Abstract
BackgroundSeveral instruments have been developed to assess psychosocial workload. We compared two of these instruments, the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) with regard to congruent validity and internal validity.MethodsThis analysis is based on a population-based sample of the baseline examination of 2,783 employees from the Gutenberg Health Study (GHS). About half of the participants completed the ERI questionnaire (n = 1,342), the other half completed the COPSOQ (n = 1,441). First, the two samples were compared and descriptive analyses were carried out calculating mean values for both instruments in general, then separately for age, gender and main occupational groups. Second, we analyzed the relationship between ERI and COPSOQ scales on the workplace situation and on the workplace outcomes: job satisfaction, general health, burnout, satisfaction with life, by applying stepwise logistic regression analysis.Results and discussionFor the majority of occupations, high effort as reflected by the ERI corresponded with high demands as reflected by the COPSOQ. Comparably, high reward (according to ERI) yielded a good agreement with high “influence and development” (according to COPSOQ). However, we could also find differences between ERI and COPSOQ concerning the intensity of psychosocial workload in some occupations (e.g., physicians/pharmacists or warehouse managers/warehousemen/transport workers). These differences point to differing theoretical concepts of ERI and COPSOQ. When the ability of ERI and COPSOQ was examined to determine the associations with health and work outcomes, burnout could be better predicted by the COPSOQ; this might be due to the fact that COPSOQ comprises the constructs “work-privacy conflict” and “emotional demand”, which are closely related to burnout. However, methodological differences between these instruments limit their direct comparability.ConclusionsThe ERI and COPSOQ instrument yielded similar results for most occupational groups. The slightly stronger association between psychosocial workload as assessed by COPSOQ and burnout might be explained by its broader approach. The ability of the ERI and COPSOQ instrument to reflect relevant risk factors for clinically manifest disorders (e.g., coronary heart disease) will be derived from subsequent prospective analyses of the GHS with the follow-up data.
Highlights
Several instruments have been developed to assess psychosocial workload
The slightly stronger association between psychosocial workload as assessed by Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) and burnout might be explained by its broader approach
Two models dealing with the relationship between stress factors and the consequences of stress as health complaints and clinical disorders are leading in European occupational health research: First, the “demand-control model”, originally formulated by Karasek [2] which has later been expanded to the “demand-control-support model” [3] by adding the dimension of social support
Summary
Several instruments have been developed to assess psychosocial workload. We compared two of these instruments, the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model and the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) with regard to congruent validity and internal validity. Two models dealing with the relationship between stress factors and the consequences of stress as health complaints and clinical disorders are leading in European occupational health research: First, the “demand-control model”, originally formulated by Karasek [2] which has later been expanded to the “demand-control-support model” [3] by adding the dimension of social support. This model assumes working situations to have negative psychological or physical consequences especially when high demands concur with limited decision latitude (and low social support at the workplace in the extended model)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
