focuses primarily on the consequences of occupational pressure experienced by employees, including:

  • nervousness and psychological tension;
  • difficulty disengaging from work-related thoughts;
  • sleep disturbance caused by occupational problems;
  • perceptions that work negatively affects health;
  • intrusion of work-related concerns into personal life;
  • anxiety before workplace meetings.

Work tension represents an individual’s subjective response to occupational demands and should be distinguished from the workplace stressors themselves.

Purpose

The main purpose of the WTS-7 is to assess the extent to which employees experience psychological or psychosomatic symptoms of tension that they attribute to their work.

The scale may be used to:

  • measure perceived work-related tension;
  • examine relationships with role conflict and role ambiguity;
  • investigate associations with job satisfaction and organisational commitment;
  • explore relationships with turnover intentions;
  • compare occupational groups or organisational departments;
  • evaluate changes following organisational interventions;
  • investigate interactions between work, health, and family life.

The WTS-7 does not identify the causes of work tension. A comprehensive evaluation should also include measures of job demands, control, support, role conflict, and employment insecurity.

Structure

The standard Work Tension Scale consists of seven statements assessing whether:

  • work directly affects the employee’s health;
  • the employee works under considerable tension;
  • the employee has felt nervous or restless because of work;
  • their health would probably improve if they had a different job;
  • work-related problems have kept them awake at night;
  • they feel nervous before attending workplace meetings;
  • they continue thinking about work while engaged in other activities.

Some subsequent studies have used modified six-item versions or different response scales. These versions should be clearly identified and should not automatically be treated as equivalent to the original WTS-7.

Administration

In the original format, respondents answer each statement using:

  • True
  • False

Responses should reflect the participant’s usual work experience. The scale may be administered in paper-based or electronic form and requires only a few minutes to complete.

The five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” to “Very much,” sometimes associated with the WTS, does not correspond to its original format. If a Likert-type adaptation is used, its source and psychometric equivalence should be documented.

Scoring

In the original version, responses are coded as follows:

  • False: 1 point
  • True: 2 points

The seven item scores are summed:

  • Minimum total score: 7
  • Maximum total score: 14
  • Higher score: greater work-related tension
  • Lower score: fewer reported symptoms of work-related tension

Alternatively, responses may be coded as 0 and 1, producing a total score ranging from 0 to 7. This alternative coding does not change participants’ relative ranking, but the selected method must be clearly reported.

No established diagnostic cut-off scores are available. Scores should not be arbitrarily classified as low, moderate, or high without appropriate population-specific reference data.

Data Analysis

Analysis of WTS-7 data may include:

  • means, medians, standard deviations, and score ranges;
  • percentages of positive responses for each item;
  • comparisons between occupational groups or organisational departments;
  • correlations with job demands, role conflict, and job satisfaction;
  • regression analysis to examine predictors of work tension;
  • pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons;
  • internal-consistency assessment;
  • factor analysis using methods appropriate for categorical data;
  • multilevel analysis when employees are nested within departments or organisations.

Because the original response format is dichotomous, internal consistency may be assessed using the Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 or an appropriate application of Cronbach’s alpha. Factor analysis should preferably use tetrachoric correlations and estimators suitable for categorical variables.

Reliability and Validity

The WTS-7 has been used across different occupational populations and organisational contexts. Reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients generally range from 0.71 to 0.89, indicating acceptable to high internal consistency.

Evidence of construct validity is supported by positive associations between work tension and:

  • role ambiguity and role conflict;
  • occupational and family stress;
  • work–family conflict;
  • turnover intentions;
  • reports of poor physical health.

Negative associations have been reported with:

  • job satisfaction;
  • organisational commitment;
  • self-esteem;
  • selected indicators of occupational and psychological well-being.

Limitations

The WTS-7 is a brief measure of reactions to occupational tension rather than its causes. It cannot independently determine whether tension results from workload, leadership, interpersonal conflict, or other workplace conditions.

Additional limitations include:

  • reliance on self-report;
  • restricted sensitivity due to the dichotomous response format;
  • inclusion of both psychological and physical reactions;
  • possible influence of recent events or current mood;
  • inability to assess occupational burnout as a separate construct;
  • inability to diagnose anxiety or another mental disorder.

Use in a new language or cultural setting requires systematic translation, cultural adaptation, and renewed evaluation of reliability, factorial structure, and validity.

The scale should not be used independently for employee performance appraisal or adverse employment decisions.

References

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7(3), 467–505.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. Academic Press.

Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350–370.