Organizational justice at school and its associations with pupils’ psychosocial school environment, health, and wellbeing

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 1675e1682

Contents lists available

Social Science & Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/socscimed

Organizational justice at school and its associations with pupils’ psychosocialschool environment, health, and wellbeing

Marko Elovainio a,b,f,*, Minna Pietikäinen a, Pauliina Luopa a, Mika Kivimäki c,f, Jane E. Ferrie f,Jukka Jokela g, Sakari Suominen d,e, Jussi Vahtera c,d, Marianna Virtanen c

aNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, FinlandbUniversity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finlandc Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, FinlanddUniversity of Turku, Department of Public Health, Finlande Turku University Hospital, FinlandfUniversity College London, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, UKgUniversity of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 12 October 2011

Keywords:AdolescentPsychosocialWork environmentOrganizational justiceSchoolFinland

* Corresponding author. National Institute for Healt00370 Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: þ358 503020621.

E-mail addresses: [email protected],(M. Elovainio).

0277-9536/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.025

a b s t r a c t

It has been shown that the psychosocial environment perceived by school staff is associated with chil-dren’s academic performance and wellbeing. In this study we examined the associations betweenorganizational justice (procedural and relational justice) as reported by school staff and pupils’perceptions of their school environment, health problems, academic performance, and absenteeism. Wecombined data from two surveys: for the staff (the Finnish Public Sector Study, n ¼ 1946) and pupils (theFinnish school health promotion survey, n ¼ 11,781 boys and 12,842 girls) of 136 secondary schools,collected during 2004e2005. Multilevel cumulative logistic regression analyses showed that afteradjustment for potential individual and school-level confounding factors, low procedural justice wasassociated with pupils’ dissatisfaction with school-going. Low relational justice was associated witha 1.30 times higher risk of poor academic performance, 1.15 times higher risk of psychosomatic symp-toms and 1.13 times higher risk of depressive symptoms among pupils. Both organizational justicecomponents were associated with truancy. We concluded that staff perceptions of organizational justiceat school are associated with pupils’ reports of their psychosocial school environment, health, perfor-mance, and absenteeism due to truancy. Improving managerial and decision making procedures amongschool personnel may be an important factor for protecting pupils’ academic performance and wellbeing.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Schools have an important influence on children’s learning anddevelopment as a connection to the external environment and theplace where they spend a large share of their day. A large body ofliterature has shown that the school climate, defined as the social,psychological, and academic atmosphere of a school (Anderson,1982), is associated with children’s academic performance andwellbeing (Aveyard, Markham, & Cheng, 2004; Aveyard, Markham,Lancashire et al., 2004; Bonny, Britto, Klostermann, Hornung, &Slap, 2000; Britto, Klostermann, Bonny, Altum, & Hornung, 2001;Han, 2009; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Karvonen, Vikat, & Rimpela, 2005;

h and Welfare, PO Box 30, Fi-

[email protected]

All rights reserved.

Konu & Rimpela, 2002; Maddox & Prinz, 2003). For example,Simons-Morton and colleagues (Simons-Morton, Crump, Haynie, &Saylor, 1999) have suggested that a positive school climate mayenhance pupils’ ability to develop a social bond with their school,which in turn, predicts later academic achievements. Pupils’ ownperceptions of positive psychosocial school climates have also beenassociated with positive developmental outcomes, such as goodmental health, and a low risk of delinquency and truancy (Maddox& Prinz, 2003).

In addition to measuring students’ perceptions, researchers canalso measure teachers’ perceptions of school climate, includingtheir perceptions of organizational leadership and the overallfunctioning of the school (Parcel et al., 2003). When school climateis measured using teachers’ responses, the school climate can alsobe thought of as a work climate. Teacher reports of their school orwork climate have also been linked to student academic outcomes,the successful implementation of health promotion programmes

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02779536

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.025



M. Elovainio et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 1675e16821676

(Parcel et al., 2003) and health education (Matthews, Boon, Flisher,& Schaalman, 2006) at school. Some social epidemiologists, whilerecognizing the importance of social relationships among pupilsand between pupils and teachers, argue that the psychosocial workclimate among teachers is an equally fundamental predictor ofa school’s psychosocial environment as a whole (Virtanen et al.,2009). Furthermore, there is some evidence that positive percep-tions of the psychosocial work climate by staff are associated withpupils’ health related behavior (Virtanen et al., 2009). Lack of trustand opportunity for participation and unclear work goals amongstaff were associated with high truancy and psychological symp-toms among pupils (Virtanen et al., 2009).

A relatively new concept referring to an important dimension ofthe psychosocial work climate is organizational justice. Organiza-tional justice is defined as “the extent to which employees aretreated with justice at their workplace” (for a review seeCropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). More specifically,organizational justice is a combination of resource distribution,decision making principles and treatment practices that people ingeneral experience as fair or unfair. Organizational justice meansthat people within that organization perceive their input and therewards they receive to be in balance, that the decisions are madebased on fair rules and that other people, especially their supervi-sors, treat them fairly, that is, supervisors can be trusted and arerespectful (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Perceived organizational justice hasbeen shown to predict a wide range of employees’ work attitudesand behaviors, such as organizational commitment and jobinvolvement, as well as willingness to support decisions anddecision-makers (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005; Lind & Tyler, 1988).Because organizational justice has been shown to be such animportant factor in defining social and psychological atmosphere inorganizations, perceived justice among school personnel is poten-tially an important predictor of overall school climate (Anderson,1982; Rutter & Maughan, 2002), which in turn may predict manypupil outcomes.

In this study, we use data collected from both students andteachers to examine the association between organizational justiceand several student outcomes, specifically: poor academic success,dissatisfactionwith school attendance, frequent psychosomatic anddepressive symptoms and absenteeism (sickness absence andtruancy). Our study is based on pooled data from a large-scaleclassroom survey of pupils and a survey for teachers and otherstaff in 136 Finnish schools. In order to take into account thepotential effects of multiple contexts, we used a multilevel analysisapproach, as suggested by the comprehensive theoretical models ofthe origins of adolescent development (Youngblade et al., 2007).

Methods

Participants

Data were obtained from two ongoing studies: the Finnishschool health promotion study (Hakala, Rimpelä, Salminen,Virtanen, & Rimpelä, 2002; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Marttunen,Rimpelä, & Rantanen, 1999) focusing on adolescent health, and theFinnish Public Sector study focusing on the health of localgovernment personnel, including schools (Vahtera et al., 2004). Thenationwide Finnish school health promotion survey is a classroomsurvey which has been carried out since 1996, coordinated by theNational Institute for Health andWelfare. The study covers virtuallyall 8th and 9th grades of lower secondary schools (14e16 year olds)and the first and second grades of upper secondary schools (16e18year olds). In Finland pupils start school at the age of seven. Thecompulsory lower secondary school lasts from 1st to 9th grade(until the age of 16). After that most pupils continue with

vocational training or upper secondary school, which lasts two tothree years (officially there are 3 grades). The survey was approvedby the ethics committee of Tampere University Hospital. BetweenMay 2004 and May 2005 students responded to the survey on theirhealth and lifestyle habits (overall response rate 88%). The 12% whodid not respond were absent from school on the day of the study.

In the Finnish Public Sector study, coordinated by the FinnishInstitute of Occupational Health (FIOH) (Vahtera et al., 2004), localgovernment personnel of the ten participating towns responded toa questionnaire between October 2004 and January 2005 (responserate 65%; school personnel response rate 54%, n ¼ 1946). The studywas approved by the Ethics Committee of the Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health. Of the secondary schools in the ten towns,150also participated in the Finnish school health promotion survey. Ofthese, five schools were excluded because they had fewer thana required minimum of four staff who had participated in theFinnish Public Sector study. Nine more schools were excludedbecause less than 30 students were participants in the Finnishschool health promotion survey, resulting in a total of 136 schools.The total number of participating staff was 1946 (495 men, 1451women); mean per school 14 (range 4e45, SD ¼ 6.9). Of the staff1856 (95%) were teachers (84 head teachers) and the rest (5%)mainly administrative staff and canteen workers.

The 136 schools yielded 25 879 pupil respondents (mean 190per school [range 32e531, SD ¼ 76.2]) of whom 24,623 (95%) hadcomplete data on demographics; the final sample for this study.

Measures

Teacher-level predictorsOrganizational justice was measured using two sub-scales: (1)

procedural justice scale and (2) relational justice scale. The proce-dural justice scale (seven items) requested the degree to whichrespondents considered that procedures used at the workplace hadbeen designed to collect accurate information necessary for makingdecisions, to provide opportunities to appeal or challenge thedecision, to generate standards so that decisions could be madewith consistency, and to hear the concerns of all those affected bythe decision (Moorman, 1991). The relational justice scale (sixitems) requested whether respondents thought that their super-visors were able to suppress personal biases, to treat subordinateswith kindness and consideration, and to take steps to deal withsubordinates in a truthful manner (Moorman, 1991). In both scalesresponses were given on a five-point scale ranging from1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 5 ¼ “strongly agree”. School-level meanswere calculated for each item of the both scales (Elovainio,Kivimaki, & Vahtera, 2002) and linked to each pupil in the pupilsurvey using school codes. We additionally calculated the reliabilityof the scales, as suggested by Mujahid and colleagues (Mujahid,Diez Roux, Morenoff, & Raghunathan, 2007), taking into accountthe hierarchical data structure (the multilevel model). The reli-ability score is calculated as the ratio of the “true” score variance tothe observed score variance in the sample school mean, with valuesranging from 0 to 1. The reliability will be high (close to 1) when: 1)the means vary substantially across schools (holding constant thesample size per group) or 2) the sample size per school is large. Forthe procedural justice scale the reliability was 0.47 and for therelational justice scale 0.79 in the current sample. Both of thesereliabilities are comparable to previous studies using similar scalesto ours, measuring environmental characteristics, such as socialcohesion (range 0.64e0.78) (Mujahid et al., 2007). The justicemeasures were further classified into quartiles. Similar classifica-tion has been used in previous epidemiological studies on thepotential health effects of organizational justice and healthoutcomes (Elovainio et al., 2002). Furthermore, using of quartiles

M. Elovainio et al. / Social Science & Medicine 73 (2011) 1675e1682 1677

(and specific cut-off points) makes it easier to make recommen-dations for interventions.

Pupil outcomesAll pupil variables were obtained from the Finnish school health

promotion study.

Academic performanceAcademic performance was assessed by the following question:

“Whatwas the average of all yourmarks in your last report?”with 8response categories ranging from <6.5 to 9.5e10. The followingthree categories were formulated: <7.5, 7.5e8.4, �8.5. The averageof all marks was calculated by summing up all the marks indifferent subjects (scale from 4 to 10) within one pupil and thendividing by the number of the subjects. Thus, belonging to thehighest category means that the pupil’s marks on average arehigher than 8 on the 4 to 10 scale.

Satisfaction with schoolSatisfaction with school was measured with a single-item

question: “How do you like going to school right now?” with thefollowing response alternatives: 1 ¼ very much; 2 ¼ quite much;3 ¼ quite little; 4 ¼ very little.

Potential to be heard at schoolPupils’ potential to be heard at school was assessed by three

statements (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.59), for example: “Teachersencourage me to express my opinion in the classroom” with thefollowing response alternatives: 1 ¼ totally agree; 2 ¼ agree;3 ¼ disagree; 4 ¼ totally disagree. A sum score was calculated fromdichotomized items (responses 1 to 2 ¼ 0 points; 3 ¼ 1 point; 4 ¼ 2points), and a variable with three categories was formulated (0e1points, 2e3 points, >3 points).

Depressive symptomsDepressive symptoms were measured using a shortened 12-

item Finnish version of the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory(R-BDI) (Beck, 1967; Beck & Beck, 1972; Chinet et al., 2006). In theFinnish version a positive alternative was added in each item andthe items were scored 0e0e1e2e3 (Raitasalo, 1995; Kaltiala-Heinoet al., 1999). A sum score for the number of depressive symptomswas then calculated and categorized as 0e4, 5e7, 8e15 and 16e36(Chinet et al., 2006) with the highest category representing majordepression (MD) (Bennett et al., 1997).

