Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40025491›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Validation and benchmarks for the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) in an Australian working population sample.

Mark Rahimi, Ben Arnold, Anthony D LaMontagne, Philip Riley

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Mark RahimiSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. m.rahimi@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9278-3537
Ben ArnoldSchool of Education, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2482-7611
Anthony D LaMontagneSchool of Health & Social Development, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5811-5906
Philip RileySchool of Education, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study presents an analysis of the reliability and validity of the long version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) in Australia and establishes benchmarks for key dimensions of psychosocial work environment.

methodsA random sample was sourced from a panel of 2,446 working Australians aged 18-79. The study establishes population benchmarks for key measures of the psychosocial work environment and employee mental health, and assesses variation by gender, employment status, work sector, professional status, and occupational classification. Validation entailed an assessment of internal consistency reliability of the measures, followed by a preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to initially examine construct validity of the instrument, and continued with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the scales. Working population mean scores for the key dimensions of COPSOQ-III were calculated and presented as benchmarks for use in workplace risk assessment and management.

resultsExcept for one measure, the analysis revealed strong reliability coefficients for 31 measures with more than two items (> 0.7). Only one measure for 'demand for hiding emotions' with more than two items had a reliability coefficient of 0.663. The EFA unveiled a four-factor structure in psychosocial working conditions, and a two-factor model in factors related to the effects. The CFA involved item-level analysis, leading to the removal of seven items to improve model fit.

conclusionThe present study provides a high-level validation of the long version of COPSOQ, and thus supports its use as an instrument for research as well as psychosocial risk assessment and management in Australia.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingWorkplaceAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBenchmarkCOPSOQOccupational healthOrganisational and social work environmentPsychometric evaluationPsychosocial risk assessmentPsychosocial risk management

Identifiers

PMID40025491
PMCPMC11871671

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.