ArticleBMC psychology2026
Psychometric validation of the Czech Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III): long, middle, and screening versions in a nationwide sample.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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 hidden curriculum of endurance: how students' psychosocial stress becomes normalised in arts higher education.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
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
backgroundAs work environments rapidly evolve due to profound social and technological changes, evaluating psychosocial work conditions and identifying risk factors affecting worker well-being has become a key public health priority. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ III) is among the most used tools for assessing the psychosocial work environment, covering both working conditions and occupational health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the long and middle versions of the COPSOQ III and to develop and assess a novel single-item-per-scale screening version (the COPSOQ III screening) using a nationwide sample of working adults in the Czech Republic.
methodsData were collected through an online panel survey administered by a professional research agency. The final research sample included 1,444 respondents (52.4% men, 47.6% women), selected through quota sampling to approximate key demographic characteristics of the Czech population. The long and middle versions of the COPSOQ III were administered. The new screening version (the COPSOQ III screening) was developed by selecting the item with the highest factor loading from each scale of the long version, resulting in a 45-item instrument. Factorial validity and measurement invariance were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsCFA supported the factorial validity of the long and middle versions, with acceptable to strong model fit indices. Internal consistency was satisfactory across most scales, and measurement invariance was confirmed across sex, employment sector, managerial status, and length of employment. The screening version demonstrated high concordance with the long version, with an average item-scale shared variance of 77.2% and no scale below 60%. Given its substantial reduction in length and limited information loss, the screening version demonstrated a favorable balance between brevity and retained variance.
conclusionsThe Czech COPSOQ III, in the long and middle versions, is a valid and reliable tool for assessing psychosocial working conditions. The screening version offers a promising option for time-efficient assessment and initial workplace screening; however, further validation is needed to provide more robust evidence regarding its psychometric qualities.
trial registrationnon-applicable.
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.