An Alpha, Beta and Gamma Approach to Evaluating Occupational Health Organizational Interventions: Learning from the Measurement of Work-Family Conflict Change

Given the rapid growth of intervention research in the occupational health sciences and related fields (e.g. work-family), we propose that occupational health scientists adopt an alpha, beta, gamma change approach when evaluating intervention efficacy. Interventions can affect absolute change in constructs directly (alpha change), changes in the scales used to assess change (beta change) or redefinitions of the construct itself (gamma change). Researchers should consider the extent to which they expect their intervention to affect each type of change and select evaluation approaches accordingly. We illustrate this approach using change data from groups of IT professionals and health care workers participating in the STAR intervention, designed by the Work Family Health Network. STAR was created to effect change in employee work-family conflict via supervisor family-supportive behaviors and schedule control. We hypothesize that it will affect change via all three change approaches-gamma, beta, and alpha. Using assessment techniques from measurement equivalence approaches, we find results consistent with some gamma and beta change in the IT company due to the intervention; our results suggest that not accounting for such change could affect the evaluation of alpha change. We demonstrate that using a tripartite model of change can help researchers more clearly specify intervention change targets and processes. This will enable the assessment of change in a way that has stronger fidelity between the theories used and the outcomes of interest. Our research has implications for how to assess change using a broader change framework, which employs measurement equivalence approaches in order to advance the design and deployment of more effective interventions in occupational settings

Misery Loves Company: An Investigation of Couples’ Interrole Conflict Congruence

Previous research on interrole (family-to-work and work-to-family) conflict has demonstrated that such conflict is detrimental for outcomes in the work and home domains for employees and their family members. Although research has begun to integrate multiple parties into the interrole conflict literature, studies have overlooked how employee interrole conflict and partner interrole conflict can jointly influence employee outcomes. We advance work-family research by integrating balance theory with the interrole conflict literature to investigate dyadic interrole conflict congruence and challenge the implicit assumption that less interrole conflict always results in superior outcomes. Using a polynomial regression analysis of 141 employee and romantic partner dyads, we demonstrate that congruence between couples' experiences of family-to-work (but not work-to-family) conflict is positively associated with balance satisfaction, and ultimately employee job satisfaction and partner relationship satisfaction. Thus, when it comes to balance satisfaction and its downstream correlates, the harmful effects of high family-to-work conflict (FWC) are largely mitigated if an employee's partner shares a similarly high level of FWC, and the beneficial effects of low FWC are largely eliminated if an employee's partner does not share a similarly low level of FWC