Literature DB >> 12782740

Measurement quality and validity of the "need for recovery scale".

M van Veldhoven1, S Broersen.   

Abstract

The "need for recovery scale" is suggested as an operationalisation for the measurement of (early symptoms of) fatigue at work. Definition of and background on the concept of need for recovery are briefly discussed. Details about scale construction are summarised. Correlations with other relevant measurement scales on fatigue at work are presented to validate the operationalisation claim, as are early results on predictive validity. A study is presented that further investigates the measurement quality and validity of the scale. The data used in this study were collected by Occupational Health Services for 68 775 workers during the period 1996-2000. Comparing the measurement quality of subgroups (Cronbach's alpha) differing in terms of age class, sex, and education level, the general applicability of the scale was shown. The validity of the scale was studied by analysing its association with psychosocial risk factors. Multiple regression analyses of need for recovery were performed on individual and department level data, using 10 psychosocial job characteristics as independent variables. The two most important factors in the explanation of variance at the individual level were also dominant at the department level: pace and amount of work, and emotional workload. The percentage of explained variance was higher at the department level than at the individual level, and increased with department size. Results suggest that the need for recovery scale is an adequate scale, both for applications at the individual and at the group (department/organisation) level.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12782740      PMCID: PMC1765728          DOI: 10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Occup Environ Med        ISSN: 1351-0711            Impact factor:   4.402


  5 in total

1.  The relation between work-induced neuroendocrine reactivity and recovery, subjective need for recovery, and health status.

Authors:  J K Sluiter; M H Frings-Dresen; A J van der Beek; T F Meijman
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  The influence of work characteristics on the need for recovery and experienced health: a study on coach drivers.

Authors:  J K Sluiter; A J van der Beek; M H Frings-Dresen
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: determination of a cutoff point for the checklist individual strength.

Authors:  U Bültmann; M de Vries; A J Beurskens; G Bleijenberg; J H Vercoulen; I Kant
Journal:  J Occup Health Psychol       Date:  2000-10

4.  Quality assessment of occupational health services instruments.

Authors:  F J van Dijk; W L de Kort; J H Verbeek
Journal:  Occup Med (Lond)       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.611

5.  The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue.

Authors:  E M Smets; B Garssen; B Bonke; J C De Haes
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.006

  5 in total
  95 in total

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

Authors:  Philippe Kiss; Marc De Meester; André Kruse; Brigitte Chavée; Lutgart Braeckman
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 3.015

2.  Matching FCE activities and work demands: an explorative study.

Authors:  W Kuijer; S Brouwer; M F Reneman; P U Dijkstra; J W Groothoff; J M H Schellekens; J H B Geertzen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-09

Review 3.  Available instruments for measurement of psychosocial factors in the work environment.

Authors:  Maria Carla Tabanelli; Marco Depolo; Robin M T Cooke; Guido Sarchielli; Roberta Bonfiglioli; Stefano Mattioli; Francesco S Violante
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2008-03-13       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Abnormal liver function and central obesity associate with work-related fatigue among the Taiwanese workers.

Authors:  Yu-Cheng Lin; Jong-Dar Chen; Chao-Jen Chen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Work-related recovery opportunities: testing scale properties and validity in relation to health.

Authors:  Marc J P M van Veldhoven; Judith K Sluiter
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 6.  A Taxonomy of Fatigue Concepts and Their Relation to Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; Graham Naylor; Fred H Bess
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Differences between younger and older workers in the need for recovery after work.

Authors:  Philippe Kiss; Marc De Meester; Lutgart Braeckman
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 3.015

8.  A worksite prevention program for construction workers: design of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen M Oude Hengel; Catelijne I Joling; Karin I Proper; Birgitte M Blatter; Paulien M Bongers
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Work-related fatigue: the specific case of highly educated women in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Petra Verdonk; Wendela E Hooftman; Marc J P M van Veldhoven; Louise R M Boelens; Lando L J Koppes
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 3.015

10.  Need for recovery from work in relation to age: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  D C L Mohren; N W H Jansen; Ij Kant
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 3.015

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.