Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34784940›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2021

COPSOQ III in Germany: validation of a standard instrument to measure psychosocial factors at work.

Hans-Joachim Lincke, Martin Vomstein, Alexandra Lindner, Inga Nolle, Nicola Häberle, Ariane Haug, Matthias Nübling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

71 citing papers in PubMed.

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

11 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

7 authors.

Hans-Joachim LinckeFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany. lincke@ffaw.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3087-7909
Martin VomsteinFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexandra LindnerFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Inga NolleFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Nicola HäberleFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Ariane HaugFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.
Matthias NüblingFFAW Freiburger Forschungsstelle für Arbeitswissenschaften GmbH, FFAW Freiburg research centre for occupational sciences, Bertoldstr. 63, 79098, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last almost 20 years COPSOQ (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire) has become a well-established instrument to measure psychosocial stress at work. In Germany, a first validated version of COPSOQ was introduced in 2005. After the COPSOQ international network took over responsibility for the development of COPSOQ, a new version was published in 2019 (COPSOQ III). The German version of this questionnaire is now to be validated.

methodsMeasurement qualities of German COPSOQ III are explored in adherence to the to the usual requirements of a validation study as defined by DIN EN ISO 10075-3. A sample of observations from more than 250,000 participants surveyed with the COPSOQ in Germany is used for univariate and multivariate statistical analysis.

resultsWith its 84 items the German COPSOQ III includes all psychosocial work factors that are internationally obligatory and is still compatible with almost 70% of the content in the 2005 German version. Typical psychometric properties of the questionnaire (e. g., validity and reliability) are either good or very good for most of the 84 items and 31 scales. Beyond basic results, congruences with widely used theoretical approaches like the Demand-Control(-Support) model or the Job Demands-Resources model are generally satisfactory.

conclusionsWith the launch of COPSOQ III in Germany, new workplace psychosocial aspects could be explored. Like the preceding version, the questionnaire is a highly useful instrument for research as well as for risk assessment in enterprises. COSPQO III covers a multitude of theoretical approaches and gives comprehensive information on psychosocial working conditions to deduce actions for their improvement.

Indexed as

COPSOQPsychosocial stressRisk assessmentValidationWork factors

Identifiers

PMID34784940
PMCPMC8594291

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.