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.
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.
Authors: Bo Netterstrøm; Nicole Conrad; Per Bech; Per Fink; Ole Olsen; Reiner Rugulies; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Philippe Kiss; Marc De Meester; Tage S Kristensen; Lutgart Braeckman Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Robine E van der Starre; Jennifer K Coffeng; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Willem van Mechelen; Cécile R L Boot Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Hermann Burr; Hanne Berthelsen; Salvador Moncada; Matthias Nübling; Emilie Dupret; Yucel Demiral; John Oudyk; Tage S Kristensen; Clara Llorens; Albert Navarro; Hans-Joachim Lincke; Christine Bocéréan; Ceyda Sahan; Peter Smith; Anne Pohrt Journal: Saf Health Work Date: 2019-11-06