Psychosomatic symptomsFrequent psychosomatic symptoms (neck or shoulder pain, low

back pain, stomach pain, tension or nervousness, irritability ortantrums, sleeping problems, headache, and fatigue) were askedusing eight separate questions: “During the past six months, haveyou been..?”with response alternatives 1¼ never; 2¼ about oncea month, 3 ¼ about once a week; 4 ¼ almost every day. A dichot-omous variable (0 ¼ never to once a week; 1 ¼ almost every day)was calculated for each symptom. Finally, the scale of frequentpsychosomatic symptoms was formulated as the number of dailysymptoms, and this scale was further divided into three categories(0¼ 0 symptoms; 1¼1 symptom, and 2¼ 2 to 8 symptoms). As weassessed quitemild forms of psychosomatic symptoms such as neckand shoulder pain, headache, and tension, which are quite commonamong teenagers, the presence of frequent (almost daily) symp-toms was considered as a health risk.

AbsenteeismAbsenteeism levels were determined from the following three

questions: “How many schooldays have you been absent from

school due to 1) illness; 2) truancy; 3) other reason, during the pastmonth?”with the response alternatives 1 ¼ not at all; 2 ¼ one day;3 ¼ 2e3 days; 4 ¼more than 3 days. High absence in each categorywas identified as: 1¼0e3 days; 2¼more than 3 days. These cut-offpoints were used in order to be able to compare our results toprevious studies on high truancy with similar cut-off points (Henry& Huizinga, 2007; Kearney, 2008;).

Covariates

Sex and the pupils’ school grade were derived from surveyresponses. The pupil’s socioeconomic background was derivedfrom two questions in the survey asking the parents’ educationseparately for mother and father: “What is the highest educationyour parents have attained?” categorized as 1 ¼ comprehensiveschool/comprehensive school and vocational school; 2 ¼ uppersecondary school/upper secondary school and vocational school;3 ¼ college or university. If both mother’s and father’s educationwere reported, the highest was chosen. Socioeconomic position atthe level of the school was derived from the measure of individualsocioeconomic position as the percentage of pupils whose parentaleducation fell in category 1 (range 3.7%e67.9%). Of this, threecategories were calculated: <20; �20 < 40; �40.

Statistical analysis

We used the SAS 9.2 GLIMMIX procedure in the multilevelanalyses to assess individual level and school-level effects on pupiloutcomes. For dichotomous outcome variables (absenteeism), weused multilevel (random intercept) logistic regression models andcalculated odds ratios (OR) and their 95 percent confidence inter-vals (CI). For outcome variables with three or four categories, weused multilevel random intercept models with the multinomiallogistic regression procedure calculating cumulative odds ratios(COR) and their 95% CIs. In Tables 2e4, the first model includedcovariates in order to see their associationwith the outcome. In thesecond model (in each Tables 2e4), to test the independent effectsof procedural justice variable on outcomes, procedural justice wasentered in the model already adjusted for the covariates. Further-more, in the thirdmodel, to test the independent effect of relationaljustice on outcomes, relational justice was entered in the modelalready adjusted for the covariates. Similar testing procedure wasused in all outcomes (poor academic performance, dissatisfactionwith school and poor potential to be heard at school in Table 2,psychosomatic and depressive symptoms in Table 3 and absen-teeism in Table 4). Models 2 and 3 in each Table were adjusted forthe number of members of the staff other than teachers.

As we do not have continuous outcomes we reported MORs(Median Odds Ratios) to report school-level variance. The aim ofthe median odds ratio (MOR) is to translate the school-level vari-ance in the widely used odds ratio (OR) scale, which has a consis-tent and intuitive interpretation. Considering the school-levelresiduals of the multilevel model, the odds ratio between theperson at lowest risk and the person at highest risk is computed foreach pair of persons from different schools. The MOR is defined asthe median value of the distribution of this odds ratio.

Results

The descriptive characteristics of the pupils and schools arepresented in Table 1. Of the pupils, 52% were girls and 27% had lowparental education. Less than half of the respondents were satisfiedwith school and 10% thought their potential to be heard at schoolwas poor. Depression scores indicated that 78% had no depression,11% were mildly depressed, 8% were moderately depressed and 2%

Table 1Individual and school-level characteristics.

Pupil characteristics n (%)

SexBoy 11,781 (48)Girl 12,842 (52)

Grade8th (secondary school) 7954 (32)9th (secondary school) 7853 (32)1st (upper secondary school) 4811 (20)2nd (upper secondary school) 4005 (16)

Parental educationComprehensive school/comprehensiveschool and vocational school (low)

6760 (27)

Upper secondary school/upper secondaryschool and institute (moderate)

6516 (27)

College or university (high) 11,347 (46)Academic performance (range 4e10)<7.5 7189 (30)7.5e8.4 9764 (40)�8.5 7372 (30)

Satisfaction with schoolVery much 1095 (4)Quite much 9086 (37)Quite little 12,940 (53)Very little 1404 (6)

Potential to be heard at schoolGood 11,774 (48)Average 10,099 (42)Poor 2431 (10)

Depressive symptoms (score points)0e4 18,789 (78)5e7 2624 (11)8e15 2013 (8)16e36 589 (2)

Frequent psychosomatic symptoms (number)0 16,126 (68)1 4028 (17)2e8 3697 (16)

Absenteeism over the past month due to:Illness0e3 days 21,917 (92)4 days or more 1967 (8)

Truancy0e3 days 22,292 (95)4 days or more 1184 (5)

Other reason0e3 days 21,589 (92)4 days or more 2005 (9)

School-level characteristics

Proportion of pupils with low parental education (%)<20 6367 (26)�20 < 40 15,514 (63)�40 2742 (11)

Staff report of procedural justiceLowest quartile 6154 (25)2nd 5924 (24)3rd 6447 (26)Highest quartile 6098 (25)

