ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
An International Comparative Reliability and Concurrent Validity Assessment of the Multi-Level 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Overlooked Driver of Hypertension: Mental Stress at the Crossroad of Cardiology and Psychiatry.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper empirically tests the new multi-level Associationalist Demand Control (ADC) theory by applying the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) 2.0 that assesses both a wide range of task characteristics as well as work organizational and external-to-work psychosocial characteristics.
methodsThe paper is based on four JCQ 2.0 pilot studies among 16,125 workers in Korea, China, Australia, and Germany. All pilots used the original JCQ task-level scales and then added newly developed proposed items and scales, evolving more comprehensive higher-level scales from pilot to pilot from 2005 to 2011. A brief review of the analytic process is presented, followed by an assessment of the internal consistency and concurrent validity of the final 25 multi-level JCQ 2.0 scales at the task, the organizational, and the external levels.
resultsAdequate psychometric properties were established for the JCQ 2.0 pilot scales. The extended set of task-level scales was found to be robust across all samples; the new organizational scales mainly showed adequate internal consistency with α > 0.7 in Australia and Germany (tested only there) and were associated with relevant work- and health-related outcome measures as expected. Similarly, the external-to-work scales (tested only in Germany) had adequate Cronbach's Alpha values and showed expected associations to relevant outcome scales.
conclusionsAlthough not all scales were available in all countries, overall, the results support the "functional similarity" of the major scale areas across the four pilot countries and support the underlying extensions of the Demand-Control theoretical constructs to the multi-level psychosocial work assessment for the promotion of workers' health and wellbeing as suggested by the new ADC model.
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.