10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Third Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          A new third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) has been developed in response to trends in working life, theoretical concepts, and international experience. A key component of the COPSOQ III is a defined set of mandatory core items to be included in national short, middle, and long versions of the questionnaire. The aim of the present article is to present and test the reliability of the new international middle version of the COPSOQ III.

          Methods

          The questionnaire was tested among 23,361 employees during 2016–2017 in Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. A total of 26 dimensions (measured through scales or single items) of the middle version and two from the long version were tested. Psychometric properties of the dimensions were assessed regarding reliability (Cronbach α), ceiling and floor effects (fractions with extreme answers), and distinctiveness (correlations with other dimensions).

          Results

          Most international middle dimensions had satisfactory reliability in most countries, though some ceiling and floor effects were present. Dimensions with missing values were rare. Most dimensions had low to medium intercorrelations.

          Conclusions

          The COPSOQ III offers reliable and distinct measures of a wide range of psychosocial dimensions of modern working life in different countries; although a few measures could be improved. Future testing should focus on validation of the COPSOQ items and dimensions using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Such investigations would enhance the basis for recommendations using the COPSOQ III.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions.

          J Siegrist (1996)
          In addition to the person-environment fit model (J. R. French, R. D. Caplan, & R. V. Harrison, 1982) and the demand-control model (R. A. Karasek & T. Theorell, 1990), a third theoretical concept is proposed to assess adverse health effects of stressful experience at work: the effort-reward imbalance model. The focus of this model is on reciprocity of exchange in occupational life where high-cost/low-gain conditions are considered particularly stressful. Variables measuring low reward in terms of low status control (e.g., lack of promotion prospects, job insecurity) in association with high extrinsic (e.g., work pressure) or intrinsic (personal coping pattern, e.g., high need for control) effort independently predict new cardiovascular events in a prospective study on blue-collar men. Furthermore, these variables partly explain prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, atherogenic lipids) in 2 independent studies. Studying adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions seems well justified, especially in view of recent developments of the labor market.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Precarious employment: understanding an emerging social determinant of health.

            Employment precariousness is a social determinant that affects the health of workers, families, and communities. Its recent popularity has been spearheaded by three main developments: the surge in "flexible employment" and its associated erosion of workers' employment and working conditions since the mid-1970s; the growing interest in social determinants of health, including employment conditions; and the availability of new data and information systems. This article identifies the historical, economic, and political factors that link precarious employment to health and health equity; reviews concepts, models, instruments, and findings on precarious employment and health inequalities; summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of this literature; and highlights substantive and methodological challenges that need to be addressed. We identify two crucial future aims: to provide a compelling research program that expands our understanding of employment precariousness and to develop and evaluate policy programs that effectively put an end to its health-related impacts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance.

              We evaluate psychometric properties of a short version of the original effort-reward imbalance (ERI) questionnaire. This measure is of interest in the context of assessing stressful work conditions in the era of economic globalization. In a representative sample of 10,698 employed men and women participating in the longitudinal Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) in Germany, a short version of the ERI questionnaire was included in the 2006 panel wave. Structural equation modeling and logistic regression analysis were applied. In addition to satisfactory internal consistency of scales, a model representing the theoretical structure of the scales provided the best data fit in a competitive test (RMSEA = 0.059, CAIC = 4124.19). Scoring high on the ERI scales was associated with elevated risks of poor self-rated health. This short version of the ERI questionnaire reveals satisfactory psychometric properties, and can be recommended for further use in research and practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Saf Health Work
                Saf Health Work
                Safety and Health at Work
                Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute
                2093-7911
                2093-7997
                06 November 2019
                December 2019
                06 November 2019
                : 10
                : 4
                : 482-503
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division 3 Work and Health, Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]Center for Work Life and Evaluation Studies (CTA) and the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
                [3 ]Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health (ISTAS), Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Freiburg Research Centre for Occupational Sciences (FFAW), Freiburg, Germany
                [5 ]Preventis, Paris, France
                [6 ]Department of Public Health, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
                [7 ]Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW), Hamilton, Canada
                [8 ]Task-Consult, Gilleleje, Denmark
                [9 ]Research Group on Psychosocial Risks, Organization of Work and Health (POWAH), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [10 ]Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [11 ]Lorraine University, Nancy, France
                [12 ]Institute for Work and Health (IWH), Toronto, ON, Canada
                [13 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
                [14 ]Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
                [15 ]Institut für Medizinische Psychologie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Unit 3.4. Mental Health and Cognitive Capacity, Division 3 Work and Health, Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Nöldnerstraße 40-42, 10317, Berlin, Germany. burr.hermann@ 123456baua.bund.de
                Article
                S2093-7911(18)30272-5
                10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002
                6933167
                31890332
                bd12e090-c97e-4ee0-9be1-7f2bb4a22f2d
                © 2019 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 25 July 2018
                : 20 September 2019
                : 23 October 2019
                Categories
                Original Article

                Occupational & Environmental medicine
                psychosocial risk factors,psychosocial working conditions,risk assessment

                Comments

                Comment on this article