What does the battery evaluate?
The Colombian battery is a set of instruments for the assessment of psychosocial risks. It includes questionnaires on workplace and non-work-related factors, stress assessment, and general data, along with resources for more in-depth analysis. Resolution 2764 of 2022 adopts them as mandatory minimum technical standards within its scope of application.
This is not a generic satisfaction survey or a test for selecting employees. Its usefulness lies in identifying conditions that require prevention and intervention. The results should be interpreted with knowledge of the job and the manuals, avoiding turning individual scores into labels about personality, professional ability, or job aptitude without competent justification.
Framework and competent people
Resolution 2646 of 2008 defines responsibilities for the identification, evaluation, intervention, and monitoring of psychosocial factors. Its definition of an expert includes a psychologist with a postgraduate degree in occupational health and a current license, with a specific territorial exception requiring the conditions stipulated in the regulation. Being a user of an application or having a general occupational safety and health (OSH) course is not sufficient.
The organization must verify the competence and scope of the service before contracting. It is also advisable to agree on who prepares the population, administers, scores, interprets, and stores the assessments. The Occupational Risk Administrator (ARL) may intervene within its support functions, but this does not eliminate the employer’s responsibility to address the conditions that generate exposure.
Application and respect for the instruments
Questionnaires must be administered according to the manuals, without altering their form or content. Changing questions, answers, or procedures can affect validity and comparability. Preparation includes explaining the purpose, arranging appropriate response conditions, and avoiding pressure from supervisors or colleagues. Participants must understand who will have access to the data and how it will be used.
The assignment of intralaboral forms A and B and their scoring must follow the technical instructions. Choosing a version for convenience or combining results without proper procedure is not advisable. Qualitative information can complement the assessment to better understand tasks and organization, but it does not authorize changes to the standardized instrument or the reconstruction of its norms.
Frequency and intervention
Resolution 2764 mandates annual evaluations when high-risk workplace factors or negative effects are identified, and every two years in cases of medium or low risk. This frequency is calculated from the start of intervention and control measures, which must begin immediately according to the identified level and conditions.
To determine the level, the calculations in the manual and the separate rules for forms A and B must be followed. If either form presents a high or very high level, an annual evaluation is required in accordance with the resolution. The schedule does not replace continuous monitoring nor does it preclude reviewing new situations that require attention before the next scheduled application.
Confidentiality and digital format
Custody of the data is the responsibility of the service providers or professionals designated by the regulations, depending on how the service is organized. The employer should not indiscriminately receive individual questionnaires and confidential data. Management reports should allow for intervention without revealing unnecessary personal information, especially when groups are small and there is a risk of identifying respondents.
The online application has specific conditions. Resolution 2764 links it to the official tool and its security requirements; it does not authorize any commercial form. When this information sheet was consulted, the Occupational Risk Fund website was still announcing the upcoming arrival of SIRPSI. This announcement should be distinguished from actual implementation and verified before choosing a method.
Practical example
In a hypothetical scenario, a company experiences unfavorable results related to work demands and leadership. The competent team compares the data with the task organization, without communicating individual responses to supervisors. They identify allocation problems and priority shifts, and propose process improvements as well as support resources for employees.
The measures are incorporated into the annual work plan, with assigned responsibilities and monitoring. The company checks whether the changes are implemented and whether signs of improvement or new problems appear. A subsequent evaluation allows for reviewing progress, but action to correct conditions that have already been identified as detrimental must not wait until then.
From results to decisions
The intervention should be tailored to the identified psychosocial risk and take into account relevant guidelines. A simple talk on stress management may be insufficient if the problem represents a burden incompatible with available resources. The organization needs to assess adjustments to tasks, schedules, coordination, and management practices, along with providing appropriate support where necessary.
The Workplace Harassment Committee can contribute within its purview, but it does not replace the psychosocial assessment nor should it receive all confidential data. Coordination between different entities requires defining what information is shared and for what purpose. Individual cases follow their specific pathways, distinct from the collective analysis of working conditions.
Common mistakes
Common mistakes include implementing the system without qualified personnel, modifying questionnaires, using results to impose sanctions, or simply filing the report away. It is also a mistake to claim that a platform is authorized merely because it digitizes questions. The methodology, security, and procedures must comply with current regulations and the availability of official resources.
A properly administered assessment is the starting point for informed preventive decisions. Its value depends on confidentiality, participation, and subsequent improvements. The organization must maintain evidence of intervention and follow-up, and review the process when conditions change, avoiding treating the assessment as a mere formality that is repeated without transforming the work.