Staff report of relational justiceLowest quartile 6027 (24)2nd 6260 (25)3rd 6208 (25)Highest quartile 6128 (25)


were severely depressed. Two or more frequent physical andpsychological symptoms were reported by 16% of the pupils. Of therespondents, 8% had been absent from school due sickness, 5% hadbeen absent from school due to truancy, and 9% due to otherreasons for more than 3 days during the past month. Among 136participating schools, there were relatively large differences in theproportion of pupils with low parental education between theschools. Procedural and relational justice were moderately corre-lated (r ¼ 0.59, p < 0.001). Of the outcomes, poor academic

performance was associated with dissatisfaction with school(r¼ 0.28, p< 0.001) andweaklywith poor perceived potential to beheard at school (r ¼ 0.13, p < 0.001). Dissatisfaction and poorpotential to be heard were related with each other (r ¼ 0.31,p < 0.001) as well as psychosomatic symptoms and depression(r ¼ 0.47, p < 0.001). Absenteeism due to various reasons were notstrongly interrelated. Less than 2% of the participants had beenabsent due to several reasons. There were no associations betweenthe relative number of other staff members than teachers andprocedural (r ¼ �0.07, n.s.) or relational justice (r ¼ 0.02, n.s.).

Justice perceptions among staff, pupils’ academic performance andattitudes toward school

Table 2 shows the association of individual and school-levelcovariates, staff experiences of organizational justice at school withpoor academic performance, dissatisfaction with school and poten-tial to be heard at school among pupils. Male sex and low parentaleducation were associated with all three outcomes. Socioeconomiccomposition of the school (high proportion of pupils with lowparental education)was associatedwithpooracademicperformanceand low school satisfaction. Pupils’ grades were related to alloutcomes so that high grade was associated with poorer academicperformance while higher grades were related to lower odds ofschool dissatisfaction and potential to become heard. After adjust-ment for all covariates (Model II), poor procedural justice among staffwas associated bothwith pupils’dissatisfactionwith school andpoorpotential to be heard at school (CORs ¼ 1.16 and 1.23, respectively).Poor relational justice (Model III) was associatedwith poor academicperformance (COR ¼ 1.30, in the models adjusted for covariates).

Justice perceptions among staff and pupils’ health

Table 3 presents the associations of pupil and school-levelcharacteristics and organizational justice among the school staffwith pupils’ psychosomatic and depressive symptoms. Of thepotential covariates, male sex was associated with lower odds ofboth frequent psychosomatic symptoms (COR ¼ 0.43) anddepressive symptoms (COR ¼ 0.49). Pupil’s high grade was relatedto frequent psychosomatic symptoms. Also low parental educationwas associated with depressive symptoms (COR ¼ 1.40). Afteradjustment for covariates, poor relational justice (Model III) wasassociated with pupils’ frequent psychosomatic (COR ¼ 1.15) anddepressive symptoms (COR ¼ 1.13). Procedural justice (Model II)was not associated with health indicators.

Justice perceptions among staff and pupils’ absenteeism

Table 4 presents the association of individual and school-levelcovariates and organizational justice assessed by the school staff,with pupils’ absenteeism. Low parental education was associatedwith absenteeism due to illness (OR¼ 1.37) and truancy (OR¼ 1.62)while it was related to lower odds of absenteeism due to otherreasons (OR ¼ 0.86). At the school-level the proportion of pupilswith low parental education was associated with absenteeism dueto illness (OR ¼ 1.42) and truancy (OR ¼ 1.59) but with a lowerprobability of absence due to other reasons. Low procedural andrelational justice were associated with truancy (OR¼ 1.40 and 1.46,respectively, adjusted for covariates) but not to absenteeism due tosickness or other reasons.

Sensitivity analyses

We additionally adjusted the models for the percentage offemale students, but that adjustment had no further effects on the

Table 2Cumulative odds ratios (COR) for the associations of pupil and school characteristics and staff justice evaluations with pupils’ academic performance and perception ofpsychosocial factors at school.

Individual and school-level factors Pupils’ reports

Poor academicperformance

Dissatisfaction with school Poor potential to beheard at school

COR (95% CI) COR (95% CI) COR (95% CI)

Model I Model I Model ISex Male vs female 2.08 (1.98e2.18) 1.63 (1.55e1.72) 1.15 (1.09e1.21)Grade 9th vs 8th 1.09 (1.02e1.16) 1.28 (1.20e1.36) 1.29 (1.21e1.37)

1st vs 8th 1.08 (0.92e1.27) 0.70 (0.62e0.80) 0.71 (0.62e0.83)2nd vs 8th 1.60 (1.36e1.88) 0.99 (0.87e1.12) 0.80 (0.69e0.93)

Parental education Average vs high 1.63 (1.53e1.73) 1.23 (1.16e1.31) 1.05 (0.99e1.11)Low vs high 2.73 (2.57e2.90) 1.45 (1.36e1.54) 1.15 (1.08e1.23)

Proportion of pupils with lowparental education

Moderate vs low 1.56 (0.131e1.85) 1.24 (1.09e1.41) 1.23 (1.05e1.43)High vs low 2.18 (1.71e2.78) 1.26 (1.05e1.52) 1.08 (0.87e1.34)

MOR 1.46 1.30 1.39

Model II Model II Model IIProcedural justice at school 3rd vs highest 0.94 (0.77e1.15) 1.07 (0.92e1.25) 1.04 (0.87e1.24)

2nd vs highest 0.91 (0.74e1.12) 1.05 (0.90e1.22) 1.06 (0.89e1.27)Lowest vs highest 1.11 (0.91e1.36) 1.16 (1.00e1.35) 1.23 (1.03e1.46)

MOR 1.45 1.30 1.38

Model III Model III Model IIIRelational justice at school 3rd vs highest 1.22 (0.99e1.49) 0.91 (0.79e1.06) 1.02 (0.85e1.22)


MOR 1.46 1.30 1.38

Model I: Association between covariates and outcomes; Model II: Procedural justice entered into Model I and adjusted for covariates and the number of non-teaching staff;Model III: Relational justice entered into Model I and adjusted for covariates and the number of non-teaching staff; MOR ¼ Median Odds Ratio.


results. The percentage of female students was not associated withprocedural (r ¼ �0.07, n.s.) or relational justice (r ¼ �0.01, n.s.).Similarly, high percentage of female students was not associatedwith any of the outcomes except absenteeism due to truancy (OR

Table 3Cumulative odds ratios (COR) for the associations of individual and school charac-teristics and staff evaluations with pupils’ health indicators.

Individual and school-level factors Pupils’ health indicators

Frequentpsychosomaticsymptoms

Depressivesymptoms

COR (95% CI) COR (95% CI)

Model I Model ISex Male vs female 0.43 (0.41e0.46) 0.49 (0.46e0.52)Grade 9th vs 8th 1.22 (1.14e1.31) 1.08 (1.00e1.17)

1st vs 8th 1.00 (0.90e1.10) 0.84 (0.75e0.94)2nd vs 8th 1.18 (1.07e1.31) 0.93 (0.83e1.04)

Parental education Average vs high 0.96 (0.90e1.03) 1.08 (0.99e1.16)Low vs high 1.12 (0.98e1.27) 1.40 (1.30e1.51)

Proportion of pupilswith low parentaleducation

Moderate vs low 1.04 (0.95e1.14) 1.10 (0.99e1.23)High vs low 1.12 (0.98e1.27) 1.10 (0.94e1.29)

MOR 1.15 1.19

Model II Model IIProcedural justice

at school3rd vs highest 0.95 (0.86e1.06) 0.93 (0.82e1.05)2nd vs highest 1.02 (0.92e1.14) 1.04 (0.92e1.18)Lowest vs highest 1.08 (0.97e1.19) 1.12 (0.99e1.26)

MOR 1.14 1.17

Model III Model IIIRelational justice

at school3rd vs highest 1.10 (0.99e1.22) 1.07 (0.94e1.21)2nd vs highest 1.06 (0.95e1.18) 1.00 (0.88e1.13)Lowest vs highest 1.15 (1.04e1.28) 1.13 (1.00e1.28)

MOR 1.14 1.18

Model I: Association between covariates and outcomes; Model II: Procedural justiceentered into Model I and adjusted for covariates and the number of non-teachingstaff; Model III: Relational justice entered into Model I and adjusted for covariatesand the number of non-teaching staff; MOR ¼ Median Odds ratio.

0.78, 95% CI 0.61e0.99). We also estimated the effect of multipletesting on our results. As we had multiple outcomes, Bonferronicorrected p-values (a conservative statistical adjustment to adjustfor multiple comparisons) were calculated (by multiplying eachprobability/p-value by the number of tests), in addition to uncor-rected p-values to reduce the risk of type 1 errors (false positivefindings) (Perneger, 1999).

Discussion

This study examined the hypothesis that the psychosocial workenvironment, defined as perceived organizational justice, amongschool staff is reflected in pupils’ wellbeing, academic perfor-mance, and health. All pupil outcomes varied dominantly betweenindividual pupils, but especially academic performance andabsenteeism due to truancy showed some school-level variabilityin the multilevel models. A similar pattern was found also in otherabsenteeism variables, dissatisfaction with school and poorpotential to be heard at school. In health outcomes the MORs wererelatively small indicating that especially health dominantlyvaried between individual pupils. Although the associationsvaried depending on the component of organizational justice, thedirection of these associations was the same for both justicedimensions. Pupils of teachers who experienced their organiza-tion to be low in procedural and relational justice had anincreased risk of being dissatisfied with school and perceived lessopportunity to be heard at school. Similarly these pupils had from40% to 46% higher risk of absence due to truancy. We found thatlow perceived relational justice among staff was strongly associ-ated with poor academic performance and absenteeism due totruancy. Furthermore, low relational justice among staff wasassociated with both higher odds of psychosomatic and depres-sive symptoms as reported by adolescents. The results provideevidence for these relationships above and beyond effects relatedto either parental socioeconomic status or socioeconomic status atthe level of the school.

Table 4Odds ratios (OR) for associations of individual and school characteristics and staff justice evaluations with pupils’ absenteeism.

Individual and school-level factors Pupils’ absenteeism due to

Illness Truancy Other reason

OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)

Model I Model I Model ISex Male vs female 0.98 (0.89e1.08) 1.00 (0.89e1.12) 1.01 (0.98e1.11)Grade 9th vs 8th 0.86 (0.77e0.96) 1.41 (1.21e1.64) 1.08 (0.97e1.21)

1st vs 8th 0.39 (0.32e0.47) 0.99 (0.77e1.26) 0.75 (0.62e1.90)2nd vs 8th 0.48 (0.40e0.58) 2.10 (1.68e2.63) 0.84 (0.69e1.01)

Parental education Average vs high 1.03 (0.91e1.16) 1.12 (0.96e1.30) 0.86 (0.76e0.96)Low vs high 1.37 (1.22e1.53) 1.62 (1.41e1.87) 0.86 (0.76e0.96)

Proportion of pupils withlow parental education

Moderate vs low 1.23 (1.04e1.45) 1.26 (1.00e1.58) 0.71 (0.60e0.85)High vs low 1.42 (1.12e1.79) 1.59 (1.16e2.18) 0.70 (0.54e0.90)

MOR 1.29 1.47 1.36

Model II Model II Model IIProcedural justice at school 3rd vs highest 1.08 (0.89e1.30) 1.17 (0.91e1.49) 1.09 (0.90e1.33)


MOR 1.29 1.40 1.32

Model III Model III Model IIIRelational justice at school 3rd vs highest 1.01 (0.84e1.22) 1.07 (0.83e1.38) 1.08 (0.88e1.32)


MOR 1.29 1.39 1.34

Model I: Association between covariates and outcomes; Model II: Procedural justice entered into Model I and adjusted for covariates and the number of non-teaching staff;Model III: Relational justice entered into Model I and adjusted for covariates and the number of non-teaching staff. MOR ¼ Median Odds ratio.


