Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

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

Eleonor I Fransson, Solja T Nyberg, Katriina Heikkila, Lars Alfredsson, Dirk De Bacquer UGent, G David Batty, Sébastien Bonenfant, Annalisa Casini, Els Clays UGent and Marcel Goldberg, et al. (2012) BMC PUBLIC HEALTH. 12.
abstract
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.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
Work stress, Agreement, Job strain, Job control, Job demands, CORONARY-HEART-DISEASE, WHITEHALL-II, RISK-FACTORS, BASE-LINE, STRAIN, WOMEN, MEN, SWEDISH, STRESS, QUESTIONNAIRE
journal title
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
BMC Public Health
volume
12
article_number
62
pages
9 pages
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000302912800001
JCR category
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
JCR impact factor
2.076 (2012)
JCR rank
55/157 (2012)
JCR quartile
2 (2012)
ISSN
1471-2458
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-12-62
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have retained and own the full copyright for this publication
id
2140901
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2140901
date created
2012-06-12 16:17:56
date last changed
2012-06-27 15:29:04
@article{2140901,
  abstract     = {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 {\textrangle} 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 {\textrangle} 0.80); good for job strain assessed with three demand items and all six control items (kappa {\textrangle} 0.68) and moderate to good when items were missing from both scales (kappa = 0.54-0.76). The sensitivity was {\textrangle} 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.},
  articleno    = {62},
  author       = {Fransson, Eleonor I and Nyberg, Solja T and Heikkila, Katriina and Alfredsson, Lars and De Bacquer, Dirk and Batty, G David and Bonenfant, S{\'e}bastien and Casini, Annalisa and Clays, Els and Goldberg, Marcel and Kittel, France and Koskenvuo, Markku and Knutsson, Anders and Leineweber, Constanze and Hanson, Linda L Magnusson and Nordin, Maria and Singh-Manoux, Archana and Suominen, Sakari and Vahtera, Jussi and Westerholm, Peter and Westerlund, Hugo and Zins, Marie and Theorell, T{\"o}res and Kivim{\"a}ki, Mika},
  issn         = {1471-2458},
  journal      = {BMC PUBLIC HEALTH},
  keyword      = {Work stress,Agreement,Job strain,Job control,Job demands,CORONARY-HEART-DISEASE,WHITEHALL-II,RISK-FACTORS,BASE-LINE,STRAIN,WOMEN,MEN,SWEDISH,STRESS,QUESTIONNAIRE},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {9},
  title        = {Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-62},
  volume       = {12},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago
Fransson, Eleonor I, Solja T Nyberg, Katriina Heikkila, Lars Alfredsson, Dirk De Bacquer, G David Batty, Sébastien Bonenfant, et al. 2012. “Comparison of Alternative Versions of the Job Demand-control Scales in 17 European Cohort Studies: The IPD-Work Consortium.” Bmc Public Health 12.
APA
Fransson, E. I., Nyberg, S. T., Heikkila, K., Alfredsson, L., De Bacquer, D., Batty, G. D., Bonenfant, S., et al. (2012). Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 12.
Vancouver
1.
Fransson EI, Nyberg ST, Heikkila K, Alfredsson L, De Bacquer D, Batty GD, et al. Comparison of alternative versions of the job demand-control scales in 17 European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH. 2012;12.
MLA
Fransson, Eleonor I, Solja T Nyberg, Katriina Heikkila, et al. “Comparison of Alternative Versions of the Job Demand-control Scales in 17 European Cohort Studies: The IPD-Work Consortium.” BMC PUBLIC HEALTH 12 (2012): n. pag. Print.