Our Mibo Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PRMA) developed for rigour, balance, and accuracy…has been independently evaluated by the Griffith University RISE Research Centre and found to be a very high‑quality instrument, praised for its strong validity and reliability. Here’s the overview:

Evaluation of the Mibo Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PRMA) – Overview

The Reducing the Impact of Stress on Employees (RISE) Research Unit at Griffith University conducted a detailed evaluation of MIBO’s PsychosocialAssessment Tool(PRMA) in April 2025. The evaluation encompassed both the qualitative and quantitative (psychometric) aspects of the questionnaire, with the latter drawing on a dataset comprising the questionnaire responses of 598 workers. Major findings and conclusions from this evaluation are presented below:

Overview of the Questionnaire

The PRMA psychosocial assessment tool is a relatively short self-report instrument, requiring only 10 minutes to complete. It contains measures of a broad and contemporary range of variables relevant to workplace health, safety, and risk management. Questionnaire items are drawn from well-established sources and are organised into seven coherent sub-sections: psychosocial safety climate, work design, work environment, work relationships, work experiences, harmful behaviours, and negative outcomes. The questionnaire content has minimal overlap or redundancy. As such, it neatly complements other instruments frequently used in the risk management/occupational health safety fields including those that assess job satisfaction, work engagement, and physical and mental health outcomes.

Use of the Questionnaire

Completion of this psychosocial assessment tool takes approximately 10 minutes. The layout of both questionnaire versions is clear. Font size is large enough for all/most people who have restricted vision. Consistent and effective use is made of bold, italicised, and underlined typeface. Pre-programming enables questions that are irrelevant to particular groups of respondents to be skipped. The reading level of the PRMA is suitable for use with the general community/workforce. Question wording is clear, short, simple, specific, unambiguous, and appropriately-‘concrete’. Where relevant, questions specify the exact target, context, and time-frame to use when answering. Definitions and instructions are also worded using simple and succinct language. Questions are designed to be minimally affected by response biases, memory lapses, and deliberate dishonesty. Common flaws in questionnaire construction (e.g., use of ambiguous terms, technical jargon, double-barrelled questions, double negatives) are avoided. As a consequence, respondents readily understand what they are being asked and how they should respond.

Throughout the PRMA psychosocial assessment tool, questions are presented in a highly consistent manner, and are followed by a set of pre-determined (fixed, close-ended) response options. Where questions have the same set of responses, the options are labelled and ordered consistently. Together, these features reduce the burden on respondents, enable quick responding, encourage higher completion rates, and facilitate efficient (quantitative) data analysis.

The PRMA is designed and implemented in a manner consistent with the highest ethical standards. For example, participants respond anonymously or confidentially, and are informed that their responses will be securely stored and that their company would receive group averages only. Most questions are non-threatening and inoffensive; thus, they are unlikely to shock or embarrass. Most highly sensitive topics are avoided, or else, in the case of questions pertaining to harmful workplace behaviours, participants are given the option of not answering. Respondents who report exposure to harmful behaviour are given details of support services they can access if needed.

Reliability and Validity

The RISE evaluation included the computation of descriptive statistics, correlations, regression analyses, and both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Together, the statistical analyses generated substantial evidence as to the reliability (internal consistency) and validity of both the PRMA questions and more than 20 multi-item scales to be derived from it. Item and scale norms were established. Items/questions and scales were shown to relate with each other in ways that are consistent with common sense, with major theories, and with contemporary research. For example:

• The construct (theoretical) validity of the PRMA psychosocial assessment tool is evidenced by patterns of inter-item and inter-scale correlations that match those proposed by major risk management and occupational health and safety theories. For example, consistent with theory and past research, PRMA measures of job stressors and job resources each uniquely predict a range of negative work outcomes. Such matches between theoretical propositions, research findings, and PRMA data provide strong evidence of the construct validity of the questionnaire.
• The concurrent (empirical) validity of the PRMA is demonstrated by findings that measures of similar constructs are positively correlated (convergent validity) with each other, while measures of different constructs are negatively correlated (divergent validity). For example, measures of job stressors are positively correlated with harmful work behaviours, whereas measures of job resources are negatively correlated with these behaviours.

Conclusion

The major conclusion to be drawn from RISE’s evaluation is that the PRMA psychosocial assessment tool is a very high-quality survey instrument. Its strengths include its brevity, relevance, user-friendliness, reliability, validity, adherence to ethical guidelines, and practical applicability. This independent evaluation by Griffith University confirms that the PRMA represents a scientifically validated psychosocial assessment tool suitable for Australian workplace psychosocial risk management.

---

Dr Graham Bradley BA(Hons.) MA (Hons.) Dip Ed PhD