Prior work in this sample has reported that some dimensions(trust and opportunity for participation) of the team climate amongschool personnel correlated with pupils’ health and absenteeismdue to truancy (Virtanen et al., 2009). Our findings are in agreementwith that study and extend earlier evidence to research on orga-nizational justice. Taken together, this evidence suggests that thepsychosocial work environment, and more specifically, the qualityof social interaction and decisionmaking among teachers, is amongthe factors affecting school wellbeing in pupils. Our findings are inline with previous research which has shown that pupils’ ownperceptions of their school climate are associated with theiracademic performance, health, wellbeing and problem behaviors(Aveyard, Markham, & Cheng, 2004; Aveyard, Markham, Lancashireet al., 2004; Bonny et al., 2000; Han, 2009; Hill & Tyson, 2009;Karvonen et al., 2005; Konu, Alanen et al., 2002; Konu, Lintonenet al. 2002; Konu & Rimpela, 2002; Maddox & Prinz, 2003). It isplausible that when staff members feel they are treated fairly andcan trust management, they are more committed to their work-place and their work. A committed staff is probably more likely toprovide an optimal learning environment, encouraging pupils toconfide in them and in so doing, enabling the early detection ofacademic and health problems, and the prevention of antisocialbehavior. It is also possible that teachers’ perceptions of theirworkplace (i.e. schools) are likely indicators of systemic and school-wide phenomena that affect not just theworkplace but the learningenvironment.

Recent studies have formulated models combining the variouslevels and features of school environment in explaining adolescenthealth (Aveyard, Markham, & Cheng, 2004; Aveyard, Markham,Lancashire et al., 2004; Aveyard et al., 2009; Bond et al., 2007;Markham & Aveyard, 2003; Markham, Aveyard, Bisset, Lancashire,& Deakin, 2008). A sizeable body of literature shows similarresults to ours and may provide theoretical explanations for thepotential link between psychosocial factors, such as organizationaljustice among school staff, and adolescent health and health relatedbehavior. Some school climate literature has explored its influenceon health outcomes, and has paid attention to structural features

such as school and class sizes. Functional characteristics of theschool (students’ involvement in decision making, clarity, andfairness of school rules, etc.), are also thought to influence healthand wellbeing among students (Birnbaum et al., 2003). Ecologicaland developmental frameworks, applied to a school setting, mayalso help to identify and describe the components of a schoolenvironment, which enhance student connections and improveadolescent developmental health (Waters, Cross, & Runions, 2009).

We found consistent associations between justice dimensionsand truancy. Truancy has frequently been considered part ofa general deviance or ‘problem behavior’ syndrome in which poorschool performance, mental health problems, aggression,substance abuse and family difficulties are clustered (Miller & Plant,1999). We found a relationship between staff evaluations of both ofthe two dimensions of justice and truancy, but not between any ofthe justice dimensions and absenteeism for sickness or otherreasons. Perceived procedural and relational injustice has beenshown to be associated with retaliation, stealing from work andother antisocial behavior among adults (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).Our findings suggest that there is a shared perception of schoolclimate between pupils and staff that may affect problem behaviorand school withdrawal.

We also found some, albeit modest, support for a link betweenperceived organizational justice at school and pupils’ wellbeing, asmeasured by various symptoms of ill health. Our results suggestthat low relational justice among staff is associated with frequentpsychosomatic symptoms and even depressive symptoms amongpupils in the same school. It is reasonable to assume that lowrelational justice among teachers leads to a cold and inconsiderateclimate in the entire school, which in turn, affects the quality ofrelationships between staff and pupils.

These results correspond well with the results of many earlierstudies and underscore the importance of organizational justicefactors such as fair treatment, influence and appreciation, forvarious organizational outcomes. Organizational justice has beenrelated to emotional reactions, and low perceived justice has beenshown to play an important role in the health and wellbeing of


employees (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996; Elovainio, Kivimaki, &Helkama, 2001; Elovainio et al., 2002). It has also been associatedwith job dissatisfaction, retaliation, workplace aggression, lowerwork commitment and withdrawal (Folger & Konovsky, 1989;Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; McFarlin & Sweeney,1992; Moorman, 1991).

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study include the large data set with over24,000 Finnish adolescents and theuseof two independent samples,which minimizes the bias related to common method variance. Theresponse rate in the pupils’ survey was high (84%), whereas theresponse rate among the school staff was moderate, 54%. One limi-tation of the study is that 12% of the students were absent fromschool on the day of the study and because the survey was anony-mous, we were not able to evaluate whether they were different ewith respect to demographic features e from students whocompleted the survey. This is a problembecause oneof theoutcomesof interestwas truancy (and studentswho are absent aremore likelyto be truant than those who completed the survey). The previousstudies, however suggest that truancy is clustered with morefrequent problem behavior including poor school performance andhostile attitudes. Another limitation is that relatively lownumbers ofstaff for each school determined the justice ratings for each school.The mean number of staff participants for each school was 14 butsome schools were represented by as few as four members of staff,whichmay have introduced a formof bias, particularly as the type ofstaffmemberwho completed the surveymaybedifferent to the typeof staff member who decided to opt out. Schools with highernumbers of teachers reporting data would have more precise esti-mates than a school that has a smaller number of teachers reportingdata. The lower response rate among staff may have biased theresults especially if non-response was non-random in relation tojustice evaluations and to pupil outcomes. Another limitation is thatresponses from teachers, administrators, and workers werecombined to provide information about the environment; each ofthese groups may have different views about the school.

The education literature has repeatedly shown that bothstudents whose parents have low education and schools witha high percentage of students from such backgrounds are impor-tant factors inhibiting children’s learning or promoting healthproblems and problem behavior (Borman & Overman, 2004;Crosnoe, 2005; Griffiths, 2003; McNeal, 1997; Moody, 2001).Teachers have also been found to have less positive (or morenegative) interactions with students from low-income families orin poverty-stricken schools (Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & Bradley,2002; Pianta, Stuhlman, & Hamre, 2002). This is especially harmfulbecause teacherechild relationships matter greatly to children’sacademic learning process and their resulting achievements (Earlyet al., 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001, 2005; Pianta & Nichd, 2007;Pianta, Stuhlman et al., 2002; Stuhlman & Pianta, 2004). Ourfinding that staff reports of low organizational justice at school wasrelated to poor academic performance andwellbeing among pupils,however, was robust to adjustment of the models for the parent’seducation level as well as the composition of the school in relationto parental education. However, in Finland and in Scandinaviancountries socioeconomic differences between geographical areasand thus also schools are relatively small compared to many othercountries and areas. Income inequality in general in Finland is also,although growing, still exceptionally small compared to otherEuropean countries or US (Smeeding & Gottschalk, 1999). This maypartly explain why differences in parental socioeconomic positiondid not account for the associations between justice and academicperformance.

