Observational studyPloS one2026
Validation of visual analogue scales to assess occupational stress compared to the Karasek questionnaire: A cross sectional study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05871411 (Validation of Visual Analog Scales to Measure SatisfactiOn and WELL-being at Work), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Validation of Visual Analog Scales to Measure SatisfactiOn and WELL-being at Work (SoWell-VAS)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe Job Demand-Control-Support (JDCS) model is one of the most important tools for assessing work-related stress. However, its complexity highlights the need for simpler instruments, such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), for rapid assessment in occupational medicine.
objectivesTo validate three VAS corresponding to the main JDCS dimensions: job demand, job control, and social support.
methodWe conducted an observational cross-sectional validation study using a self-administered questionnaire completed twice, a week apart, at the participants' convenience, to perform test-retest.
resultsWe analysed 155 participants (60 for test and retest), mostly women around 40 years. Acceptability was excellent, with high response rates. Internal consistency analysis revealed moderate correlations between VAS and JDCS model main dimensions. Reliability assessed by Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was acceptable for the VAS and higher for the JDCS. Mean VAS scores indicated significant differences between low and high demand, control, and social support, with cut-off values of 58, 71.5 and 63.5 respectively. For external validity, we mainly found high agreement between VAS and JDCS.
conclusionsVAS are valid, quick, easy to use, and reliable tools for the assessment of job demand, job control and social support in daily clinical practice for primary prevention and diagnosis. Based on our findings, easier-to-remember cut-offs could be proposed at 60, 70, and 60 for VAS job demand, VAS job control, and VAS social support, respectively. However, when results are over the determined cut-off, we encourage the use of JDCS questionnaire.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05871411.
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.