Advertisement

The psychometric properties of demand-control and effort–reward imbalance scales among Brazilian nurses

  • Rosane Härter GriepEmail author
  • Lucia Rotenberg
  • Ana Glória G. Vasconcellos
  • Paul Landsbergis
  • Cláudia M. Comaru
  • Márcia Guimarães M. Alves
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the psychometric adequacy of the demand-control-support (DCS) and the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) questionnaires in relation to their respective theoretical models among workers within the same psychosocial work environment.

Methods

A self-report questionnaire was administered to 1,509 nursing personnel at two Brazilian hospitals. Analyses were based on internal consistency, corrected item-total correlation, and confirmatory factor analysis models for ordinal data (conducted with Mplus software) to test the fit of each model.

Results

Internal consistency was satisfactory (>0.70) for most scales of the DCS and ERI questionnaires, except for the job decision latitude scale (α = 0.50). With reference to corrected item-total correlations, adequate performance was observed for most items of both questionnaires. The item ‘Do you have to do same thing over and over again’ had a very low corrected item-total correlation (−0.09) and the removal of this item increased the internal consistency of the skill discretion subscale. Overall, fit indices (of factorial validity) for the DCS and the ERI questionnaires were adequate. However, a low correlation between subscales of the decision latitude scale (−0.164) was observed. For the psychological job demands and overcommitment scales, the best adjustment of the model was obtained when correlated errors between items were considered.

Conclusions

Strengths and limitations were observed in both the DCS and the ERI scales. The questionnaires could be improved by the revision of some items.

Keywords

Reliability Validity Work stress Effort–reward imbalance Demand-control model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contribution of the study participants and financial support from National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) and FAPERJ. L.R. is an Irving Selikof International Fellow of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine ITREOH Program. Her work was supported in part by Grant 1 D43 TW00640 from the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alves MGM, Chor D, Faerstein E, Lopes C. de S, Werneck GL (2004) Short version of the ‘job stress scale’: a Portuguese-language adaptation. Rev Saúde Pública 38(2): 164–171Google Scholar
  2. 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 88:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 1ª edn. The Guilford Press, New York, p 475Google Scholar
  4. Buapetch A, Lagampan S, Faucett J, Kalampakorn S (2008) The Thai version of effort–reward imbalance questionnaire (Thai ERIQ): a study of psychometric properties in garment workers. J Occup Health 50(6):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calnan M, Wadsworth E, May M, Smith A, Wainwright D (2004) Job strain, effort–reward imbalance, and stress at work: competing or complementary models? Scand J Public Health 32:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi B, Kawakami N, Chang S, Koh S, Bjorner J, Punnett L, Karasek R (2008) A cross-national study on the multidimensional characteristics of five-item psychological demands scale of the job content questionnaire. Int J Behav Med 15:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chor D, Werneck GL, Faerstein E, Alves MGM, Rotenberg L (2008) The Brazilian version of the effort–reward imbalance questionnaire to assess job stress. Cad Saúde Pública 24(1):219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Araujo TM, Karasek R (2008) Validity and reliability of the job content questionnaire in formal and informal jobs in Brazil. SJWEH Suppl 6:52–59Google Scholar
  9. de Jonge J, Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J (2000) Job strain, effort–reward imbalance and employee well being a large-scale cross-sectional study. Soc Sci Med 50:1317–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin JM, Greiner BA, Stansfeld SA, Marmot M (2007) The effect of self-reported and observed job conditions on depression and anxiety symptoms: a comparison of theoretical models. J Occup Health Psychol 12(4):334–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanson E, Schaufeli W, Vrijkotte T, Plomp NH, Godaert GLR (2000) The validity and reliability of the Dutch effort–reward imbalance questionnaire. J Occup Health Psychol 5(1):142–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson JV, Hall EM (1988) Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health 78:1336–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karasek RA (1979) Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 24:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karasek RA, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work: stress. Productivity and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Karasek RA, Grodon G, Pietrokovsky C, Frese M, Pieper C, Schwartz J, Fry L, Schirer D (1985) Job content instrument: questionnaire and user’s guide Los Angeles/Lowell. University of Southern California/University of Massachusetts, LowellGoogle Scholar
  16. Karasek RA, Choi BK, Ostergren PO, Ferrario M, De Smet P (2007) Testing two methods to create comparable scale scores between the job content questionnaire (JCQ) and JCQ-Like questionnaires in the European JACE study. Int J Behav Med 14:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landsbergis P, Theorell T (2000) Measurement of psychosocial workplace exposure variables. Occup Med: State of the Art Reviews 15:163–188Google Scholar
  18. Li J, Yang W, Cheng Y, Siegrist J, Cho S-I (2005) Effort–reward imbalance at work and job dissatisfaction in Chinese healthcare workers: a validation study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78:198–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li J, Karasek R, Cho SI, Choi BK, Johnson JV, Ostry A, Landsbergis P (2008) Reliability, scale structure and findings from Chinese JCQ 2.0 study. ICOH Work Organization and Psychosocial Factors Conference Quebec, Canada September 2Google Scholar
  20. Macías-Robles MD, Fernández-López JA, Hernández-Mejía R, Cueto-Espinar A, Rancaño I, Siegrist J (2003) Evaluación del estrés laboral en trabajadores de un hospital público español: estudio de las propiedades psicométricas de la versión española del modelo ‘Desequilibrio Esfuerzo-Recompensa’. Med Clin (Barc) 120(17):652–657Google Scholar
  21. Magnavita N (2007) Two tools for health surveillance of job stress: the Karasek job content questionnaire and the Siegrist effort reward imbalance questionnaire. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 29(3 Suppl):667–700Google Scholar
  22. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD (1995) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 32:40–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén BO (1993) Goodness of fit with categorical and other non-normal variables. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 205–243Google Scholar
  24. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2007) Mplus user’s guide, Fifth edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, p 682Google Scholar
  25. Muthén BO, Toit SHC, Spisic D (1997) Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report, pp 1–49. http://www.statmodel.com/wlscv.shtml. Assessed 24 March 2009
  26. Niedhammer I, Siegrist J, Landre M, Goldberg M, Leclerc A (2000) Psychometric properties of French version of the effort–reward Imbalance model. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 48(5):419–437Google Scholar
  27. Ostry A, Kelly S, Demers PA, Mustard C, Hertzman C (2003) A comparison between the effort–reward imbalance and demand control models. BMC Public Health 3:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ota A, Masue T, Yasuda N, Tsutsumi A, Mino Y, Ohara H (2005) Association between psychosocial job characteristics and insomnia: an investigation using two relevant job stress models—the demand-control-support (DCS) model and the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model. Sleep Med 6:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sale JEM, Kerr MS (2002) The psychometric properties of Karasek’s demand and control scales within a single sector: data from a large teaching hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanne B, Torp S, Mykletun A, Dahl AA (2005) The Swedish demand-control-support questionnaire (DCSQ): factor structure, item analyses, and internal consistency in a large population. Scand J Public Health 33:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high effort–low reward conditions at work. J Occup Health Psychol 1:27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(8):1483–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siegrist J, Wege N, Pühlhofer F (2009) A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort–reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, Nov. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  34. Soderfeldt B, Soderfeldt M, Muntaner C, O′Campo P, Warg L-E, Ohlson C-G (1996) Psychosocial work environment in human service organizations: a conceptual analysis and development of the demand-control model. Soc Sci Med 42:1217–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Theorell T, Perski A, Akerstedt T, Sigala F, AhlbergHulten G, Svensson J et al (1988) Changes in job strain in relation to changes in psychological state: a longitudinal study. Scand J Work Environ Health 14(3):189–196Google Scholar
  37. Tsutsumi A, Iwata N, Wakita T, Kumagai R, Noguchi H, Kawakami N (2008) Improving the measurement accuracy of the effort–reward imbalance scales. Int J Behav Med 15:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weyers S, Peter R, Boggild H, Jeppesen HJ, Siegrist J (2006) Psychosocial work stress is associated with poor self-rated health in Danish nurses: a test of the effort–reward imbalance model. Scand J Caring Sci 20:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang WJ, Li J (2004) Measurement of psychosocial factors in work environment: application of two models of occupational stress. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 22(6):422–426Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosane Härter Griep
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lucia Rotenberg
    • 1
  • Ana Glória G. Vasconcellos
    • 2
  • Paul Landsbergis
    • 3
    • 4
  • Cláudia M. Comaru
    • 1
  • Márcia Guimarães M. Alves
    • 5
  1. 1.Laboratory of Health and Environment EducationInstituto Oswaldo Cruz, FiocruzRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.School of Public Health, FiocruzRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Community and Preventive MedicineMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Graduate Program in Public HealthState University of New York-Downstate School of Public HealthBrooklynUSA
  5. 5.Health Planning Department, Institute of Community HealthFluminense Federal UniversityNiteróiBrazil

Personalised recommendations