A limitation of our study is that our measurement of pupilcomposition was based on pupils’ report of their parents’ educa-tion, whichmay not best capture the socioeconomic composition ofthe school. However, we analyzed correlations between psycho-social variables and pupil composition and found that none weresignificantly correlated with pupil composition (p > 0.30), indi-cating that this limitation is unlikely to be a major source of bias inour study. Other characteristics, such as attachment to the family,have been shown to affect adolescent health and problem behavior,but we were not able to adjust for that in the present analysis.However, attachment to the family may act as a confounding factoronly if it is also related to school staff perceptions of organizationaljustice at school or if particularly caring parents send their childrento certain types of schools according to justice and leadershipwhilst other parents send their children to other types of school.

Because our study was cross sectional, we cannot drawconclusions about the temporal order between the variables. It ispossible that health problems and problem behavior amongadolescents affect staff perceptions of organizational justice atschool. However, the perception of decision making rules ormanagerial treatment cannot easily be explained by pupils’ illhealth or problem behavior. Selection bias cannot be ruled outeither. Personnel with low work motivation may be employed byschools where pupils also have health related and behavioralproblems. Prospective studies are therefore needed to confirm thedirection of the causality. In addition, due to the scale justice wasmeasured, it was unclear whether the “supervisors” mentioned inthe relational justice scale are superintendents or principals. This,however, probably did not cause any systematic bias.

In their School wellbeingmodel, Konu and others (Konu, Alanen,Lintonen et al., 2002) suggested that management is one of factorsdefining the social relationships affecting school wellbeing. Ourstudy offers more explicit theoretical and methodological tools forevaluating the school related outcomes of management andpsychosocial factors in general. Social aspects of organizational life,such as the impact on decision making processes and treatment ofemployees by the management, affect employee wellbeing (forexample, Elovainio et al., 2002). The justice perception concerns theindividual experience of fair treatment, not justice per se. If theorganizational management strives toward a healthy organizationwith healthy employees, the aims in this process cannot only be toensure equality and justice, they must also confirm that theemployees perceive the organization as just.

In conclusion, our results provide further evidence about thepotential determinants of wellbeing at school. The present findingssuggest that organizational justice affecting school staff is animportant contributor to adolescent health and wellbeing in thesame schools. Our results suggest that it may be useful to improvethe decision making procedures and managerial practices inschools by including various ways of increasing cooperation,enhancing mutual interaction within work groups, and improvingemployee participation in building up various feedback systems. Byimproving the capacities of supervisors to treat employees equi-tably and fairly it may be possible to influence the entire schoolclimate and thus affect many outcomes at the level of the pupils.

Acknowledgments

ME is supported by Work Environment Fund and the Academyof Finland (grant number 128002). MK is supported by the BUPAFoundation, the Academy of Finland and the EU New OSH ERAResearch Program Grant; JEF is supported by the Medical ResearchCouncil; JV was supported by the Academy of Finland (grantnumbers 124322, 124271, 132944); MV as supported by theAcademy of Finland (Grant number 133535).


References

Anderson, C. (1982). The search for school climate: a review of the research.Research of Educational Research, 52(3), 368e420.

Aveyard, P., Markham, W. A., & Cheng, K. K. (2004). A methodological andsubstantive review of the evidence that schools cause pupils to smoke. SocialScience & Medicine, 58(11), 2253e2265.

Aveyard, P., Markham, W. A., Lancashire, E., Bullock, A., Macarthur, C., Cheng, K. K.,et al. (2004). The influence of school culture on smoking among pupils. SocialScience & Medicine, 58(9), 1767e1780.

Aveyard, P., Wang, D., Connock, M., Fry-Smith, A., Barton, P., & Moore, D. (2009).Assessing the outcomes of prolonged cessation-induction and aid-to-cessationtrials:floatingprolongedabstinence.Nicotine andTobaccoResearch,11(5), 475e480.

Beck, A. (1967). Depression. Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York:Harper & Row.

Beck, A., & Beck, R. (1972). Screening depressed patients in family practice. A rapidtechnic. Postgraduate Medicine, 52, 81e85.

Bennett, D. S., Ambrosini, P. J., Bianchi, M., Barnett, D., Metz, C., & Rabinovich, H.(1997). Relationship of beck depression inventory factors to depression amongadolescents. Journal of Affective Disorders, 45(3), 127e134.

Birnbaum, A. S., Lytle, L. A., Hannan, P. J., Murray, D. M., Perry, C. L., & Forster, J. L.(2003). School functioning and violent behavior among young adolescents:a contextual analysis. Health Education Research, 18(3), 389e403.

Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., et al. (2007). Social andschool connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenagesubstance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of AdolescentHealth, 40(4), 357.e9e357.e18.

Bonny, A. E., Britto, M. T., Klostermann, B. K., Hornung, R. W., & Slap, G. B. (2000).School disconnectedness: identifying adolescents at risk. Pediatrics, 106(5),1017e1021.

Borman, G. D., & Overman, L. T. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics amongpoor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 177e195.

Britto, M. T., Klostermann, B. K., Bonny, A. E., Altum, S. A., & Hornung, R. W. (2001).Impact of a school-based intervention on access to healthcare for underservedyouth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(2), 116e124.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explainingreactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189e208.

Chinet, L., Plancherel, B., Bolognini, M., Bernard, M., Laget, J., Daniele, G., et al.(2006). Substance use and depression. Comparative course in adolescents.European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 149e155.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, R. D., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues,fairness heauristics, social entities and denizens of organizational justice.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 164e209.

Crosnoe, R. (2005). Double disadvantage or signs of resilience? The elementaryschool context of children from Mexican immigrant families. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 42, 269e303.

Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., et al.(2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academicskills: results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development,78(2), 558e580.

