Validating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium.
Validating abbreviated measures of effort-reward imbalance at work in European cohort studies: the IPD-Work consortium.
复制标题
在欧洲队列研究中验证工作中努力回报不平衡的简略衡量标准：IPD-工作联盟。
DOI：
10.1007/s00420-013-0855-z
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Rugulies,Reiner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Siegrist,Johannes;Dragano,Nico;Nyberg,SoljaT;Lunau,Thorsten;Alfredsson,Lars;Erbel,Raimund;Fahlén,Göran;Goldberg,Marcel;Jöckel,Karl-Heinz;Knutsson,Anders;Leineweber,Constanze;MagnussonHanson,LindaL;Nordin,Maria;Rugulies,Reiner
研究背景努力-回报不平衡（ERI）是工作压力的一个公认概念。虽然经过验证的努力回报问卷可供公众使用，但许多流行病学研究采用缩短的尺度和替代措施。为了检验不同的简化测量方法与原始工具之间的一致性，我们比较了参与IPD工作的15项欧洲队列研究中可用的不同版本的努力-回报量表。（工作人群中的个体参与者数据荟萃分析）联合会。（“完整”）量表测量“努力”和“奖励”，而其余10项研究使用“部分”量表。为了比较不同版本的ERI量表，我们分析了来自五项具有完整量表的研究的31，790名参与者的个人水平数据。结果在“努力”的情况下，部分量表和完整量表之间的Pearson相关性非常高（其中使用了3个项目中的2个），如果至少包括4个项目（满分7个），则在“奖励”的情况下非常高或很高。由3个项目组成的奖励量表显示了良好至满意的一致性，在1例病例中，由2个项目组成的奖励量表仅显示了适度的一致性，但仍可接受。一个复合指标的敏感性和特异性，努力和回报的比例，比较部分与完整的规模，分别在59-93和85- 99%之间。完整和部分规模与不良的自我评价health.ConclusionOur结果支持的概念，短的代理措施或部分版本的原始规模可以用来评估努力-回报的不平衡。
BackgroundEffort-reward imbalance (ERI) is an established conceptualisation of work stress. Although a validated effort-reward questionnaire is available for public use, many epidemiological studies adopt shortened scales and proxy measures. To examine the agreement between different abbreviated measures and the original instrument, we compared different versions of the effort-reward scales available in 15 European cohort studies participating in the IPD-Work (Individual-participant-data meta-analysis in working populations) consortium.MethodsFive of the 15 studies provide information on the original (‘complete’) scales measuring ‘effort’ and ‘reward’, whereas the 10 remaining studies used ‘partial’ scales. To compare different versions of the ERI scales, we analyse individual-level data from 31,790 participants from the five studies with complete scales.ResultsPearson’s correlation between partial and complete scales was very high in case of ‘effort’ (where 2 out of 3 items were used) and very high or high in case of ‘reward’, if at least 4 items (out of 7) were included. Reward scales composed of 3 items revealed good to satisfactory agreement, and in one case, a reward scale consisting of 2 items only demonstrated a modest, but still acceptable degree of agreement. Sensitivity and specificity of a composite measure, the ratio of effort and reward, comparing partial versus complete scales ranged between 59–93 and 85–99 %, respectively. Complete and partial scales were strongly associated with poor self-rated health.ConclusionOur results support the notion that short proxy measures or partial versions of the original scales can be used to assess effort-reward imbalance.