The psychometric properties of demand-control and effort–reward imbalance scales among Brazilian nurses
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.
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.
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.
Strengths and limitations were observed in both the DCS and the ERI scales. The questionnaires could be improved by the revision of some items.
KeywordsReliability Validity Work stress Effort–reward imbalance Demand-control model
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.
- 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
- Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 1ª edn. The Guilford Press, New York, p 475Google Scholar
- 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
- Karasek RA, Theorell T (1990) Healthy work: stress. Productivity and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Landsbergis P, Theorell T (2000) Measurement of psychosocial workplace exposure variables. Occup Med: State of the Art Reviews 15:163–188Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2007) Mplus user’s guide, Fifth edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, p 682Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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