Elovainio,M., Kivimaki,M., &Helkama,K. (2001). Organization justice evaluations, jobcontrol, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 418e424.

Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: evidence ofa new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1),105e108.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justicereactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115e130.

Greenberg, J., &Colquitt, J. A. (2005).Handbook of organizational justice. New Jersey: LEA.Griffiths, J. (2003). Schools as organizational models: Implications for examining

school effectiveness. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 29e47.Hakala, P., Rimpelä, A., Salminen, J. J., Virtanen, S. M., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Back,

neck, and shoulder pain in Finnish adolescents: national cross sectional study.BMJ, 325, 743.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacherechild relationships and thetrajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Develop-ment, 72(2), 625e638.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in thefirst-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?Child Development, 76(5), 949e967.

Han, W.-J. (2009). The academic trajectories of children of immigrants and theirschool environments. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1572e1590.

Henry, K. L., & Huizinga, D. H. (2007). Truancy’s effect on the onset of drug useamong urban adolescents placed at risk. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4),358.e9e358.e17.

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parent involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Develop-mental Psychology, 45, 740763.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpelä, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999).Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: schoolsurvey. BMJ, 319, 348e351.

Karvonen, S., Vikat, A., & Rimpela, M. (2005). The role of school context in theincrease in young people’s health complaints in Finland. Journal of Adolescence,28(1), 1e16.

Kearney, C. A. (2008). School absenteeism and school refusal behavior in youth:a contemporary review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(3), 451e471.

Konu, A., Alanen, E., Lintonen, T., & Rimpela, M. (2002). Factor structure of theschool well-being model. Health Education Research, 17(6), 732e742.

Konu, A., & Rimpela, M. (2002). Well-being in schools: a conceptual model. HealthPromotion International, 17(1), 79e87.

Konu, A. I., Lintonen, T. P., & Rimpela, M. K. (2002). Factors associated withschoolchildren’s general subjective well-being. Health Education Research, 17(2),155e165.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social psychology of procedural justice. New York:Plenum.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice aspredictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academyof Management Journal, 36, 626e637.

McNeal, R. (1997). High school dropouts: a closer examination of school effects.Social Science Quarterly, 78, 209e222.

Maddox, S. J., & Prinz, R. J. (2003). School bonding in children and adolescents:conceptualization, assessment and associated variables. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review, 6, 31e49.

Markham, W. A., & Aveyard, P. (2003). A new theory of health promoting schoolsbased on human functioning, school organisation and pedagogic practice. SocialScience & Medicine, 56(6), 1209e1220.

Markham, W. A., Aveyard, P., Bisset, S. L., Lancashire, E. R., & Deakin, S. (2008).Value-added education and smoking uptake in schools: a cohort study. Addic-tion, 103, 155e161.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justiceand social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment onwork relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738e748, Specialresearch forum on themanagement of organizations in the natural environment.

Matthews, C., Boon, H., Flisher, A., & Schaalman, H. P. (2006). Factors associated withteachers’ implementation of HIV/AIDS education in secondary schools in CapeTown, South Africa. AIDS Care, 18, 388e397.

Miller, P., & Plant, M. (1999). Truancy and perceived school performance: an alcoholand drug study of UK teenagers. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 34, 886e893.

Moody, J. (2001). Race, school integration and friendship segregation in America.American Journal of Sociology, 107, 679e716.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organiza-tional citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citi-zenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845e855.

Mujahid, M. S., Diez Roux, A. V., Morenoff, J. D., & Raghunathan, T. (2007). Assessingthe measurement properties of neighborhood scales: from psychometrics toecometrics. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(8), 858e867.

Parcel, G. S., Perry, C. L., Kelder, S. H., Elder, J. P., Mitchell, P. D., Lytle, L. A., et al.(2003). School climate and the institutionalization of the CATCH program.Health Education & Behavior, 30(4), 489e502.

Perneger, T. V. (1999). Adjusting for multiple testing in studies is less importantthan other concerns. BMJ, 318(7193), 1288.

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation ofkindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family and school character-istics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 225e238.

Pianta, R. C., & Nichd. (2007). Developmental science and education: the NICHDstudy of early child care and youth development findings from elementaryschool. Advances in Child Development & Behavior, 35, 253e296.

Pianta, R. C., Stuhlman, M. W., & Hamre, B. K. (2002). How schools can do better:fostering stronger connections between teachers and students. New Directionsfor Youth Development, 93, 91e107.

Raitasalo, R. (1995). Elämänhallinta sosiaalipolitiikan tavoitteena. Kansaneläkelaitos,Sosiaali-ja terveysturvan tutkimuksia 1. Helsinki: Kelan omatarvepaino.

Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979e2002. Journalof School Psychology, 40(6), 451e475.

Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor, K. E. (1999). Stu-denteschool bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health EducationResearch, 14, 99e107.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles ofdistributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 434e443.

Smeeding, T. M., & Gottschalk, P. (1999). Cross-national income inequality: howgreat it is and what can we learn from it? International Journal of Health Services,23, 733e741.

Stuhlman, M., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Teacherechild relationship and children’ssuccess in the first year of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444e458.

Vahtera, J., Kivimaki, M., Pentti, J., Linna, A., Virtanen, M., Virtanen, P., et al. (2004).Organisational downsizing, sickness absence, and mortality: 10-townprospective cohort study. BMJ, 328(7439), 555.

Virtanen, M., Kivimaki, M., Luopa, P., Vahtera, J., Elovainio, M., Jokela, J., et al. (2009).Staff reports of psychosocial climate at school and adolescents’ health, truancyandhealtheducation in Finland.European Journal of PublicHealth,19(5), 554e560.

Waters, S. K., Cross, D. S., & Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological structuressupporting adolescent connectedness to school: a theoretical model. Journal ofSchool Health, 79(11), 516e524.

Youngblade, L. M., Theokas, C., Schulenberg, J., Curry, L., Huang, I. C., & Novak, M.(2007). Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities:a contextual model of positive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics,119(Suppl. 1), S47eS53.

Documents

Organizational justice at school and its associations with pupils’ psychosocial school environment, health, and wellbeing