Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32370228›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Version III and Establishment of Benchmarks for Psychosocial Risk Management in Sweden.

Hanne Berthelsen, Hugo Westerlund, Gunnar Bergström, Hermann Burr

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hanne BerthelsenCentre for Work Life and Evaluation Studies (CTA) & the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, 205 06 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4573-4548
Hugo WesterlundDepartment of Psychology, Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden.
Gunnar BergströmDepartment of Occupational Health Sciences and Psychology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, University of Gävle, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0161-160X
Hermann BurrDivision 3 Work and Health, Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), 10317 Berlin, Germany.
Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · DEKarolinska Institutet · SEMalmö University · SEStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents the Swedish standard version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, COPSOQ III, and investigates its reliability and validity at individual and workplace levels with the aim of establishing benchmarks for the psychosocial work environment. Cross-sectional data from (1) a random sample of employees in Sweden aged 25-65 years (N = 2847) and (2) a convenience sample of non-managerial employees at 51 workplaces (N = 1818) were analysed. Internal consistency reliability was evaluated as well as the effects of sex, work sector and blue/white-collar work. Population benchmarks and mean scores for major occupational groups were computed based on weighted data. ICC(1) and ICC(2) estimates were computed to evaluate aggregation to the workplace level and Pearson inter-correlations to evaluate construct validity at individual and aggregated levels. The reliability and scale characteristics were satisfactory, with few exceptions, at both individual and workplace levels. The strength and direction of correlations supported the construct validity of the dimensions and the amount of variance explained by workplace justified aggregation to the workplace level. The present study thus supports the use of COPSOQ III for measurement at the workplace level and presents benchmarks for risk management as well as for research purposes.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingRisk ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSwedenWorkplacebenchmarkoccupational healthorganizational and social work environmentpsychometric evaluationpsychosocial risk assessmentpsychosocial risk management

Identifiers

PMID32370228
PMCPMC7246423
OpenAlexW3022851006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.