BACKGROUND: A union/management system of job evaluation has been in place in the British Columbia (BC) sawmill industry since the late 1960s. This system uses an instrument, very similar to the job content questionnaire (JCQ) to evaluate psychosocial work conditions for sawmill jobs. METHODS: Four experienced evaluators, one from the union and three from industry, independently estimated psychosocial work conditions for 54 current job titles in a "typical" coastal sawmill using a shortened, 18-question version of the JCQ questionnaire. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for control but not for co-worker social support, physical demand, or psychological demand. Reliability was least for psychological demand. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced job evaluators in the sawmill industry were able to reliably estimate only the control dimension of the JCQ. The observed lowest reliability for psychological job demand may be due to the imprecise construct definition in the domain of the JCQ instrument.
BACKGROUND: A union/management system of job evaluation has been in place in the British Columbia (BC) sawmill industry since the late 1960s. This system uses an instrument, very similar to the job content questionnaire (JCQ) to evaluate psychosocial work conditions for sawmill jobs. METHODS: Four experienced evaluators, one from the union and three from industry, independently estimated psychosocial work conditions for 54 current job titles in a "typical" coastal sawmill using a shortened, 18-question version of the JCQ questionnaire. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was acceptable for control but not for co-worker social support, physical demand, or psychological demand. Reliability was least for psychological demand. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced job evaluators in the sawmill industry were able to reliably estimate only the control dimension of the JCQ. The observed lowest reliability for psychological job demand may be due to the imprecise construct definition in the domain of the JCQ instrument.
Authors: Manuel Cifuentes; Jon Boyer; Rebecca Gore; Angelo d'Errico; Jamie Tessler; Patrick Scollin; Debra Lerner; David Kriebel; Laura Punnett; Craig Slatin Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Ieva Urbanaviciute; Koorosh Massoudi; Cecilia Toscanelli; Hans De Witte Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Svetlana Solovieva; Tiina Pensola; Johanna Kausto; Rahman Shiri; Markku Heliövaara; Alex Burdorf; Kirsti Husgafvel-Pursiainen; Eira Viikari-Juntura Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Linda F Cantley; Baylah Tessier-Sherman; Martin D Slade; Deron Galusha; Mark R Cullen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Stefania Maggi; Aleck Ostry; James Tansey; James Dunn; Ruth Hershler; Lisa Chen; Clyde Hertzman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 3.295