Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Validating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in European cohort studies: The IPD-Work consortium
Department of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany .
Department of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany .
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland .
Department of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany .
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, ISSN 0340-0131, E-ISSN 1432-1246, Vol. 87, no 3, 249-256 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Effort-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.

Methods: Five 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.

Results: Pearson’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.

Conclusion: Our results support the notion that short proxy measures or partial versions of the original scales can be used to assess effort-reward imbalance.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 87, no 3, 249-256 p.
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-20752DOI: 10.1007/s00420-013-0855-zISI: 000332953300003PubMedID: 23456220Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84899420626Local ID: HHJADULTISOAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-20752DiVA: diva2:609282
Available from: 2013-03-05 Created: 2013-03-05 Last updated: 2016-06-30

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fransson, Eleonor
By organisation
HHJ, Dep. of Natural Science and BiomedicineHHJ. ADULT
In the same journal
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyEnvironmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 337 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf