Leymann LIPT-60

What is LIPT-60?

Heinz Leymann described psychological harassment in the workplace using an inventory of forty-five forms or behaviors, the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization . INSST Technical Prevention Note 476 includes this definition: a situation in which a person or group exerts extreme psychological violence, through one or more of these behaviors, systematically, at least once a week, for a prolonged period exceeding six months, on another person in the workplace.

The LIPT-60 is the Spanish version of the inventory, published in 2003 by José Luis González de Rivera and Manuel J. Rodríguez Abuín in the journal Psiquis . It expands the original list to sixty behaviors and adds an assessment of the intensity with which the person reports having experienced them.

It is, therefore, a self-reported instrument: it collects the respondent’s perception of specific behaviors, not an external observation or an objective measure of the work environment.

What it measures and what it doesn’t measure

• Measure. What harassment behaviors does the person report having suffered and with what perceived intensity.
• It does not measure the full range of the organization’s psychosocial factors: it does not report on workload, autonomy, social support, or role clarity in general.
• It does not diagnose any disorder nor does it replace the medical assessment of the damage.
• It does not in itself prove the legal existence of harassment, which requires a specific assessment in accordance with the internal procedure and, where appropriate, the administrative or judicial route.
• It does not identify the responsible parties nor establish intent.

What is it used for?

Its usefulness lies in three main areas. First, it allows for a precise description of the specific behaviors that have occurred, which is helpful when the affected person describes a vague situation. Second, it assesses the prevalence of the problem in studies of working populations. Third, it supports the monitoring of a case over time, verifying whether the reported exposure decreases after the measures taken.

In prevention, the instrument is therefore situated in the field of case analysis and research, not in that of general risk assessment, which corresponds to methods such as those mentioned in the psychosocial risk assessment form .

Application conditions

1. Competent personnel. Its administration and interpretation correspond to professionals with specific training in work psychology or applied psychosociology.
2. Voluntariness. The person must know the purpose of the instrument and agree to answer it.
3. Confidentiality. The data is especially sensitive and its processing must guarantee confidentiality and compliance with data protection regulations.
4. Context. It must be integrated into a previously defined procedure for dealing with harassment, never applied in isolation to a complaint.
5. Interpretive caution. A high score indicates declared and intense exposure, and requires action, but does not by itself close the case classification.

How to interpret

The inventory provides an overall measure of reported exposure and a profile of the behaviors identified. Preventive analysis considers three elements: what types of behavior appear, their intensity, and how long they have been occurring, since the reference definition requires a systematic and prolonged nature.

The results should not be compared between individuals as if they measured objective severity, nor should they be used to question an account when scores are low: a small number of behaviors maintained over time can constitute a serious situation. The instrument describes, it does not judge.

NTP 476 also reminds us that, along with the prevalence of behaviors, it is necessary to assess the type and magnitude of the consequences experienced and their relationship to the situation, for which there are different and specific instruments.

Limitations and common errors

1. Presenting it as a psychosocial risk assessment, when its purpose is much more limited.
2. Use it as self-sufficient expert evidence to prove or disprove harassment.
3. Apply it without a prior procedure for dealing with harassment or guarantees of confidentiality.
4. Administering it collectively and anonymously with the expectation of obtaining an organizational diagnosis is a use for which it is not designed.
5. Interpreting their results without technical competence or comparison with the case information.
6. Confusing workplace conflict with harassment: the reference definition requires systematic and prolonged conduct directed against a person.

Differences with other instruments

• Compared to FPSICO and CoPsoQ-istas21. These are general methods for evaluating psychosocial factors of the organization; the LIPT-60 describes harassment behaviors reported by a person.
• Compared to health questionnaires, instruments that measure symptoms derived from stress assess consequences, not exposure to behaviors.
• Regarding the internal procedure for addressing harassment: The procedure is the formal channel for action; the inventory is merely a tool for gathering information within it.
• When investigating a case, the investigation requires comparing versions, documentation, and testimonies—a task that no questionnaire can replace.

Regulatory and technical framework

• Law 31/1995, articles 14, 15, 16 and 22. Duty of protection, risk assessment and health surveillance.
• ILO Convention 190. Instrument of accession of Spain to the convention on the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work, published in the BOE of 16 June 2022.
• NTP 854 of the INSST . Technical definition of psychological harassment at work.
• NTP 891 of the INSST . Procedure for the autonomous resolution of conflicts of workplace violence.

The LIPT-60 is not provided for in any Spanish standard. It is a technical instrument whose use must be justified within each organization’s anti-harassment procedure.