Advertisement

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

  • Johannes Siegrist
  • Natalia Wege
  • Frank Pühlhofer
  • Morten Wahrendorf
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

This short version of the ERI questionnaire reveals satisfactory psychometric properties, and can be recommended for further use in research and practice.

Keywords

Effort Reward imbalance Psychometric properties Short version Work stress Economic globalization 

References

  1. Antoniou ASG, Cooper CC (eds) (2005) Research companion to organizational health psychology. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Benach J, Mutaner C, Benavides FG, Amable M, Jodar P (2002) A new occupational health agenda for a new work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 28:191–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boomsma A, Hoogland JJ (2001) The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In: Cudeck R, du Toit S, Sörbom D (eds) Structural equation models: present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Scientific Software International, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J, Marmot M (1998) Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Public Health 88:68–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne BM (2001) Structural equation modeling With AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright S, Cooper CC (eds) (2008) The Oxford handbook of organizational well being. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran PJ, West SG, Finch JF (1996) The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Methods 1:16–29. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jonge J, van der Linden S, Schaufeli W, Peter R, Siegrist J (2008) Factorial invariance and stability of the effort–reward imbalance scales: a longitudinal analysis of two samples with different time lags. Int J Behav Med 15:62–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godin I, Kittel F (2004) Differential economic stability and psychosocial stress at work: associations with psychosomatic complaints and absenteeism. Soc Sci Med 58:1543–1553. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00345-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu L-T, Bentler P (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling. concepts, issues and applications. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Idler EL, Benyamini Y (1997) Self-rated health and mortality: review of 27 community studies. J Health Soc Behav 38:21–37. doi: 10.2307/2955359 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joksimovic L, Starke D, von dem Knesebeck O, Siegrist J (2002) Perceived work stress, overcommitment, and self-reported musculoskeletal pain: a cross-sectional investigation. Int J Behav Med 9:122–138. doi: 10.1207/S15327558IJBM0902_04 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landsbergis PA (2003) The changing organization of work and the safety and health of working people: a commentary. J Occup Environ Med 45:61–71. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200301000-00014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marcoulides GA, Hershberger SL (1997) Multivariate statistical methods: a first course. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  16. Moutsatsos E (2008) Economic globalization and its effects on labor. In: Schnall PL, Dobson M, Rosskam E, Baker D, Landsbergis P (eds) Unhealthy work: causes, consequences and cures. Baywood Press, Amityville, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2002) How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Struct Equ Modeling 9:599–620. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Niedhammer I, Tek L, Starke D, Siegrist J (2004) Effort–reward imbalance model and self reported health: cross sectional and perspective evidence from the causal cohort. Soc Sci Med 58:1531–1541. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00346-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Nurminen M (2008) Worklife expectancies of fixed-term employees in Finland 1997–2006. Scand J Work Environ Health 34:83–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrewe PL, Ganster DC (eds) (2002) Historical and current perspectives on stress and health. JAI Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Rödel A, Siegrist J, Hessel A, Brähler E (2004) Psychometrische Testung des Fragebogens zur Messung beruflicher Gratifikationskrisen an einer repräsentativen deutschen Stichprobe. Z Differ Diagn Psychol 25:227–238. doi: 10.1024/0170-1789.25.4.227 Google Scholar
  23. Schnall PL, Dobson M, Rosskam E, Baker D, Landsbergis P (eds) (2008) Unhealthy work: causes, consequences and cures. Baywood Press, Amityville, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1:27–41. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R (2004) The measurement of effort−reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58:1483–1499. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00351-4 Google Scholar
  26. Siegrist J, Theorell T (2006) Socioeconomic position and health. The role of work and employment. In: Siegrist J, Marmot M (eds) Social inequalities in health: new evidence and policy implications. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M, von dem Knesebeck O, Jürgens H, Börsch-Supan A (2006) Quality of work, well-being, and intended early retirement of older employees–baseline results from the SHARE study. Eur J Public Health 17:62–68. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckl084 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spiegel JM, Labonte R, Ostry A (2004) Understanding “globalization” as a determinant of health determinants: a critical perspective. Int J Occup Environ Health 10:360–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Stansfeld SA, Fuhrer R, Shipley MJ, Marmot MG (1999) Work characteristics predict psychiatric disorder: prospective results from the Whitehall II Study. Occup Environ Med 56:302–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Starke D, Niedhammer I (2002) Gender and effort-reward imbalance at work. In: Wamala SP, Lynch J (eds) Gender and social inequities in health. Lund, StudentlitteraturGoogle Scholar
  31. Tabanelli MC, Depolo M, Cooke RMT, Sarchielli G Bonfiglioli, Mattioli S, Violante FS (2008) Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1–12. doi: 10.1007/s00420-008-0312-6
  32. The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) http://www.diw.de/soep. Accessed 28. Oct 2008
  33. Tsutsumi A, Kawakami N (2004) A review of empirical studies on the model of effort–reward imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory. Soc Sci Med 59:2335–2359. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.03.030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsutsumi A, Nagami M, Morimoto K, Matoba T (2002) Responsiveness of measures of effort–reward imbalance questionnaire to organizational change: a validation study. J Psychosom Res 52:249–256. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00291-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsutsumi A, Iwata N, Wakita T, Kunagai R, Noguchi H, Kawakami N (2008) Improving the measurement accuracy of the effort–reward imbalance scales. Int J Behav Med 15:109–119. doi: 10.1080/10705500801929718 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vahtera J, Kivimaki M, Pentti J, Linna A, Virtanen M, Virtanen P, Ferrie JE (2004) Organisational downsizing, sickness absence, and mortality: 10-town prospective cohort study. BMJ 328:555. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37972.496262.0D
  37. van Vegchel N, de Jonge J, Bosma H, Schaufeli W (2005) Reviewing the effort–reward imbalance model: drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Soc Sci Med 60:1117–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.043 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiner H (1992) Perturbing the organism. The biology of stressful experience. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Siegrist
    • 1
  • Natalia Wege
    • 1
  • Frank Pühlhofer
    • 1
  • Morten Wahrendorf
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DuesseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations