ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
International Empirical Validation and Value Added of the Multilevel Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An International Comparative Reliability and Concurrent Validity Assessment of the Multi-Level Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Psychosocial work environment beyond WEIRD: meta-analytic and psychometric evidence on the Job Content Questionnaire.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper investigates whether the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0 composite scales for demand, control, and stability-support at the task and organizational level are related to health and work-related outcomes as hypothesized in the job demand-control and Associationalist Demand-Control models. Further, the relative improvement of the JCQ 2.0 instrument over the JCQ 1 scales in the prediction of health and work-related outcomes is tested. The JCQ 2.0 was applied among workers in Australia and Germany. Analyses of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied for mean score comparison. In addition, path modeling as well as regression analyses were used. JCQ 2.0 task and organizational level demand, control, and stability-support as well as job strain and organizational-level active work are related to health and work-related outcomes as expected. Associations with active work at the task level are limited. A multilevel framework whereby organizational demands relate to task demands and, in turn, depression and burnout, is found in both German and Australian data. A similar organization to task process is found for control and support in German data, but for Australia, there is only a direct organizational effect on both outcomes. The task- and organizational-level composites-demand, control, and stability-support-explain unique variances in health and work-related outcomes. The JCQ 2.0 composites explain substantially more variance in all outcomes than the classic JCQ 1 DC and DCS scales. The results underline the utility of the JCQ 2.0 to assess multilevel aspects of the psychosocial work environment with broad practical value as a psychosocial risk assessment tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.