nach oben

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

Erschienen in:

01.01.2013 | Original Article

Comparison between the first and second versions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: psychosocial risk factors for a high need for recovery after work

verfasst von: Philippe Kiss, Marc De Meester, André Kruse, Brigitte Chavée, Lutgart Braeckman

Erschienen in: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ I) was developed as a tool to assess a broad range of psychosocial work environment factors and was recently revised (COPSOQ II). The research question in this study was: Do COPSOQ II-scales predict a high need for recovery (NFR) after work better than COPSOQ I-scales?

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in 990 subjects (84.5% response), employed in the public sector. Psychosocial factors were assessed by COPSOQ I and COPSOQ II. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratios for the presence of a high NFR, controlled for gender, age, physical workload and other relevant occupational and non-occupational factors. Analyses were performed for COPSOQ I and COPSOQ II separately.

Results

In both COPSOQ versions, ‘quantitative demands’ (p < 0.001) and ‘job insecurity’ (p < 0.005) were significantly associated with a high NFR. Additionally, in the COPSOQ I model, ‘demands for hiding emotions’ (p < 0.05) and ‘degrees of freedom’ (p < 0.05), and in the COPSOQ II model ‘emotional demands’ (p < 0.05) and ‘commitment to the workplace’ (p < 0.005) were significant as well. ‘Degrees of freedom’ was omitted by the developers in the revised COPSOQ II. Reintroducing it into the COPSOQ II model did not alter the existing associations, but pointed out ‘degrees of freedom’ to be an additional important dimension (p < 0.05). The COPSOQ II model with ‘degrees of freedom’ included also had the best data fit.

Conclusions

The results suggested the COPSOQ II to be better predictive than COPSOQ I for a high NFR, but also indicated that ‘degrees of freedom’ should be included into the COPSOQ II when studying the NFR as outcome parameter.

Bernert RA, Merrill KA, Braithwaite SR, Van Orden KA, Joiner TE Jr (2007) Family life stress and insomnia symptoms in a prospective evaluation of young adults. J Fam Psychol 21:58–66CrossRef

Broersen JPJ, Fortuin RJ, Dijkstra M, van Veldhoven M, Prins J (2004) Monitor arboconvenanten: kengetallen en grenswaarden [in Dutch: monitor occupational health and safety: key figures and limits]. Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs-en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde 12:100–104CrossRef

Burr H, Albertsen K, Rugulies R, Hannerz H (2010) Do dimensions from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire predict vitality and mental health over and above the job strain and effort–reward imbalance models? Scand J Public Health 38(Suppl 3):59–68CrossRef

Checkoway H, Pearce N, Kriebel D (2004) Research methods in occupational epidemiology, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Clausen T, Nielsen K, Carneiro IG, Borg V (2012) Job demands, job resources and long-term sickness absence in the Danish eldercare services: a prospective analysis of register-based outcomes. J Adv Nurs 68:127–136

de Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2003) Need for recovery after work predicts sickness absence. A 2-years prospective cohort study in truck drivers. J Psychosom Res 55:331–339CrossRef

de Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Blonk RWB, Broersen JPJ, Frings-Dresen MHW (2004) Stressful work, psychological job strain, and turnover: a 2-year prospective cohort study of truck drivers. J Appl Psychol 89:442–454CrossRef

de Croon EM, Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MHW (2006) Psychometric properties of the need for recovery after work scale: test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change. J Occup Environ Med 63:202–206CrossRef

Jansen NWH, Kant IJ, van Amelsvoort LGPM, Nijhuis FJN, van den Brandt PA (2003) Need for recovery from work: evaluating shortterm effects of working hours, patterns and schedules. Ergonomics 46:664–680CrossRef

Kinnunen U, Mauno S, Siltaloppi M (2010) Job insecurity, recovery and well-being at work: recovery experiences as moderators. Econ Ind Democr 31:179–194CrossRef

Kiss P, De Meester M (2009) Impact of psychosocial work environment factors measured by the COPSOQ on the need for recovery after work in ageing workers. Preliminary results. In: Kumashiro M (ed) Promotion of work ability towards a productive aging. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 239–245

