|
|||||
|
|
Validating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium |
|
| Authors: | Johannes Siegrist Nico Dragano Solja T. Nyberg Thorsten Lunau Lars Alfredsson Raimund Erbel Göran Fahlén Marcel Goldberg Karl-Heinz Jöckel Anders Knutsson Constanze Leineweber Linda L. Magnusson Hanson Maria Nordin Reiner Rugulies Jürgen Schupp Archana Singh-Manoux Töres Theorell Gert G. Wagner Hugo Westerlund Marie Zins Katriina Heikkilä Eleonor I. Fransson Mika Kivimäki |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany 2. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland 3. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 6. Department of Cardiology, West-German Heart Center Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany 7. The National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools, H?rn?sand, Sweden 4. Versailles-Saint Quentin University, Versailles, France 5. Inserm U1018, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif, France 9. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany 8. Department of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden 10. Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 11. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Ume? University, Ume?, Sweden 12. National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark 13. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 14. Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 15. German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, Germany 16. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK 17. Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany 18. School of Health Sciences, J?nk?ping University, J?nk?ping, Sweden |
| Abstract: | BackgroundEffort-reward imbalance (ERI) is an established conceptualisation of work stress. Although a validated effort-reward questionnaire is available for public use, many epidemiological studies adopt shortened scales and proxy measures. To examine the agreement between different abbreviated measures and the original instrument, we compared different versions of the effort-reward scales available in 15 European cohort studies participating in the IPD-Work (Individual-participant-data meta-analysis in working populations) consortium.MethodsFive of the 15 studies provide information on the original (‘complete’) scales measuring ‘effort’ and ‘reward’, whereas the 10 remaining studies used ‘partial’ scales. To compare different versions of the ERI scales, we analyse individual-level data from 31,790 participants from the five studies with complete scales.ResultsPearson’s correlation between partial and complete scales was very high in case of ‘effort’ (where 2 out of 3 items were used) and very high or high in case of ‘reward’, if at least 4 items (out of 7) were included. Reward scales composed of 3 items revealed good to satisfactory agreement, and in one case, a reward scale consisting of 2 items only demonstrated a modest, but still acceptable degree of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of a composite measure, the ratio of effort and reward, comparing partial versus complete scales ranged between 59–93 and 85–99 %, respectively. Complete and partial scales were strongly associated with poor self-rated health.ConclusionOur results support the notion that short proxy measures or partial versions of the original scales can be used to assess effort-reward imbalance. |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ | |