Cargando…

Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium

BACKGROUND: Job strain (i.e., high job demands combined with low job control) is a frequently used indicator of harmful work stress, but studies have often used partial versions of the complete multi-item job demands and control scales. Understanding whether the different instruments assess the same...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fransson, Eleonor I, Nyberg, Solja T, Heikkilä, Katriina, Alfredsson, Lars, Bacquer, De Dirk, Batty, G David, Bonenfant, Sébastien, Casini, Annalisa, Clays, Els, Goldberg, Marcel, Kittel, France, Koskenvuo, Markku, Knutsson, Anders, Leineweber, Constanze, Magnusson Hanson, Linda L, Nordin, Maria, Singh-Manoux, Archana, Suominen, Sakari, Vahtera, Jussi, Westerholm, Peter, Westerlund, Hugo, Zins, Marie, Theorell, Töres, Kivimäki, Mika
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22264402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-62
_version_ 1782229714974277632
author Fransson, Eleonor I
Nyberg, Solja T
Heikkilä, Katriina
Alfredsson, Lars
Bacquer, De Dirk
Batty, G David
Bonenfant, Sébastien
Casini, Annalisa
Clays, Els
Goldberg, Marcel
Kittel, France
Koskenvuo, Markku
Knutsson, Anders
Leineweber, Constanze
Magnusson Hanson, Linda L
Nordin, Maria
Singh-Manoux, Archana
Suominen, Sakari
Vahtera, Jussi
Westerholm, Peter
Westerlund, Hugo
Zins, Marie
Theorell, Töres
Kivimäki, Mika
author_facet Fransson, Eleonor I
Nyberg, Solja T
Heikkilä, Katriina
Alfredsson, Lars
Bacquer, De Dirk
Batty, G David
Bonenfant, Sébastien
Casini, Annalisa
Clays, Els
Goldberg, Marcel
Kittel, France
Koskenvuo, Markku
Knutsson, Anders
Leineweber, Constanze
Magnusson Hanson, Linda L
Nordin, Maria
Singh-Manoux, Archana
Suominen, Sakari
Vahtera, Jussi
Westerholm, Peter
Westerlund, Hugo
Zins, Marie
Theorell, Töres
Kivimäki, Mika
author_sort Fransson, Eleonor I
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Job strain (i.e., high job demands combined with low job control) is a frequently used indicator of harmful work stress, but studies have often used partial versions of the complete multi-item job demands and control scales. Understanding whether the different instruments assess the same underlying concepts has crucial implications for the interpretation of findings across studies, harmonisation of multi-cohort data for pooled analyses, and design of future studies. As part of the 'IPD-Work' (Individual-participant-data meta-analysis in working populations) consortium, we compared different versions of the demands and control scales available in 17 European cohort studies. METHODS: Six of the 17 studies had information on the complete scales and 11 on partial scales. Here, we analyse individual level data from 70 751 participants of the studies which had complete scales (5 demand items, 6 job control items). RESULTS: We found high Pearson correlation coefficients between complete scales of job demands and control relative to scales with at least three items (r > 0.90) and for partial scales with two items only (r = 0.76-0.88). In comparison with scores from the complete scales, the agreement between job strain definitions was very good when only one item was missing in either the demands or the control scale (kappa > 0.80); good for job strain assessed with three demand items and all six control items (kappa > 0.68) and moderate to good when items were missing from both scales (kappa = 0.54-0.76). The sensitivity was > 0.80 when only one item was missing from either scale, decreasing when several items were missing in one or both job strain subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Partial job demand and job control scales with at least half of the items of the complete scales, and job strain indices based on one complete and one partial scale, seemed to assess the same underlying concepts as the complete survey instruments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3328260
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33282602012-04-18 Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium Fransson, Eleonor I Nyberg, Solja T Heikkilä, Katriina Alfredsson, Lars Bacquer, De Dirk Batty, G David Bonenfant, Sébastien Casini, Annalisa Clays, Els Goldberg, Marcel Kittel, France Koskenvuo, Markku Knutsson, Anders Leineweber, Constanze Magnusson Hanson, Linda L Nordin, Maria Singh-Manoux, Archana Suominen, Sakari Vahtera, Jussi Westerholm, Peter Westerlund, Hugo Zins, Marie Theorell, Töres Kivimäki, Mika BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Job strain (i.e., high job demands combined with low job control) is a frequently used indicator of harmful work stress, but studies have often used partial versions of the complete multi-item job demands and control scales. Understanding whether the different instruments assess the same underlying concepts has crucial implications for the interpretation of findings across studies, harmonisation of multi-cohort data for pooled analyses, and design of future studies. As part of the 'IPD-Work' (Individual-participant-data meta-analysis in working populations) consortium, we compared different versions of the demands and control scales available in 17 European cohort studies. METHODS: Six of the 17 studies had information on the complete scales and 11 on partial scales. Here, we analyse individual level data from 70 751 participants of the studies which had complete scales (5 demand items, 6 job control items). RESULTS: We found high Pearson correlation coefficients between complete scales of job demands and control relative to scales with at least three items (r > 0.90) and for partial scales with two items only (r = 0.76-0.88). In comparison with scores from the complete scales, the agreement between job strain definitions was very good when only one item was missing in either the demands or the control scale (kappa > 0.80); good for job strain assessed with three demand items and all six control items (kappa > 0.68) and moderate to good when items were missing from both scales (kappa = 0.54-0.76). The sensitivity was > 0.80 when only one item was missing from either scale, decreasing when several items were missing in one or both job strain subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Partial job demand and job control scales with at least half of the items of the complete scales, and job strain indices based on one complete and one partial scale, seemed to assess the same underlying concepts as the complete survey instruments. BioMed Central 2012-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3328260/ /pubmed/22264402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-62 Text en Copyright ©2012 Fransson et al; BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Fransson, Eleonor I
Nyberg, Solja T
Heikkilä, Katriina
Alfredsson, Lars
Bacquer, De Dirk
Batty, G David
Bonenfant, Sébastien
Casini, Annalisa
Clays, Els
Goldberg, Marcel
Kittel, France
Koskenvuo, Markku
Knutsson, Anders
Leineweber, Constanze
Magnusson Hanson, Linda L
Nordin, Maria
Singh-Manoux, Archana
Suominen, Sakari
Vahtera, Jussi
Westerholm, Peter
Westerlund, Hugo
Zins, Marie
Theorell, Töres
Kivimäki, Mika
Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title_full Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title_fullStr Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title_short Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium
title_sort comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 european cohort studies: the ipd-work consortium
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22264402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-62
work_keys_str_mv AT franssoneleonori comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT nybergsoljat comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT heikkilakatriina comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT alfredssonlars comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT bacquerdedirk comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT battygdavid comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT bonenfantsebastien comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT casiniannalisa comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT claysels comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT goldbergmarcel comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT kittelfrance comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT koskenvuomarkku comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT knutssonanders comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT leineweberconstanze comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT magnussonhansonlindal comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT nordinmaria comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT singhmanouxarchana comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT suominensakari comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT vahterajussi comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT westerholmpeter comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT westerlundhugo comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT zinsmarie comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT theorelltores comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium
AT kivimakimika comparisonofalternativeversionsofthejobdemandcontrolscalesin17europeancohortstudiestheipdworkconsortium