Kiss P, De Meester M, Braeckman L (2008) Differences between younger and older workers in the need for recovery after work. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81:311–320CrossRef

Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Ferrie JE (2003) Organisational justice and health of employees: prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med 60:27–34CrossRef

Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V (2005) The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 31:438–449CrossRef

Mohren DCL, Jansen NWH, Kant IJ (2010) Need for recovery from work in relation to age: a prospective cohort study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83:553–556CrossRef

Moos RH, Schutte KK, Brennan PL, Moos BS (2005) The interplay between life stressors and depressive symptoms among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60:199–206CrossRef

National Research Center for the Working Environment (NRCWE) (2007) The construction of the scales in COPSOQ II. http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/en/publikationer/spoergeskemaer/psykisk-arbejdsmiljoe. Accessed 14 September 2011

Netterstrøm B, Conrad N, Bech P, Fink P, Olsen O, Rugulies R, Stansfeld S (2008) The relation between work-related psychosocial factors and the development of depression. Epidemiol Rev 30:118–132CrossRef

Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB (2010) The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 38(Suppl 3):8–24CrossRef

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP, Lee JY (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903CrossRef

Rugulies R, Aust B, Pejtersen JH (2010) Do psychosocial work environment factors measured with scales from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire predict register-based sickness absence of 3 weeks or more in Denmark? Scand J Public Health 38(Suppl 3):42–50CrossRef

Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1:27–41CrossRef

Siltaloppi M, Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Tolvanen A (2011) Identifying patterns of recovery experiences and their links to psychological outcomes across one year. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 84:877–888

Sluiter JK, Van der Beek AJ, Frings-Dresen MHW (1999) The influence of work characteristics on the need for recovery and experienced health: a study on coach drivers. Ergonomics 42:573–583CrossRef

Sluiter JK, Frings-Dresen MH, van der Beek AJ, Meijman TF (2001) The relation between work-induced neuroendocrine reactivity and recovery, subjective need for recovery, and health status. J Psychosom Res 50:29–37CrossRef

Sluiter JK, de Croon EM, Meijman TF, Frings-Dresen MHW (2003) Need for recovery from work related fatigue and its role in the development and prediction of subjective health complaints. Occup Environ Med 60(Suppl 1):i62–i70CrossRef

Sonnentag S, Zijlstra FRH (2006) Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. J Appl Psychol 91:330–350CrossRef

Swaen GMH, van Amelsfoort LGPM, Bültmann U, Kant IJ (2003) Fatigue as a risk factor for being injured in an occupational accident: results from the Maastricht Cohort. J Occup Environ Med 60(Suppl I):i88–i92

Thorsen SV, Bjorner JB (2010) Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scand J Public Health 38(Suppl 3):25–32CrossRef

van Amelsfoort LGPM, Kant IJ, Bültmann U, Swaen GMH (2003) Need for recovery after work and the subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease in a working population. J Occup Environ Med 60:i83–i87CrossRef

van Veldhoven M, Broersen S (2003) Measurement quality and validity of the “need for recovery scale”. Occup Environ Med 60(Suppl 1):i3–i9CrossRef

van Veldhoven MJPM, Sluiter JK (2009) Work-related recovery opportunities: testing scale properties and validity in relation to health. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1065–1075CrossRef

Verdonk P, Hooftman WE, van Veldhoven MJPM, Boelens LRM, Koppes LLJ (2010) Work-related fatigue: the specific case of highly educated women in the Netherlands. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83:309–321CrossRef

Titel: Comparison between the first and second versions of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: psychosocial risk factors for a high need for recovery after work
verfasst von: Philippe Kiss
Marc De Meester
André Kruse
Brigitte Chavée
Lutgart Braeckman
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2013
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0340-0131
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1246
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-012-0741-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

Exposure of healthy subjects with emissions from a gas metal arc welding process: part 1—exposure technique and external exposure

Psychosocial work conditions, perceived stress, perceived muscular tension, and neck/shoulder symptoms among medical secretaries

Assessment of a prevention program for work-related stress among urban police officers

Evaluation of working practices and surface contamination with antineoplastic drugs in outpatient oncology health care settings

Association between ambient ozone and health outcomes in Prague

Pneumoproteins in sewage workers exposed to sewage dust