Our methodology for scoring psychosocial hazards is designed to provide a systematic way to measure and address potential risks in the workplace. This process includes two main components: Subjective Impact and Prevalence, which when combined, produce an overall Combined Risk Score for each psychosocial risk category.
Subjective Impact
This measure evaluates the personal impact of the psychosocial hazard on an individual. It is calculated using three key factors:
- Feeling: Individuals rate their current emotional state from a list, where each emotion is scored between 1 and 5 based on its severity.
- Intensity of Feeling: The strength of the emotion is also scored between 1 (mild) to 5 (strong).
- Functioning: The individual’s self-reported ability to function effectively, despite the feelings, scored from 1 (well) to 5 (not well at all).
The average of these scores, depending on which factors are reported, provides a weighted measure of the subjective impact of the hazard.
Prevalence
This aspect measures how widespread the hazard is within the organisation:
- % of Staff Reporting the Hazard: We assign scores based on the percentage of staff that have reported the hazard, with thresholds ranging from less than 5% to over 20% (example).
- Duration/Frequency: This considers how long the hazard has been affecting the staff, scored from 1 (just today) to 5 (for as long as I can remember).
A combination of these scores, averaged over a period, quantifies the prevalence of the hazard.
Combined Risk Score
The final risk score is calculated by multiplying the Subjective Impact score by the Prevalence score. This combined score is then used to position the hazard on a risk matrix, which helps determine the necessary actions or interventions.
5×5 risk matrix (the most widely adopted scoring approach is 5×5 and this is important)
Thresholds for determining next steps
Expert oversight
- Martyn Campbell – former Executive Director of SafeWork SA, widely recognised for his expertise in psychosocial risk regulation.
- Andrew Fuller – clinical psychologist and Fellow at the University of Melbourne, with decades of experience in education and resilience research.
Both have worked alongside Skodel in developing and refining the way psychosocial risks are interpreted and reported.
Our approach is rooted in comprehensive research and practical application:
- Extensive Experience: Over 100,000 checks have been conducted, providing a robust data set that informs our scoring thresholds. These thresholds are critical to ensure accuracy in identifying real issues without over or underreporting.
- Expert Involvement:
- Clinical Psychologist: Provides expertise on emotional impact and the psychological aspects of the methodology.
- Organisational Psychologist: Focuses on the impact within the workplace context and how it affects overall organisational health.
- WHS Professional: Ensures that the methodology aligns with workplace health and safety standards and practices.
This methodology is focused on being accurate and expert-guided, ensuring a balanced and effective approach to managing psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Our aim is not just to score but to provide a clear framework for intervention and improvement, enhancing workplace safety and well-being.
Evidence-based design
- Skodel’s survey structure is informed by established psychosocial research and designed to capture:
- Individuals’ self-reported experiences.
- The duration of those experiences.
- The impact on their ability to function at work.
- Responses are subjectively rated by individuals themselves, which is recognised in psychosocial risk management as the most valid starting point for assessing exposure.
Testing & validation process
Skodel has been through multiple stages of testing and refinement to ensure validity and practical usefulness:
- Pilot Programs Across Industries
- Implemented with organisations in Public Sector, Mining, Construction and other industries
- These industries were deliberately chosen because they are high-risk, heavily regulated, and present a wide spectrum of psychosocial hazards.
- Leadership Consultation & Regulator Insight
- Data from pilots was reviewed in workshops with executives, safety leaders, and regulators.
- Martyn Campbell’s regulatory expertise and Andrew Fuller’s clinical insight shaped how thresholds were set and where “moderate” vs “high” risk lines were drawn.
- Iterative Risk Threshold Calibration
- Tested different ways of weighting duration, likelihood, and consequence to determine which combinations best aligned with leadership judgement and actual workplace outcomes.
- Adjusted the 5x5 risk matrix to ensure it surfaced material risks without over or under-reporting.
- Cross-Validation of Findings
- Compared Skodel’s flagged risks with existing incident data, EAP usage, and HR case files in several pilot organisations.
- Confirmed that the tool consistently identified areas of genuine concern, while also highlighting “emerging risks” not yet visible in incident data.
- User Feedback & Continuous Improvement
- Leaders reported that results were intuitive and actionable, unlike more academic survey tools that can be complex to interpret and difficult to get engagement from workers, particularly in suggesting controls.
- Adjustments were made to language, reporting visuals, and thresholds to make the tool accessible at both board and frontline levels.
Risk interpretation framework
- Skodel applies the WHS risk management methodology – hazard identification, risk assessment, control and review.
- With guidance from Martyn Campbell and Andrew Fuller, Skodel has defined risk thresholds using a 5x5 risk matrix (prevalence x impact).
- This framework, strengthened through testing, ensures risks are assessed consistently and defensibly across diverse work environments.
Alignment with regulation
- Skodel is tied directly to the Safe Work Australia Model Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (2022).
- The Code requires organisations to assess psychosocial risks using the same risk management methodology embedded in Skodel.
- By structuring survey data around hazard exposure (frequency, duration, and impact), Skodel provides organisations with a defensible, regulator-aligned risk assessment process.
.png)
.png)
.png)