Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41619121›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026

Evaluating the Validity of the GM@W Survey: A Psychometric Study Across Gender and Industry.

Javier Mencia-Ledo, Sana Siddiqui, Hong Ki Chloe Lau, Kishana Balakrishnar, André Luiz Fagundes Avila Dos Santos, Ana Valentina Villarreal Galeano, Leyi Zhou, Michael Cooper, Gustavo S Betini, Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Javier Mencia-LedoDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Sana SiddiquiDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Hong Ki Chloe LauDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Kishana BalakrishnarDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
André Luiz Fagundes Avila Dos SantosDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Ana Valentina Villarreal GaleanoDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Leyi ZhouDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Michael CooperMental Health Research Canada, 40 Eglinton Avenue East # 806, Toronto, ON, M4P 3A2, Canada.
Gustavo S BetiniMental Health Research Canada, 40 Eglinton Avenue East # 806, Toronto, ON, M4P 3A2, Canada.
Behdin Nowrouzi-KiaDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. behdin.nowrouzi.kia@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5586-4282

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe National Workplace Psychological Health and Safety Standard (The Standard) recommends the use of a survey developed by Guarding Minds at Work (GM@W). However, its validity remains underexplored. This study has two objectives: (1) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the survey in assessing the Standard dimensions and (2) to examine validity across gender and industry.

methodsA Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted on data from the GM@W survey to evaluate the factor structure and validity of the 13 dimensions. Group comparisons by gender and occupational groups were assessed using t-tests and ANOVA tests.

resultsAcross the 13 dimensions, most items demonstrated strong internal consistency and discriminant validity, with physical safety (r = 0.71) and organizational culture (r = 0.68) showing the highest internal consistency. While psychological competencies and physical safety were linked to positive mental health outcomes, challenges with workload management and balance remain prominent, especially for workers in healthcare and education. Group differences were observed, with women and workers in business, trades, and manufacturing reporting better psychosocial outcomes. DISCUSSION: While the GM@W tool demonstrated internal consistency and improved convergent validity compared to previous versions, significant model misfit was observed across all sectors. High latent correlations and frequent violations of the Fornell-Larcker criterion reveal substantial construct overlap and empirical redundancy. The findings suggest that while individual constructs are reliable, the 13-factor structure faces challenges in achieving empirical distinctiveness. Capturing the diverse psychosocial experiences of a national workforce within a single psychometric instrument remains a complex task.

Indexed as

Factorial validityOccupational healthOrganizational psychologyStatistical factor analysisWork-life balanceWorkplace mental health

Identifiers

PMID41619121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.